No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Agenda Packet CITY OF RENTON AGENDA - City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, July 19, 2021 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Councilmembers are attending this meeting remotely through Zoom. Audience comments will be accommodated through Zoom, but the public is requested to sign up for such testimony by calling 425-430-6501 or emailing cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or jsubia@rentonwa.gov by 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting. The public may also submit comments in writing to cityclerk@rentonwa.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. For those wishing to attend by Zoom, please (1) click this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84938072917?pwd=TUNCcnppbjNjbjNRMWpZaXk2bjJnZz09 (or copy the URL and paste into a web browser) or (2) call-in to the Zoom meeting by dialing 253- 215-8782 and entering 849 3807 2917 Passcode 156708, or (3) call 425-430-6501 by 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting to request an invite with a link to the meeting. Those providing audience comments will be limited to 5 minutes each speaker unless an exception is granted by the Council. Attendees will be muted and not audible to the Council except during times they are designated to speak. Advance instructions for how to address the Council will be provided to those who sign up in advance to speak and again during the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARING a) Extend Interim Zoning Controls in the Urban Center (UC) Zone 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT a) Administrative Report 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS NOTICE to all participants: Pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and r eview, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of July 12, 2021. Council Concur b) AB - 2906 City Clerk reports bid opening on May 27, 2021 for CAG -21-033, Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements project, and submits the staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Westwater Construction Company, in the amount of $1,169,867.05. This project will make improvements at the intersections of Houser Way S with Wells Ave S and Williams Ave S, including raised asphalt intersections, new curb/gutter/sidewalk, illumination, streetscape landscaping, channelization/signing, storm drainage, and a new 12" water main installed in an existing casing under the BNSF railroad tracks. Council Concur c) AB - 2907 City Clerk reports bid opening on June 24, 2021 for the Duvall Ave NE - NE 9th St to Sunset Blvd (SR-900) project, CAG -20-065, and submits the staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Reed Trucking & Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $5,218,171.95. Th is project will reconstruct Duvall Ave NE between NE Sunset Blvd and NE 10th St with four travel lanes, left turn pockets, bike lanes, curb/gutter/landscaped medians, a sidewalk along the west side, and new illumination and an enhanced storm drainage syste m. Council Concur d) AB - 2905 Police Department recommends approval of a cost reimbursement agreement with the King County Sheriff's Office, in order to receive up to $16,246.55 for reimbursement of overtime costs for verifying the addresses and re sidencies of registered sex and kidnapping offenders in Renton. Council Concur e) AB - 2892 Public Works Utility Systems Division recommends adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2021 WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed) Salmon Habitat Plan Update. Refer to Utilities Committee f) AB - 2899 Public Works Utility Systems Division recommends approval to execute an agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $216,343, for design and services during bidding of the West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements project. Refer to Utilities Committee 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a) Finance Committee: Vouchers, Local Agency Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration Under the Airport Improvement Grant Program for an Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Update, Utility Billing Leak Adjustment for Valley Medical Center, City Policy 800-12, City-Wide Department Reorganization* 8. LEGISLATION Resolutions: a) Resolution No. 4441: 2021/2022 2nd Quarter Fee Schedule Update (Approved via 7/12/2021 Finance Committee) b) Resolution No. 4442: Amending Council Policy 800-12 (See Item 7.a) Ordinances for first reading and advancement to second and final reading: c) Ordinance No. 6022: Extension of IZC in UC Zone (See Item 3.a) d) Ordinance No. 6023: Title III - City-wide Reorganization (See Item 7.a) Ordinance for second and final reading: e) Ordinance No. 6021: 2021 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment (First Reading 7/12/2021) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more information.) 10. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) 6:00 p.m. - MEETING REMOTELY Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 To view Council Meetings online, please visit rentonwa.gov/councilmeetings PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN CENTER (UC) ZONE –INTERIM ZONING CONTROLS Renton City Council July 19, 2021 Presented by: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner 425-430-7436 phintz@rentonwa.gov AGENDA ITEM #3. a) BACKGROUND Emergency Ordinance 6012 was adopted on January 25, 2021. Established interim zoning controls for the UC zone: 1.Development of multifamily requires commercial space integrated into the ground floor equivalent to 33% of the site’s land area; 2.Subject to Residential Mixed-Use Standards of RMC 4-4-150; and 3.Building setbacks of the Commercial Arterial zone. State law allows interim controls to be extended after a public hearing if a work program is developed. Staff have initiated a work program and are requesting interim zoning controls to be extended until October 31, 2021. AGENDA ITEM #3. a) FINDINGS The Urban Center (UC) zone is intended for the creation of dense employment, destination retail, recreation, and public gathering spaces, with the potential for large scale redevelopment opportunities that will create a mixed-use retail, employment and residential center; The purpose of the UC zone is to provide an area for pedestrian-scale urban mixed-use development that supports the residential and employment goals of Renton’s Regional Growth Center; A development agreement between the City of Renton and The Boeing Company governing many of the use and development standards in the UC zone sunset on December 31, 2020; Without that development agreement there are insufficient zoning controls for new development in the UC zone, as compared to the zoning controls of other commercial zones in the City, thereby limiting the City’s ability to further the policy and purpose of the zone. AGENDA ITEM #3. a) Staff Contact: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner 425-430-7436 phintz@rentonwa.gov Tonight:Accept public testimony and vote on interim zoning controls Date TBD: Planning Commission briefing NEXT STEPS AGENDA ITEM #3. a) EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 19, 2021 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of Renton City Council FROM: Armondo Pavone, Mayor Ed VanValey, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report • Update from the Parks and Trails Division: o Construction begins in August to retrofit the May Creek Trestle to provide a 12-foot-wide paved trail bridge for the Eastrail. Detour around the site is out to Lake Washington Boulevard North and back onto the trail. For your safety, please follow directions on all posted signage. Email Eastrail@kingcounty.gov with any questions. o Renton Farmers Market continues at Gateway Park each Tuesday from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. Purchase fresh produce, prepared foods, flowers, and more; enjoy crafting in the children’s area and live music provided by Renton’s Municipal Arts Commission. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and matching dollars are also available. See the Renton Farmers Market webpage for more information. • Update from the Parks Planning and Natural Resources Division: o The basketball court at Thomas Teasdale Park is reopened after being demolished and replaced, and with a new mow curb. The new court complements the colors of the adjacent playground that was renovated in 2019. For updated parks and trails information, visit rentonwa.gov/parks or contact Community Services at 425-430-6600. • Are you looking for a fun and educational activity for your five to 12-year-olds this summer? Renton Police Department has partnered with Renton Regional Fire Authority to present a five-week Virtual Youth Public Safety Academy. Weekly from Wednesday, July 21 to August 11, the departments will post a video with a link to an activity that your child can complete at their own pace. You can participate in all activities or just the ones that are of interest. On Wednesday, August 18, the last activity will be a virtual Q&A with a police officer and firefighter. It's an excellent opportunity to ask questions and learn about police and fire careers. Please go to the Renton Police Department Facebook page for more information. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) Randy Corman, Council President Members of Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 July 19, 2021 • Information about preventative street maintenance, traffic impact projects, and road closures happening this week can be found at http://rentonwa.gov/traffic. All projects are weather permitting and unless otherwise noted, streets will always remain open. Preventative street maintenance, traffic impact projects, and road closures will be at the following locations:  Monday, July 19 through Friday, July 23, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard Southeast and Southeast 76th Street will be controlled by flaggers in support the WSDOT I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project. Questions may be directed to Justin Johnson at 425-902-7172.  Monday, July 19 through Friday, July 23, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Possible trucks entering and exiting onto Maple Valley Highway east of 140th Way SE. Questions may be directed to Tom Main at 206-999-1833.  Monday, July 19 through Friday, July 23, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Street maintenance crews will conduct asphalt repairs along SE 182nd Street between 112th Avenue SE and 114th Avenue SE. During this time, only local traffic and emergency vehicles will have access to the project area.  Ongoing Trail Closure through Summer 2021. Ripley Lane North Trail closure just north of the VMAC and the trailhead going north in support the WSDOT I- 405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project. Questions may be directed to Justin Johnson at 425-902-7172.  Lake Washington Loop Trail Project, Logan Avenue South and Airport Way. Lane closures continue between now and project completion in late summer/early fall. For more information and project updates, please visit the project webpage at https://rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9346818.  Williams Avenue South and Wells Avenue South Conversion Project. Impacts to traffic will continue throughout this area between South 2nd Street and South 3rd Street. Please visit the project webpage at https://rentonwa.gov/ww for more information.  Downtown Utility Improvement Project. The Downtown Utility Improvement Project requires several roadway closures and detours between now and project completion in 2022. For more information on current upcoming road closures and traffic impacts or to sign up for email or text alerts, visit the project website at https://rentonwa.gov/duip. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) July 12, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF RENTON MINUTES - City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, July 12, 2021 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pavone called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Randy Corman, Council President Angelina Benedetti, Council Position No. 2 Valerie O'Halloran, Council Position No. 3 Ryan McIrvin, Council Position No. 4 Ed Prince, Council Position No. 5 Ruth Pérez, Council Position No. 6 Kim-Khánh Vǎn, Council Position No. 7 (All councilmembers attended remotely) Councilmembers Absent: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF PRESENT Armondo Pavone, Mayor Ed VanValey, Chief Administrative Officer Cheryl Beyer, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jason Seth, City Clerk Judith Subia, Council Liaison Preeti Shridhar, Deputy Public Affairs Administrator Chip Vincent, Community & Economic Development Administrator Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator Kari Roller, Administrative Services Administrator Ellen Bradley-Mak, Human Resources and Risk Management Administrator Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator Ron Straka, Public Works Utility Systems Director Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Kristi Rowland, Organizational Development Manager Kim Gilman, HR Labor Manager AGENDA ITEM #6. a) July 12, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Amanda Askren, Property & Technical Services Manager Interim Chief Jon Schuldt, Police Department Administrator Commander Chad Karlewicz, Police Department (All City staff attended remotely except City Clerk Seth) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CAO Ed VanValey reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City’s recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2021 and beyond. Items noted were: • The Washington State Department of Ecology has awarded the Surface Water Utility a total of $5 million in Stormwater Financial Assistance Program grant funding for the following projects: o Stormwater Management Action Planning Study - $202,125. This study will assess water quality in city subbasins and is a regulatory requirement of the city’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. o Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvements - $4,797,875. This project is a combined flood reduction and water quality retrofit project and will design and construct a permanent drainage and water quality treatment solution to replace an expiring temporary stormwater overflow for a 245-acre basin draining into Monroe Avenue NE and South 2nd Street. • Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in occasional street closures. AUDIENCE COMMENTS • Lanissa Youngquist, Renton, stated that she is a member of the Black Lives Matter mural team, provided an update on the progress of the mural, and urged the City to help the team get this important piece of artwork installed before the end of painting season. • Tree Williams, Renton, stated that he is also a member of the Black Lives Matter mural team and echoed Ms. Youngquist's request to help the team complete the project as soon as possible. Mayor Pavone noted that a location had been selected for the mural, but some residents had objected to that location. He also noted that a new location in a City parking lot had been designated but would follow-up with the mural team on the project's progress. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the Consent Agenda were adopted with one motion, following the listing. a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of June 28, 2021. Council Concur. b) AB - 2901 City Clerk submitted the quarterly list of fully executed contracts between 4/1/2021 - 6/30/2021, and a report of agreements expiring between 7/1/2021 – 12/31/2021. Council Concur. AGENDA ITEM #6. a) July 12, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES c) AB - 2897 Administrative Services Department submitted a utility bill leak adjustment request from Valley Medical Center, a commercial property located at 400 S 43rd St, and recommended an adjustment in the amount of $4,679.28 for applicable Renton water and sewer and King County Sewer portions of the utility bill in accordance with Renton Municipal Code 8-4-46 and 8-5-23. Refer to Finance Committee. d) AB - 2904 Administration recommended approval of a city-wide reorganization to establish a new Department of Equity, Housing, and Human Services (EHHS), which includes the creation of an EHHS Administrator, Administrative Assistant for EHHS, Community Outreach and Events Coordinator, and moves the Housing Program from the Department of Community and Economic Development and the Human Services Division from the Community Services Department to EHHS; establishes an Executive Services Department (ESD), including the creation of a Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, regrades an Administrative Secretary to Administrative Assistant for ESD, regrades the Deputy Administrator of Public Affairs to Director of Communications & Engagement, moves the Information Technology Division from the Administrative Services Department and the Divisions of the City Clerk, Emergency Management, Organizational Development, and Communications to ESD; renames the Administrative Services Department to the Finance Department; renames the Community Services Department to the Parks and Recreation Department; and moves the Facilities Division from the Community Services Department to the Public Works Department, effective August 1, 2021. Refer to Finance Committee. e) AB - 2902 Administrative Services Department recommends adoption of resolution to update Policy and Procedure 800-12 in order to align it with City practices and to update state contracting bid thresholds. Refer to Finance Committee. f) AB - 2894 Community & Economic Development Department recommended approval of the following reappointments to the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: Cathy Martinez, Director of Design & Owners' Representative, Legacy Development and Management; Pina Purpero, General Manager of Hyatt Regency Lake Washington; Preeti Shridhar, City of Renton Deputy Public Affairs Administrator; and Menka Soni, Founder and President of the non-profit agency AmPowering (formerly Ravishing Women). Council Concur. g) AB - 2895 Community & Economic Development Department submitted a Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption application from Sunset Terrace, a 108-unit multi-family project currently under construction in the Sunset designated residential target area; and requested the following, 1) waive the application deadline to allow the application to be submitted after receiving a building permit, 2) approve the Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Agreement, and 3) authorize execution of said agreement in substantially the same form. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. h) AB - 2896 Public Works Airport recommended approval of a Local Agency Agreement, with the Federal Aviation Administration, to receive $172,078 in non-matching grant funds for the purpose of updating the Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Update. Refer to Finance Committee. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY MCIRVIN, COUNCIL CONCUR TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. AGENDA ITEM #6. a) July 12, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Finance Committee Chair O'Halloran presented a report concurring in the staff recommendation to approve the following payments: 1. Accounts Payable – total payment of $6,696,276.23 for vouchers, 10298, 10318- 10324, 392899-392902, 392912-393108; payroll benefit withholding vouchers 6601- 6611, 392903-392911 and one wire transfer. 2. Payroll – total payment of $1,475,631.09 for payroll vouchers that include 599 direct deposits and 20 checks. (06/01/21-06/15/21 pay period). MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. b) Finance Committee Chair O'Halloran presented a report concurring in the staff recommendation to approve the request to compensate M. Patrice Kent (for Senior Assistant City Attorney) at Step D Grade m42. MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. c) Finance Committee Chair O'Halloran presented a report concurring in the staff recommendation to approve a three-year agreement with Origami, in the total amount of $148,140, for comprehensive risk management tracking and incident management services. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute the implementing documents when ready. MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. d) Finance Committee Chair O'Halloran presented a report concurring in the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the amendment and adopt the ordinance amending the 2021/2022 Budget appropriations in the amount of $(27,164,592) for an amended total budget of $674,490,315 for the biennium; and 2. Approve resolution amending the 2021/2022 Fee Schedule. MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. LEGISLATION Ordinance for first reading: a) Ordinance No. 6021: an ordinance was read amending the City of Renton Fiscal Years 2021/2022 Biennial Budget, as adopted by Ordinance No. 5991 and amended by Ordinance No. 6017, in the amount of $(27,164,592) and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY O'HALLORAN, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. AGENDA ITEM #6. a) July 12, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NEW BUSINESS Please see the attached Council Committee Meeting Calendar. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIME: 7:18 P.M. Jason A. Seth, MMC, City Clerk Jason Seth, Recorder 12 Jul 2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. a) Council Committee Meeting Calendar July 12, 2021 July 19, 2021 Monday 3:00 PM Finance Committee, Chair O’Halloran – VIDEOCONFERENCE 1. Local Agency Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration Under the Airport Improvement Grant Program for an Airport Layout Plan Update 2. Utility Billing Leak Adjustment for Valley Medical Center 3. Update to City Policy 800-12 4. City-wide Department Reorganization 5. Vouchers 6. Emerging Issues in Finance 4:00 PM Utilities Committee, Chair Benedetti - VIDEOCONFERENCE 1. Emerging Issues in Utilities 4:45 PM Public Safety Committee, Chair Pérez - VIDEOCONFERENCE 1. Recent Narcotics Cases Briefing 2. RFA Briefing 3. Emerging Issues in Public Safety CANCELED Transportation Committee, Chair McIrvin 6:00 PM Committee of the Whole, Chair Corman – VIDEOCONFERENCE 1. Proposed Police Body Worn Camera Program Overview 7:00 PM Council Meeting - VIDEOCONFERENCE AGENDA ITEM #6. a) AB - 2906 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jul 2021 SUBJECT/TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD: Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements Project; CAG-21-003 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur DEPARTMENT: City Clerk STAFF CONTACT: Jason Seth, City Clerk EXT.: 6502 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Bid Award: $1,169,867.05 Total Budget: $1,479,867 ($123,367 from Water Utility; $789,625 (including a $400,000 Complete Streets Award from the WA State Transportation Improvement Board) from Transporta tion; and the balance of $566,875 which will be funded in the next Budget Adjustment). Engineer's Estimate: $1,092,615.76 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City Clerk opened sealed bids for the Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements project, CAG-21-003, on May 21, 2021. The bid opening met the following Council criteria: 1) More than one bid was submitted; 2) The lowest responsive and responsible bid was within the project budget; and 3) There were no irregularities with the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements project, CAG-21-003, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Westwater Construction Company, in the amount of $1,169,867.05. EXHIBITS: A. Staff Recommendation Memo B. Bid Tab STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award the Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements project, CAG-21-003, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Westwater Construction Company, in the amount of $1,169,867.05. AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) Jason Seth Page 2 of 2 June 29, 2021 h:\division.s\transpor.tat\design.eng\keith\houser complete streets\600 pre-construction\620 advertising and award\620.5 bid review & analysis\memo to city clerk award cag-21-003.docx This construction contract will make improvements at the intersections of Houser Way South with Wells Avenues South and Williams Avenue South. The improvements will be raised asphalt intersections, new curb/gutter/sidewalk, illumination, streetscape, landscaping, channelization/signing, storm drainage, and a new 12” water main installed in an existing casing under the BNSF railroad tracks. Attachments: TIP #20-16 Bid Tabulations Bid Evaluation cc: Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director Ron Straka, Utilities Systems Director Vangie Garcia, Transportation Planning Manager Heather Gregersen, Program Development Coordinator II Josef Harnden, Transportation Administrative Secretary I File AGENDA ITEM #6. b) City of Renton | 2021-2026 Transportation Improvement Program TIP #:20-16 Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements Project City Account #:123007 Planning Area:City Center Street Classification:Minor Arterial Project Length:N/A Description:This project will fund construction of new curb, gutter and sidewalk (including curb extensions), driveway and ADA improvements along Houser Way between Williams Ave S and Wells Ave S. Purpose:To enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at this intersection. Project Aspects: Operations and Safety, Active Transportation Status/ Changes: The city was awarded a TIB Complete Streets grant in the amount of $500,000 in 2019. The project is being constructed in coordination with Williams and Wells Ave S Conversion Project (TIP#20-28). Funding Status: Fully Funded - CN Planning: Preliminary Engineering $200,000 ROW:$100,000 Construction:$700,000 Expenditures: Priority Rank 10 For Projects, these expenditures are for the life of the project. For Programs, they are the total expenditures programmed for the 6 years in the TIP, 2021-2026 - 44 - RESOLUTION NO. 4418 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) Construction Cost EstimateBid TabABB ‐ AJune 29, 2021ENGINEER'S ESTIMATENo. Spec No. Description Quantity Unit  Unit Cost   TOTAL COST   UNIT COST   TOTAL COST   UNIT COST   TOTAL COST   UNIT COST   TOTAL COST  UNIT COST   TOTAL COST   UNIT COST   TOTAL COST SCHEDULE A ‐ ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS1 1‐04Minor Change1EST25,000.00$         25,000.00$                                               25,000.00$                 25,000.00$                             ‐$                                         25,000.00$                  25,000.00$                          25,000.00$                   25,000.00$                     25,000.00$                   25,000.00$                         25,000.00$             25,000.00$                            2 1‐05Roadway Surveying1 LS 13,600.00$         13,600.00$                                               12,500.00$                 12,500.00$                             (1,100.00)$                              11,000.00$                  11,000.00$                          18,750.00$                   18,750.00$                     11,500.00$                   11,500.00$                         15,000.00$             15,000.00$                            3 1‐05Record Drawings (Minimum Bid $1,000)1 LS 1,000.00$            1,000.00$                                                 1,000.00$                   1,000.00$                               ‐$                                         1,000.00$                     1,000.00$                           1,500.00$                      1,500.00$                       1,000.00$                      1,000.00$                           1,000.00$                1,000.00$                               4 1‐07SPCC Plan1 LS 800.00$               800.00$                                                    500.00$                       500.00$                                   (300.00)$                                 150.00$                        150.00$                               1,000.00$                      1,000.00$                       500.00$                         500.00$                              500.00$                   500.00$                                  5 1‐09Mobilization1 LS 73,000.00$         73,000.00$                                               110,000.00$               110,000.00$                           37,000.00$                             130,793.00$                130,793.00$                        125,000.00$                 125,000.00$                  125,000.00$                 125,000.00$                       121,500.00$           121,500.00$                          6 1‐10Project Temporary Traffic Control1 LS 91,000.00$         91,000.00$                                               90,000.00$                 90,000.00$                             (1,000.00)$                              200,000.00$                200,000.00$                        224,000.00$                 224,000.00$                  103,500.00$                 103,500.00$                       109,000.00$           109,000.00$                          7 1‐10Traffic Control Supervisor1 LS 6,000.00$            6,000.00$                                                 15,000.00$                 15,000.00$                             9,000.00$                               80,000.00$                  80,000.00$                          37,600.00$                   37,600.00$                     61,000.00$                   61,000.00$                         25,000.00$             25,000.00$                            8 2‐02Removal of Structure and Obstruction1 LS 21,000.00$         21,000.00$                                               25,000.00$                 25,000.00$                             4,000.00$                               25,000.00$                  25,000.00$                          59,000.00$                   59,000.00$                     45,000.00$                   45,000.00$                         25,000.00$             25,000.00$                            9 2‐03Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul740 CY 75.00$                 55,500.00$                                               90.00$                         66,600.00$                             11,100.00$                             100.00$                        74,000.00$                          75.00$                          55,500.00$                     48.50$                           35,890.00$                         160.00$                   118,400.00$                          10 4‐04Crushed Surfacing Base Course610 TON 55.00$                 33,550.00$                                               80.00$                         48,800.00$                             15,250.00$                             65.00$                          39,650.00$                          75.00$                          45,750.00$                     45.00$                           27,450.00$                         55.00$                     33,550.00$                            11 5‐04HMA Cl. 1/2" PG 64‐22520 TON 160.00$               83,200.00$                                               145.00$                       75,400.00$                             (7,800.00)$                              150.00$                        78,000.00$                          154.38$                         80,277.60$                     165.00$                         85,800.00$                         135.00$                   70,200.00$                            12 5‐04Temporary Pavement70 TON 260.00$               18,200.00$                                               150.00$                       10,500.00$                             (7,700.00)$                              350.00$                        24,500.00$                          250.00$                         17,500.00$                     244.00$                         17,080.00$                         350.00$                   24,500.00$                            13 7‐05Adjust Cleanout to Grade 1 EA 400.00$               400.00$                                                    250.00$                       250.00$                                   (150.00)$                                 625.00$                        625.00$                               100.00$                         100.00$                           575.00$                         575.00$                              800.00$                   800.00$                                  14 7‐05Adjust Sewer Manhole 1 EA 800.00$               800.00$                                                    1,000.00$                   1,000.00$                               200.00$                                   625.00$                        625.00$                               2,500.00$                      2,500.00$                       575.00$                         575.00$                              1,000.00$                1,000.00$                               15 8‐01Erosion Control and Water Pollution Prevention1 LS 15,300.00$         15,300.00$                                               2,500.00$                   2,500.00$                               (12,800.00)$                            25,000.00$                  25,000.00$                          16,000.00$                   16,000.00$                     23,000.00$                   23,000.00$                         4,000.00$                4,000.00$                               16 8‐02Protection of Private Property and Tree Protection1 LS 2,000.00$            2,000.00$                                                 1,000.00$                   1,000.00$                               (1,000.00)$                              1,000.00$                     1,000.00$                           2,000.00$                      2,000.00$                       3,900.00$                      3,900.00$                           2,500.00$                2,500.00$                               17 8‐02Property Restoration1EST2,000.00$            2,000.00$                                                 2,000.00$                   2,000.00$                               ‐$                                         2,000.00$                     2,000.00$                           2,000.00$                      2,000.00$                       2,000.00$                      2,000.00$                           2,000.00$                2,000.00$                               18 8‐02Topsoil Type A16 CY 75.00$                 1,200.00$                                                 100.00$                       1,600.00$                               400.00$                                   69.00$                          1,104.00$                           65.00$                          1,040.00$                       72.00$                           1,152.00$                           95.00$                     1,520.00$                               19 8‐02Bark or Wood Chip Mulch2 CY 100.00$               200.00$                                                    150.00$                       300.00$                                   100.00$                                   67.00$                          134.00$                               65.00$                          130.00$                           70.00$                           140.00$                              70.00$                     140.00$                                  20 8‐02PS Amelanchier laevis 'JFS‐ARB'/ Spring Flurry Serviceberry; 1 1/4" cal., 10'‐12' ht.2 EA 600.00$               1,200.00$                                                  1,400.00$                    2,800.00$                                 1,600.00$                                 460.00$                         920.00$                                 100.00$                          200.00$                           481.00$                         962.00$                               440.00$                    880.00$                                    21 8‐02PS Fothergilla gardenii 'Blue Mist'/ Blue Mist Dwarf Fothergilla; 2 Gal. Cont.2 EA 35.00$                 70.00$                                                        20.00$                          40.00$                                       (30.00)$                                      46.00$                           92.00$                                   100.00$                          200.00$                           48.00$                           96.00$                                 44.00$                      88.00$                                      22 8‐02PS Hebe anomala 'Purpurea Nana'/ Dwarf Hebe18 EA 35.00$                 630.00$                                                    20.00$                         360.00$                                   (270.00)$                                 46.00$                          828.00$                               100.00$                         1,800.00$                       48.00$                           864.00$                              44.00$                     792.00$                                  23 8‐02PS Berberis thunbergii 'Admiration'/Admiration Barberry; 2 Gal .Cont4 EA 35.00$                 140.00$                                                     20.00$                          80.00$                                       (60.00)$                                      46.00$                           184.00$                                 100.00$                          400.00$                           48.00$                           192.00$                               44.00$                      176.00$                                    24 8‐02PS Weigela florida 'Elvira'/ Midnight Wine Weigela; 2 Gal. Cont.18 EA 35.00$                 630.00$                                                    20.00$                         360.00$                                   (270.00)$                                 46.00$                          828.00$                               100.00$                         1,800.00$                       48.00$                           864.00$                              44.00$                     792.00$                                  25 8‐02PS Sesleria Autumnalis/ Autumn Moor Grass; 1 Gal. Cont.54 EA 35.00$                 1,890.00$                                                 15.00$                         810.00$                                   (1,080.00)$                              35.00$                          1,890.00$                           100.00$                         5,400.00$                       36.00$                           1,944.00$                           33.00$                     1,782.00$                               26 8‐02PS Erica carnea 'Myretoun Ruby'/ Myretoun Ruby Winter Heath; 1 Gal. Cont.30 EA 15.00$                 450.00$                                                     15.00$                          450.00$                                    ‐$                                           35.00$                           1,050.00$                             100.00$                          3,000.00$                        36.00$                           1,080.00$                           33.00$                      990.00$                                    27 8‐02Plant Establishment ‐ 1 Year 1 LS 5,000.00$            5,000.00$                                                 1,700.00$                   1,700.00$                               (3,300.00)$                              4,500.00$                     4,500.00$                           2,500.00$                      2,500.00$                       4,600.00$                      4,600.00$                           4,000.00$                4,000.00$                               28 8‐04Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter230 LF 40.00$                 9,200.00$                                                 70.00$                         16,100.00$                             6,900.00$                               73.00$                          16,790.00$                          62.50$                          14,375.00$                     70.00$                           16,100.00$                         38.00$                     8,740.00$                               29 8‐04Cement Conc. Valley Curb480 LF 42.00$                 20,160.00$                                               70.00$                         33,600.00$                             13,440.00$                             65.00$                          31,200.00$                          62.50$                          30,000.00$                     70.00$                           33,600.00$                         37.00$                     17,760.00$                            30 8‐04Extruded Curb100 LF 30.00$                 3,000.00$                                                 35.00$                         3,500.00$                               500.00$                                   38.00$                          3,800.00$                           10.00$                          1,000.00$                       10.00$                           1,000.00$                           9.00$                        900.00$                                  31 8‐14Thickened Edge Sidewalk480 LF 35.00$                 16,800.00$                                               65.00$                         31,200.00$                             14,400.00$                             23.00$                          11,040.00$                          25.00$                          12,000.00$                     28.00$                           13,440.00$                         25.00$                     12,000.00$                            32 8‐14Cement Conc. Sidewalk 710 SY 75.00$                 53,250.00$                                               90.00$                         63,900.00$                             10,650.00$                             65.00$                          46,150.00$                          50.00$                          35,500.00$                     56.00$                           39,760.00$                         84.00$                     59,640.00$                            33 8‐14Detectable Warning Surface210 SF 60.00$                 12,600.00$                                               30.00$                         6,300.00$                               (6,300.00)$                              23.00$                          4,830.00$                           25.00$                          5,250.00$                       48.00$                           10,080.00$                         55.00$                     11,550.00$                            34 8‐19Adjust Utility Vault to Grade 3 EA 950.00$               2,850.00$                                                 1,500.00$                   4,500.00$                               1,650.00$                               600.00$                        1,800.00$                           1,500.00$                      4,500.00$                       575.00$                         1,725.00$                           1,200.00$                3,600.00$                               35 8‐20Illumination System, Complete1 LS 102,000.00$      102,000.00$                                            150,000.00$               150,000.00$                           48,000.00$                             140,000.00$                140,000.00$                        187,487.50$                 187,487.50$                  141,000.00$                 141,000.00$                       127,600.00$           127,600.00$                          36 8‐21'Permanent Signing 1 LS 17,000.00$         17,000.00$                                               10,000.00$                 10,000.00$                             (7,000.00)$                              6,000.00$                     6,000.00$                           16,933.75$                   16,933.75$                     12,000.00$                   12,000.00$                         9,600.00$                9,600.00$                               37 8‐22Removing Existing Pavement Markings1 LS 5,000.00$            5,000.00$                                                 100.00$                       100.00$                                   (4,900.00)$                              4,000.00$                     4,000.00$                           4,721.25$                      4,721.25$                       4,600.00$                      4,600.00$                           4,000.00$                4,000.00$                               38 8‐22Plastic Stop Line 70 LF 15.00$                 1,050.00$                                                 10.00$                         700.00$                                   (350.00)$                                 15.00$                          1,050.00$                           8.13$                             569.10$                           8.00$                             560.00$                              7.00$                        490.00$                                  39 8‐22Plastic Crosswalk Line 490 SF 12.00$                 5,880.00$                                                 10.00$                         4,900.00$                               (980.00)$                                 12.00$                          5,880.00$                           6.25$                             3,062.50$                       6.00$                             2,940.00$                           5.50$                        2,695.00$                               40 8‐22Plastic Line 390 LF 5.00$                    1,950.00$                                                 10.00$                         3,900.00$                               1,950.00$                               8.00$                            3,120.00$                           2.44$                             951.60$                           2.50$                             975.00$                              2.20$                        858.00$                                  41 8‐23Temporary Pavement Marking550 LF 1.00$                    550.00$                                                    3.00$                          1,650.00$                               1,100.00$                               1.00$                            550.00$                               0.38$                             209.00$                           2.00$                             1,100.00$                           2.00$                        1,100.00$                               42 8‐27Waste Receptacle4 EA 2,000.00$            8,000.00$                                                 2,500.00$                   10,000.00$                             2,000.00$                               2,800.00$                     11,200.00$                          1,000.00$                      4,000.00$                       2,650.00$                      10,600.00$                         2,700.00$                10,800.00$                            43 8‐28Landscape Strip Fencing160 LF 250.00$               40,000.00$                                               150.00$                       24,000.00$                             (16,000.00)$                            250.00$                        40,000.00$                          10.00$                          1,600.00$                       395.00$                         63,200.00$                         560.00$                   89,600.00$                            44 8‐30Bench4 EA 2,300.00$            9,200.00$                                                 2,500.00$                   10,000.00$                             800.00$                                   2,600.00$                     10,400.00$                          2,500.00$                      10,000.00$                     2,650.00$                      10,600.00$                         2,200.00$                8,800.00$                               45 8‐31'Bike Rack4 EA 1,200.00$            4,800.00$                                                 1,000.00$                   4,000.00$                               (800.00)$                                 1,000.00$                     4,000.00$                           2,500.00$                      10,000.00$                     825.00$                         3,300.00$                           3,500.00$                14,000.00$                            46 8‐32'Vehicular Bollard 24 EA 3,500.00$            84,000.00$                                               3,000.00$                   72,000.00$                             (12,000.00)$                            1,800.00$                     43,200.00$                          500.00$                         12,000.00$                     5,250.00$                      126,000.00$                       4,800.00$                115,200.00$                          47 8‐35Resolution of Utility Conflicts1EST20,000.00$         20,000.00$                                               20,000.00$                 20,000.00$                             ‐$                                         20,000.00$                  20,000.00$                          20,000.00$                   20,000.00$                     20,000.00$                   20,000.00$                         20,000.00$             20,000.00$                            48 8‐35Utility Potholing20 EA 700.00$               14,000.00$                                               650.00$                       13,000.00$                             (1,000.00)$                              350.00$                        7,000.00$                           500.00$                         10,000.00$                     525.00$                         10,500.00$                         800.00$                   16,000.00$                            885,050.00$                                           978,900.00$                          93,850.00$                            1,141,883.00$                    1,114,107.30$               1,103,744.00$                   1,125,043.00$                        1,131,507.20$              SCHEDULE B‐ WATER IMPROVEMENTS1 7‐08Shoring or Extra Excavation Trench1 LS 10,000.00$         10,000.00$                                                1,500.00$                    1,500.00$                                 (8,500.00)$                                2,000.00$                      2,000.00$                             15,000.00$                    15,000.00$                      1,250.00$                      1,250.00$                           5,000.00$                 5,000.00$                                 2 7‐09Remove or Abandon Existing Water System1 LS 5,000.00$            5,000.00$                                                 1,500.00$                   1,500.00$                               (3,500.00)$                              2,500.00$                     2,500.00$                           69,000.00$                   69,000.00$                     1,900.00$                      1,900.00$                           5,000.00$                5,000.00$                               3 7‐09Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material50 CY 100.00$               5,000.00$                                                 100.00$                       5,000.00$                               ‐$                                         150.00$                        7,500.00$                           100.00$                         5,000.00$                       127.00$                         6,350.00$                           50.00$                     2,500.00$                               4 7‐09Furnish and Install 12 In. Diam. Ductile Iron Pipe for Water Main & Fittings190 LF 250.00$               47,500.00$                                                300.00$                        57,000.00$                               9,500.00$                                 270.00$                         51,300.00$                           150.00$                          28,500.00$                      224.00$                         42,560.00$                         319.00$                    60,610.00$                              5 7‐09Bank Run Gravel for Trench Backfill190 TON 34.00$                 6,460.00$                                                 50.00$                         9,500.00$                               3,040.00$                               55.00$                          10,450.00$                          100.00$                         19,000.00$                     46.00$                           8,740.00$                           40.00$                     7,600.00$                               6 7‐09Connection to Existing Water Main2 EA 10,000.00$         20,000.00$                                               5,000.00$                   10,000.00$                             (10,000.00)$                            9,500.00$                     19,000.00$                          2,500.00$                      5,000.00$                       8,500.00$                      17,000.00$                         8,500.00$                17,000.00$                            7 7‐09Concrete Thrust Blocking and Dead‐Man Anchor Blocks5 CY 500.00$               2,500.00$                                                 200.00$                       1,000.00$                               (1,500.00)$                              650.00$                        3,250.00$                           200.00$                         1,000.00$                       640.00$                         3,200.00$                           3,000.00$                15,000.00$                            8Furnish and Install 6 In. Gate Valve Assembly1 EA 2,900.00$            2,900.00$                                                 2,000.00$                   2,000.00$                               (900.00)$                                 2,250.00$                     2,250.00$                           7,500.00$                      7,500.00$                       1,800.00$                      1,800.00$                           1,800.00$                1,800.00$                               9 7‐12Furnish and Install 12 In. Gate Valve Assembly1 EA 3,200.00$            3,200.00$                                                 3,000.00$                   3,000.00$                               (200.00)$                                 4,500.00$                     4,500.00$                           10,000.00$                   10,000.00$                     3,650.00$                      3,650.00$                           2,700.00$                2,700.00$                               10 7‐12Adjust Existing Water Valve Box to Grade (RC)5 EA 500.00$               2,500.00$                                                 250.00$                       1,250.00$                               (1,250.00)$                              450.00$                        2,250.00$                           1,000.00$                      5,000.00$                       480.00$                         2,400.00$                           700.00$                   3,500.00$                               11 7‐14Furnish and Install Hydrant Assembly1 EA 7,500.00$            7,500.00$                                                 8,500.00$                   8,500.00$                               1,000.00$                               11,000.00$                  11,000.00$                          10,000.00$                   10,000.00$                     6,850.00$                      6,850.00$                           8,000.00$                8,000.00$                               12 7‐14Furnish and Install 1.5 In. Water Service Connection2 EA 5,800.00$            11,600.00$                                               5,000.00$                   10,000.00$                             (1,600.00)$                              6,000.00$                     12,000.00$                          1,000.00$                      2,000.00$                       4,800.00$                      9,600.00$                           4,500.00$                9,000.00$                               13 7‐15Adjust Existing Water Meter Box to Grade 1 EA 600.00$               600.00$                                                    300.00$                       300.00$                                   (300.00)$                                 450.00$                        450.00$                               1,000.00$                      1,000.00$                       425.00$                         425.00$                              750.00$                   750.00$                                  14 7‐15Temporary Water Bypass System, Complete 1 EA 5,000.00$            5,000.00$                                                 1,500.00$                   1,500.00$                               (3,500.00)$                              5,000.00$                     5,000.00$                           25,000.00$                   25,000.00$                     3,000.00$                      3,000.00$                           15,000.00$             15,000.00$                            129,760.00$                                            112,050.00$                           (17,710.00)$                           .133,450.00$                        203,000.00$                  108,725.00$                      153,460.00$                           $                                              13,105.7611,317.05$                             (1,788.71)$                              13,478.45$                          20,503.00$                    10,981.23$                         15,499.46$                             $                                            142,865.76123,367.05$                           (19,498.71)$                            146,928.45$                        223,503.00$                  119,706.23$                      168,959.46$                          SCHEDULE C ‐ STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS1 7‐01'Drain Pipe 4 in. Diam30 LF 65.00$                 1,950.00$                                                  50.00$                          1,500.00$                                 (450.00)$                                   40.00$                           1,200.00$                             100.00$                          3,000.00$                        48.00$                           1,440.00$                           60.00$                      1,800.00$                                 2 7‐04'Ductile Iron Storm Sewer Pipe 8 In. Diam290 LF 120.00$               34,800.00$                                               65.00$                         18,850.00$                             (15,950.00)$                            100.00$                        29,000.00$                          125.00$                         36,250.00$                     86.00$                           24,940.00$                         125.00$                   36,250.00$                            3 7‐04'Bank Run Gravel for Trench Backfill Storm 25 TON 34.00$                 850.00$                                                    50.00$                         1,250.00$                               400.00$                                   45.00$                          1,125.00$                           75.00$                          1,875.00$                       52.00$                           1,300.00$                           45.00$                     1,125.00$                               4 7‐05'Shallow Concrete Inlet 1 EA 1,400.00$            1,400.00$                                                 5,000.00$                   5,000.00$                               3,600.00$                               1,600.00$                     1,600.00$                           2,500.00$                      2,500.00$                       1,450.00$                      1,450.00$                           1,500.00$                1,500.00$                               5 7‐05'Catch Basin Type 16 EA 1,800.00$            10,800.00$                                               5,000.00$                   30,000.00$                             19,200.00$                             1,850.00$                     11,100.00$                          2,500.00$                      15,000.00$                     1,450.00$                      8,700.00$                           1,800.00$                10,800.00$                            6 7‐05'Adjust Drainage Structure 12 EA 600.00$               7,200.00$                                                 500.00$                       6,000.00$                               (1,200.00)$                              600.00$                        7,200.00$                           1,000.00$                      12,000.00$                     575.00$                         6,900.00$                           900.00$                   10,800.00$                            7 7‐05'Connection to Drainage Structure 7 EA 800.00$               5,600.00$                                                 500.00$                       3,500.00$                               (2,100.00)$                              1,400.00$                     9,800.00$                           1,000.00$                      7,000.00$                       1,700.00$                      11,900.00$                         1,000.00$                7,000.00$                               8 7‐05'Furnish and Install Rectangular Solid Metal Cover2 EA 700.00$               1,400.00$                                                 500.00$                       1,000.00$                               (400.00)$                                 1,150.00$                     2,300.00$                           2,500.00$                      5,000.00$                       925.00$                         1,850.00$                           700.00$                   1,400.00$                               9 7‐05'Furnish and Install Bi‐Directional Locking Vaned Grate1 EA 700.00$               700.00$                                                    500.00$                       500.00$                                   (200.00)$                                 1,350.00$                     1,350.00$                           5,000.00$                      5,000.00$                       925.00$                         925.00$                              800.00$                   800.00$                                  64,700.00$                                              67,600.00$                             2,900.00$                               64,675.00$                          87,625.00$                    59,405.00$                         71,475.00$                            64,700.00$                                             67,600.00$                             2,900.00$                               64,675.00$                          87,625.00$                    59,405.00$                         71,475.00$                            1,092,615.76$                                        1,169,867.05$                        77,251.29$                             1,353,486.45$                    1,425,235.30$               1,282,855.23$                   1,365,477.46$                        1,092,615.76$                                        1,169,867.05$                        77,251.29$                             1,353,486.45$                    1,425,235.30$               1,282,855.23$                   1,365,477.46$                        1,169,755.00$                       1,353,353.00$                    1,442,432.20$               1,282,746.50$                   1,365,324.00$                         NORDVIND COMPANY, ESTIMATE    NORTHWEST CASCADE INC, ESTIMATE   R.W. SCOTT CONSTRUCTION, ESTIMATE  Schedule A ‐ Roadway Improvements Subtotal Subtotal Schedule B  WESTWATER CONSTRUCTION, ESTIMATE (LOW BIDDER)   ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION INC, ESTIMATE  Total Construction Cost (Schedule A+ B + C) According to Bid ProposalHouser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements Schedule B ‐ Water Improvements Subtotal Subtotal Schedule CSCHEDULE C ‐ Storm Drainage ImprovementsTotal Roadway Improvements Cost (Schedule A+B+C)Total Construction Cost (Schedule A+ B + C)Sales Tax (10.1%)AGENDA ITEM #6. b) LNI Doing Business As (DBA)    n/a WA UBI No.    601 173 970 License No.    WestWCC110kd Entity Type.    Profit Corporation RCW or Spec Section Item Description Determination SP 1‐02.1 (& 1‐02.14) Qualifications of Bidder  ‐ Before award of a public works contract, a bidder must  meet at least the minimum qualifications of RCW 39.04.350(1) to be considered  a responsible bidder and qualified to be awarded a public works project. Criteria Met (below) RCW 39.04.350(1) 1 Before award of a public works contract, a bidder must meet the following  responsibility criteria to be considered a responsible bidder and qualified to be  awarded a public works project. The bidder must: Criteria Met (below) a At time of bid submittal, have certificate of registration in compliance with  chapter 18.27 RCW Criteria Met b Have a current state unified business identified number; Criteria Met c  If applicable, have industrial insurance coverage for the bidder's employees  working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW; an employment security  department number as required in Title 50 RCW; and a state excise tax  registration number as required in Title 82 RCW; Criteria Met d Not be disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW  39.06.010 or 39.12.065(3);Criteria Met e If bidding on a public works project subject to the apprenticeship utilization  requirements in RCW 39.04.320, not have been found out of compliance by the  Washington state apprenticeship and training council for working apprentices  out of ration, without appropriate supervision, or outside their approved work  processes as outlined in their standards of apprenticeship under chapeter 49.04  RCW for the one‐year period immediately preceding the date of the bid  solicitation; Criteria Met f Have received training on the requirements related to public works and  prevailing wage under this chapter and chapter 39.12 RCW. The bidder must  designate a person or persons to be trained on these requirements. The training  must be provided by the department of labor and industries or by a training  provider whose curriculum is approved by the department. The department, in  consultation with the prevailing wage advisory committee, must determine the  length of the training. Bidders that have completed three or more public works  projects and have had a valid business license in Washington for three or more  years are exempt from this subsection. The department of labor and industries  must keep records of entities that have satisfied the training requirement or are  exempt and make the records available on its web site. Responsible parties may  rely on the records made available by the department regarding satisfaction of  the training requirement or exemption; and n/a ‐ Wastewater has  performed close to 100 public  works projects g Within the three‐year period immediately preceding the date of the bid  solicitation, not have been determined by a final and binding citation and notice  of assessment issued by the department of labor and industries or through a civil judgement entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction to have willfully  violated, as defined in RCW 49.48.082, any provision of chapter 49.46, 49.48, or  49.52 RCW. Criteria Met CAG‐21‐003 Exhibit 1 Bidder:  Westwater Construction Company Evaluation of Bidder Houser Way Intersection and Pedestrian Improvements Project Entity Name Registered with Secretary of State   Westwater Construction Company AGENDA ITEM #6. b) SP 1‐02.5 Proposal Forms ‐ The bidder shall complete spaces on the proposal form that  call for, but are not limited to, unit prices; extensions; summations; the total bid  amount; signatures; date; and, where applicable, retail sales taxes and  acknowledgment of addenda; the bidder's name, address, telephone number,  and singature; a State of Washington Contractor's Registration Number; and a  Business License Number. Criteria Met SP 1‐02.6 Preparation of Proposal ‐ The Bidder shall submit with their Bid a completed  Contractor Certification Wage Law Compliance form, provided by the  Contracting Agency. Criteria Met SP 1‐02.6(1) Recycled Materials Proposal ‐ The Bidder shall submit with the Bid, its proposal  for incorporating recycled materials into the project, using the form provided in  the Contract Provisions. Criteria Met SP 1‐02.7 Bid Deposit ‐ Bidder must use the bond form included in the Contract Provisions Criteria Met SP 1‐08 Non‐Collusion Declaration and Lobbying Certification forms submitted Criteria Met SP 1‐02.13 Irregular Proposals 1 A Proposal will be considered irregular and will be rejected if: Criteria Met (below) a The Bidder is not prequalified when so required; n/a b The authorized Proposal form furnished by the Contracting Agency is not used or is altered;Criteria Met c The completed Proposal form contains any unauthorized additions, deletions,  alternate Bids, or conditions;Criteria Met d The Bidder adds provisions reserving the right to reject or accept the award, or  enter into the Contract;Criteria Met e A price per unit cannot be determined from the Bid Proposal;  Criteria Met f The Proposal form is not properly executed; Criteria Met g The Bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Subcontractor list, if  applicable, as required in Section 1‐02.6;Criteria Met h The Bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Disadvantaged Business  Enterprise Certification, if applicable, as required in Section 1‐02.6;n/a i The Bidder fails to submit written confirmation from each DBE firm listed on the  Bidder's completed DBE Utilization Certification that they are in agreement with  the bidders DBE participation commitment, if applicable as required in Section 1‐ 02.6, or if the written confirmation that is submitted fails to meet the  requirements of the Special Provisions; n/a j The Bidder fails to submit DBE Good Faith Effort documentation, if applicable, as  required in Section 1‐02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to  demonstrate that a Good Faith Effort to meet the Condition of Award was made; n/a k The Bidder fails to submit a DBE Bid Item Breakdown form, if applicable, as  required in Section 1‐02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to  meet the requirements of the Special Provisions; n/a l The Bidder fails to submit DBE Trucking Credit Forms, if applicable, as required in Section 1‐02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to meet the  requirements of the Special Provisions; n/a m The Bid Proposal does not constitute a definite and unqualified offer to meet the  material terms of the Bid invitation; or Criteria Met n More than one Proposal is submitted for the same project from a Bidder under  the same or different names.Criteria Met 2 A Proposal may be considered irregular and will be rejected if: a The Proposal does not include a unit price for every Bid item;Criteria Met b Any of the unit prices are excessively unbalanced (either above or below the  amount of a reasonable Bid) to the potential detriment of the Contracting  Agency; Criteria Met c Receipt of Addenda is not acknowledged; Criteria Met d A member of a joint venture or partnership and the joint venture or partnership  submit Proposals for the same project (in such an instance, both Bids may be  rejected); or Criteria Met e If Proposal form entries are not made in ink. Criteria Met AGENDA ITEM #6. b) SP 1‐02.14 Disqualification of Bidders ‐ The Contracting Agency will verify that the Bidder  meets the mandatory bidder resopnsibility criteria in RCW 39.04.350(1), and  Supplemental Criteria 1‐2.  Evidence that the Bidder meets Supplemental  Criteria 3‐7 shall be provided by the Bidder later, if required. Criteria Met 1 Delinquent State Taxes ‐ The Bidder shall not owe delinquent taxes to the  Washington State Department of Revenue without a payment plan approved by  the Department of Revenue. Criteria Met 2 Federal Debarment ‐ The Bidder shall not currently be debarred or suspended by the Federal government.Criteria Met 3 Subcontractor Responsibility ‐ RCW 39.06.020 Verification of subcontractor  responsibility criteria.(not requested) 4 Claims Against Retainage and Bonds ‐ The Bidder shall not have a record of  excessive claims filed against the retainage or payment bonds for public works  projects in the three years prior to the bid submittal date, that demonstrate a  lack of effective management by the Bidder of making timely and appropriate  payments to its subcontractors, suppliers, and workers, unless there are  extenuating circumstances and such circumstances are deemed acceptable to  the Contracting Agency. (not requested) 5 Public Bidding Crime ‐ The Bidder and/or its owners shall not have been  convicted of a crime involving bidding on a public works contract in the five  years prior to the bid submittal date. (not requested) 6 Termination for Cause / Termination for Default ‐ The Bidder shall not have had  any public works contract terminated for cause or terminated for default by a  government agency in the five years prior to the bid submittal date, unless there  are extenuating circumstances and such circumstances are deemed acceptable  to the Contracting Agency. (not requested) 7 Lawsuits ‐ The Bidder shall not have lawsuits with judgments entered against the Bidder in the five years prior to the bid submittal date that demonstrate a  pattern of failing to meet the terms of contracts, unless there are extenuating  circumstances and such circumstances are deemed acceptable to the  Contracting Agency. (not requested) SP 1‐03.1 Consideration of Bids No irregularities in unit prices Criteria Met AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) 1,169,867.05 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) 123,367.05 1,169,867.05 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGENDA ITEM #6. b) CityofRentonContractProvisionsforHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectIV.AGREEMENTFORMSContractDocumentsPage25HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectApril2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGREEMENTCONTRACTNO.CAG-21-003THISAGREEMENT,madeandenteredintothis7thdayofJune,2021byandbetweenTHECITYOFRENTON,Washington,amunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington,hereinafterreferredtoas“City”andWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYhereinafterreferredtoas“Contractor.”WITNESSETH:Thatinconsiderationofthetermsandconditionscontainedhereinandattachedandmadeapartofthisagreement,thepartiesheretocovenantandagreeasfollows:1.TheContractorshalldoallworkandfurnishalltools,materials,andequipmentfor:HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectinaccordancewithandasdescribedintheattachedplansandspecifications,andthe2021StandardSpecificationsforRoad,Bridge,andMunicipalConstruction,aspreparedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)andtheWashingtonStateChapteroftheAmericanPublicWorksAssociation(APWA)whicharebythisreferenceincorporatedhereinandmadepartofhereofand,shallperformanychangesintheworkinaccordwiththeContractDocuments.TheContractorshallprovideandbeartheexpenseofallequipment,workandlabor,ofanysortwhatsoeverthatmayberequiredforthetransferofmaterialsandforconstructingandcompletingtheworkprovidedforintheseContractDocumentsexceptthoseitemsmentionedthereintobefurnishedbytheCity.2.TheCityherebypromisesandagreeswiththeContractortoemploy,anddoesemploytheContractortoprovidethematerialsandtodoandcausetobedonetheabovedescribedworkandtocompleteandfurnishthesameinaccordwiththeattachedplansandspecificationsandthetermsandconditionshereincontainedandherebycontractstopayforthesameaccordingtotheattachedspecificationsandthescheduleofunitoritemizedpricesatthetimeandinthemannerandupontheconditionsprovidedforinthiscontract.ThesumtotalofallprogresspaymentsisnottoexceedtheTotalBidAmountlistedintheScheduleofPricesincorporatedintothiscontract,unlesstheTotalBidAmountisamendedbychangeorder(s)preparedandexecutedinaccordancewiththeseContractDocuments.3.TheContractorforhimself/herself,andforhis/herheirs,executors,administrators,successors,andassigns,doesherebyagreetofullperformanceofallcovenantsrequiredoftheContractorinthecontract.4.ItisfurtherprovidedthatnoliabilityshallattachtotheCitybyreasonofenteringintothiscontract,exceptasprovidedherein.5.Intheeventlitigationiscommencedtoenforcethiscontract,theprevailingpartyshallbeentitledtorecoveritscosts,includingreasonableattorney’sandexpertwitnessfees.ContractDocumentsPage26HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectMarch2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) 6.ThisContractisexecutedintwo(2)identicalcounterparts,bythepatties,eachofwhichshallforallpurposesbedeemedanoriginal.INWITNESSWHEREOF,theContractorhasexecutedthisinstrument,onthedayandyearfirstbelowwrittenandtheMayorhascausedthisinstrumenttobeexecutedbyandinthenameoftheCityofRentonthedayandyearfirstabovewritten.CONTRACTORCITYOFRENTON2E2___[Signaturiiz’OfficiaIJ*ArmondoPavone,MayorMICHAELJCAPLIS-PRESIDENTATTEST[Title]WESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY[BusinessName]JasonSeth,CityClerk6/7/2021[Date]*NOTE:Evidenceofthesignatory’sauthoritytosigntheAgreementonbehalfofthebusinessentityshallbesubmitted.CONTRACTORADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESCITYOFRENTONADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYTransportationSystemsDivisionP0BOX59237RentonCityHall—5thFloorRENTON,WA980581055SouthGradyWay___________________________________________Renton,WA98057ContractDocumentsPage27HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectMarch2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGREEMENTCONTRACTNO.CAG-21-003THISAGREEMENT,madeandenteredintothis7thdayofJune,2021byandbetweenTHECITYOFRENTON,Washington,amunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington,hereinafterreferredtoas“City”andWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYhereinafterreferredtoas“Contractor.”WITNESSETH:Thatinconsiderationofthetermsandconditionscontainedhereinandattachedandmadeapartofthisagreement,thepartiesheretocovenantandagreeasfollows:1.TheContractorshalldoallworkandfurnishalltools,materials,andequipmentfor:HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectinaccordancewithandasdescribedintheattachedplansandspecifications,andthe2021StandardSpecificationsforRoad,Bridge,andMunicipalConstruction,aspreparedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)andtheWashingtonStateChapteroftheAmericanPublicWorksAssociation(APWA)whicharebythisreferenceincorporatedhereinandmadepartofhereofand,shallperformanychangesintheworkinaccordwiththeContractDocuments.TheContractorshallprovideandbeartheexpenseofallequipment,workandlabor,ofanysortwhatsoeverthatmayberequiredforthetransferofmaterialsandforconstructingandcompletingtheworkprovidedforintheseContractDocumentsexceptthoseitemsmentionedthereintobefurnishedbytheCity.2.TheCityherebypromisesandagreeswiththeContractortoemploy,anddoesemploytheContractortoprovidethematerialsandtodoandcausetobedonetheabovedescribedworkandtocompleteandfurnishthesameinaccordwiththeattachedplansandspecificationsandthetermsandconditionshereincontainedandherebycontractstopayforthesameaccordingtotheattachedspecificationsandthescheduleofunitoritemizedpricesatthetimeandinthemannerandupontheconditionsprovidedforinthiscontract.ThesumtotalofallprogresspaymentsisnottoexceedtheTotalBidAmountlistedintheScheduleofPricesincorporatedintothiscontract,unlesstheTotalBidAmountisamendedbychangeorder(s)preparedandexecutedinaccordancewiththeseContractDocuments.3.TheContractorforhimself/herself,andforhis/herheirs,executors,administrators,successors,andassigns,doesherebyagreetofullperformanceofallcovenantsrequiredoftheContractorinthecontract.4.ItisfurtherprovidedthatnoliabilityshallattachtotheCitybyreasonofenteringintothiscontract,exceptasprovidedherein.5.Intheeventlitigationiscommencedtoenforcethiscontract,theprevailingpartyshallbeentitledtorecoveritscosts,includingreasonableattorney’sandexpertwitnessfees.ContractDocumentsPage26HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectMarch2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) 6.ThisContractisexecutedintwo(2)identicalcounterparts,bytheparties,eachofwhichshallforallpurposesbedeemedanoriginal.INWITNESSWHEREOF,theContractorhasexecutedthisinstrument,onthedayandyearfirstbelowwrittenandtheMayorhascausedthisinstrumenttobeexecutedbyandinthenameoftheCityofRentonthedayandyearfirstabovewritten.CONTRACTORCITYOFRENTON[SignatituthorizedOfficial]*ArmondoPavone,MayorMICHAELJCAPLIS-PRESIDENT[Title]WESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY[BusinessName]6/7/2021[Date]JasonSeth,CityClerkATTEST*NOTE:Evidenceofthesignatory’sauthoritytosigntheAgreementonbehalfofthebusinessentityshallbesubmitted.CONTRACTORADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYCITYOFRENTONADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESTransportationSystemsDivisionP0BOX59237RentonCityHall—5thFloorRENTON,WA980581055SouthGradyWayRenton,WA98057ContractDocumentsHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectPage27March2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) AGREEMENTCONTRACTNO.CAG-21-003THISAGREEMENT,madeandenteredintothis7thdayofJune,2021byandbetweenTHECITYOFRENTON,Washington,amunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington,hereinafterreferredtoas“City”andWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYhereinafterreferredtoas“Contractor.”WITNESSETH:Thatinconsiderationofthetermsandconditionscontainedhereinandattachedandmadeapartofthisagreement,thepartiesheretocovenantandagreeasfollows:1.TheContractorshalldoallworkandfurnishalltools,materials,andequipmentfor:HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectinaccordancewithandasdescribedintheattachedplansandspecifications,andthe2021StandardSpecificationsforRoad,Bridge,andMunicipalConstruction,aspreparedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)andtheWashingtonStateChapteroftheAmericanPublicWorksAssociation(APWA)whicharebythisreferenceincorporatedhereinandmadepartofhereofand,shallperformanychangesintheworkinaccordwiththeContractDocuments.TheContractorshallprovideandbeartheexpenseofallequipment,workandlabor,ofanysortwhatsoeverthatmayberequiredforthetransferofmaterialsandforconstructingandcompletingtheworkprovidedforintheseContractDocumentsexceptthoseitemsmentionedthereintobefurnishedbytheCity.2.TheCityherebypromisesandagreeswiththeContractortoemploy,anddoesemploytheContractortoprovidethematerialsandtodoandcausetobedonetheabovedescribedworkandtocompleteandfurnishthesameinaccordwiththeattachedplansandspecificationsandthetermsandconditionshereincontainedandherebycontractstopayforthesameaccordingtotheattachedspecificationsandthescheduleofunitoritemizedpricesatthetimeandinthemannerandupontheconditionsprovidedforinthiscontract.ThesumtotalofallprogresspaymentsisnottoexceedtheTotalBidAmountlistedintheScheduleofPricesincorporatedintothiscontract,unlesstheTotalBidAmountisamendedbychangeorder(s)preparedandexecutedinaccordancewiththeseContractDocuments.3.TheContractorforhimself/herself,andforhis/herheirs,executors,administrators,successors,andassigns,doesherebyagreetofullperformanceofallcovenantsrequiredoftheContractorinthecontract.4.ItisfurtherprovidedthatnoliabilityshallattachtotheCitybyreasonofenteringintothiscontract,exceptasprovidedherein.5.Intheeventlitigationiscommencedtoenforcethiscontract,theprevailingpartyshallbeentitledtorecoveritscosts,includingreasonableattorney’sandexpertwitnessfees.ContractDocumentsPage26HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectMarch2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) 6.ThisContractisexecutedintwo(2)identicalcounterparts,bytheparties,eachofwhichshallforallpurposesbedeemedanoriginal.INWITNESSWHEREOF,theContractorhasexecutedthisinstrument,onthedayandyearfirstbelowwrittenandtheMayorhascausedthisinstrumenttobeexecutedbyandinthenameoftheCityofRentonthedayandyearfirstabovewritten.CONTRACTORCITYOfRENTON[SignatAutrizOfficial]*ArmondoPavone,MayorMICHAELJCAPLIS-PRESIDENT[Title]ATTESTWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY[BusinessNameJ6/7/2021[Date]JasonSeth,CityClerk*NOTE:Evidenceofthesignatory’sauthoritytosigntheAgreementonbehalfofthebusinessentityshallbesubmitted.CONTRACTORADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYCITYOFRENTONADDRESSFORGIVINGNOTICESTransportationSystemsDivisionP0BOX59237RentonCityHall—5thFloorRENTON,WA980581055SouthGradyWayRenton,WA98057ContractDocumentsHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectPage27March2021ProvidedtoBuildersExchangeofWA,Inc.ForusageConditionsAgreementseewww.bxwa.com-AlwaysVerifyScalAGENDA ITEM #6. b) CERTIFICATEASTOENTITYPRINCIPALPRESIDENTbehalfoftheContractor,isthePRESIDENTagreementwasdulysignedonandinbehalfofsaidandiswithinthescopeofitspowers.StateofWACountyofKING)ss.________certifythatIamoftheEntitynamedashereto,____ ____whosignedsaidagreementonofsaidentity;thatsaidentitybyauthorityofitsgoverningpersons,MICHAELJCAPLIS•beingdutysworndeposesandsaysthathe/sheisPRESIDENT(Title)ofWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY(NameofEntity)Subscribedandsworntobeforemethisjj.dayofSAMBcISNotaryPublicstatefWashington)>MyAppointmentExpireS0112512023)ssionNum2MICHAELJCAPLIStheContractorintheagreementMIflHAPI.1flAPIISattachedthatByJUNE-,2ONotaryPublicMELISSAMBCAPLISMycommissionexpiresJANUARY252OAGENDA ITEM #6. b) CONTRACTBONDTOTHECITYOFRENTONBondNo.WAC55521KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS,Thatwe,[Contractor]WESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYof[address]16209SE173RDPL.RENTON,WA98058asPrincipal,and[Surety]MerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)acorporationorganizedandexistingunderthelawsoftheStateofIowaasasuretycorporation,andqualifiedunderthelawsoftheStateofWashingtontobecomesuretyuponbondsofcontractorswithmunicipalcorporations,asSurety,arejointlyandseverallyheldandfirmlyboundtotheCityofRenton(City)inthepenalsumof$$1,169,755.00TotalContractAmount,forthepaymentofwhichsumondemandwebindourselvesandourheirs,executors,administratorsandassigns,successorsandassigns,orpersonrepresentatives,asthecasemaybe.ThisobligationisenteredintopursuanttothestatutesoftheStateofWashington.DatedatSeattle,Washington,this3rddayofJune20_21Nevertheless,theconditionsoftheaboveobligationaresuchthat:WHEREAS,underandpursuanttoContractNo.CAG-21-003providingforconstructionoftheHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProject;thePrincipalhasaccepted,orisabouttoaccept,theContract,andundertaketoperformtheWorkthereinprovidedforinthemannerandwithinthetimesetforth.NOW,THEREFORE,byexecutingthisContractBond,acombinedPerformanceandPaymentBond,SuretyindemnifiesandholdstheCity,itsofficers,agentsandassignsharmlessfromallclaims,liabilities,causesofaction,damagesandcosts,includingpropertydamagesandpersonalinjuries,resultingfromanydefectappearingordevelopinginthematerialprovidedorworkmanshipperformedundertheContractANDforsuchpaymentsforlabor,equipment,andmaterialsbysatisfyingallclaimsanddemandsincurredundertheContract,andreimbursingandpayingCityallexpensesthatCitymayincurinmakinggoodanydefaultbyPrincipal.FUTHERMORE,thisContractBondshallbesatisfiedandreleasedonlyupontheconditionsthatPrincipal:•FaithfullyperformsallprovisionsoftheContractandchangesauthorizedbyCityinthemannerandwithinthetimespecifiedasmaybeextendedundertheContract;•Faithfullyandpromptlypay,inaccordancewithChapters39.08,39.12and60.2$RevisedCodeofWashington(RCW),thesumsdueallworkers,laborers,mechanics,subcontractors,lowertiersubcontractors,materialsuppliers,andallotherpersonsoragentswhosupplylabor,equipment,ormaterialsforcarryingonofsuchworkundertheContract;•Faithfullyandpromptlypayalltaxes,increasesandpenalties,ifany,incurredonorrelatedtotheContractunderTitles50and51RevisedCodeofWashington(RCW)andanyandalltaxesimposedonthePrincipleunderTitle82RCWoranyotherlaw;•ReceivesawrittendischargefromCity,signedbytheMayororbyadulyauthorizedrepresentativeofCity.ContractDocumentsPage28HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectMarch2021AGENDA ITEM #6. b) Nochange,extensionoftime,alteration,oradditiontothetermsoftheContractortotheWorktobeperformedundertheContractshallinanywayaffectSurety’sobligationontheContractBond.Surety,forvaluereceived,herebywaivesnoticeofanychange,extensionoftime,alteration,oradditiontothetermsoftheContractortheWorktobeperformedthereunderandagreesthatmodificationsandchangestothetermsandconditionsoftheContractthatincreasethetotalamounttobepaidthePrincipalshallautomaticallyincreasetheobligationoftheSuretyonthisContractBondandnoticetoSuretyisnotrequiredforsuchincreasedobligation.ThisContractBondshallbegovernedandconstruedbythelawsoftheStateofWashington,andvenueshallbeinKingCounty,Washington.AnyprovisionofthisContractBondconflictingwithstatutoryorlegalrequirementsshallbedeemeddeletedandprovisionsconformingtosuchstatutoryorlegalrequirementsshallbedeemedincorporated.ThisContractBondshallbeexecutedintwo(2)originalcounterparts,andshaltbesignedbytheparties’dulyauthorizedofficers.ThisContractBondwillonlybeacceptedifisaccompaniedbyafullyexecutedandoriginalpowerofattorneyfortheofficeexecutingonbehalfoftheSurety.PRINCIPALSURETYWESTWATERCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY[Principal][Signat..f.uthorizedOfficial]MICHAELJCAPLIS[PrintedName]MerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)[Surety]JamieArmfield[PrintedName]PRESIDENT[Title]/q-oat[Date]NameandaddressoflocalofficeofAgentand/orSuretyCompany:AttorneyinFact[Title]June3,2021[Date]USIInsuranceServices601UnionStreet,Suite1000Seattle,WA98101Teleohone:2064416300ContractDocumentsHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectPage29March2021AGENDA ITEM #6. b) MERCHANi.BONDINGCOMPANYUPOWEROFATTORNEYKnowAllPersonsByThesePresents,thatMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.,bothbeingcorporationsoftheStateofIowa(hereincollectivelycalledthe“Companies”)doherebymake,constituteandappoint,individually,AmberEngel;DebbieLindstrom;HollyEUlfers;JamieArmfleld;PeggyAFirth;RoxanaPalacios;ScottCAldermantheirtrueandlawfulAttorney(s)-in-Fact,tosignitsnameassurety(ies)andtoexecute,sealandacknowledgeanyandallbonds,undertakings,contractsandotherwritteninstrumentsinthenaturethereof,onbehalfoftheCompaniesintheirbusinessofguaranteeingthefidelityofpersons,guaranteeingtheperformanceofcontractsandexecutingorguaranteeingbondsandundertakingsrequiredorpermittedinanyactionsorproceedingsallowedbylaw.ThisPower-of-AttorneyisgrantedandissignedandsealedbyfacsimileunderandbyauthorityofthefollowingBy-LawsadoptedbytheBoardofDirectorsofMerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)onApril23,2011andamendedAugust14,2015andadoptedbytheBoardofDirectorsofMerchantsNationalBonding,Inc.,onOctober16,2015.“ThePresident,Secretary,Treasurer,oranyAssistantTreasureroranyAssistantSecretaryoranyVicePresidentshallhavepowerandauthoritytoappointAttorneys-in-Fact,andtoauthorizethemtoexecuteonbehalfoftheCompany,andattachthesealoftheCompanythereto,bondsandundertakings,recognizances,contractsofindemnityandotherwritingsobligatoryinthenaturethereof.”“ThesignatureofanyauthorizedofficerandthesealoftheCompanymaybeaffixedbyfacsimileorelectronictransmissiontoanyPowerofAttorneyorCertificationthereofauthorizingtheexecutionanddeliveryofanybond,undertaking,recognizance,orothersuretyshipobligationsoftheCompany,andsuchsignatureandsealwhensousedshallhavethesameforceandeffectasthoughmanuallyfixed.”InconnectionwithobligationsinfavoroftheFloridaDepartmentofTransportationonly,itisagreedthatthepowerandauthorityherebygiventotheAttorney-in-Factindudesanyandallconsentsforthereleaseofretainedpercentagesand/orfinalestimatesonengineeringandconstructioncontractsrequiredbytheStateofFloridaDepartmentofTransportation.ItisfullyunderstoodthatconsentingtotheStateofFloridaDepartmentofTransportationmakingpaymentofthefinalestimatetotheContractorand/oritsassignee,shallnotrelievethissuretycompanyofanyofitsobligationsunderitsbond.InconnectionwithobligationsinfavoroftheKentuckyDepartmentofHighwaysonly,itisagreedthatthepowerandauthorityherebygiventotheAttorney-in-FactcannotbemodifiedorrevokedunlesspriorwrittenpersonalnoticeofsuchintenthasbeengiventotheCommissioner-DepartmentofHighwaysoftheCommonwealthofKentuckyatleastthirty(30)dayspriortothemodificationorrevocation.InWitnessWhereof,theCompaniesh?vecausedthisinstrumenttobesignedandsealedthis30thdayof44\-0-2003•.!*.l?’44STATEOFIOWA““I””COUNTYOFDALLASss.Onthis30thdayofApril2021,beforemeappearedLarryTaylor,tomepersonallyknown,whobeingbymedulysworndidsaythatheisPresidentofMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.;andthatthesealsaffixedtotheforegoinginstrumentaretheCorporateSealsoftheCompanies:andthatthesaidinstrumentwassignedandsealedinbehalfoftheCompaniesbyauthorityoftheirrespectiveBoardsofDirectors.$‘APOLLYMASON0CommissionNumber750576‘MyCommissionExpires‘o,v”January07,2023(Expirationofnotary’scommissiondoesnotinvalidatethisinstrument)I,WilliamWarner,Jr.,SecretaryofMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.,doherebycertifythattheaboveandforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofthePOWER-OF-ATTORNEYexecutedbysaidCompanies,whichisstillinfullforceandeffectandhasnotbeenamendedorrevoked.•‘42•:$--:•‘.1933.•:•.r....:‘9O,•:--:•‘.1933•:•••.::2021AprilMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)MERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.PresidentNotaiyPublicInWitnessWhereof,IhavehereuntosetmyhandandaffixedthesealoftheCompaniesonthis3rddaycisIII,II*,-0-2003...%:June,2021SecretariPOA0018(1/20)AGENDA ITEM #6. b) KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS,thatWestwaterConstructionCompanyRETAINAGEBONDBondNo.WA101239asPrincipalauthorizedtodobusinessintheStateofWashingtonandMerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)asSurety,acorporationorganizedandexistingunderthelawsoftheStateofIAandauthorizedtotransactbusinessintheStateofWashingtonasSurety,arejointlyandseverallyheldandbounduntoCityofRentonasObligeeinthepenalsumofFiftySevenThousandNineHundredTwentySevenDollarsand50/100Dollars($57,927.50),whichis5%ofthePrincipal’sbid.WHEREAS,ontheC1lidayof.PZt.thesaidPrincipal,herein,executedacontractwiththeObligee,forHouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProjectWHEREAS,saidcontractandRCW60.28requiretheObligeetowithholdfromthePrincipalthesumof5%frommoniesearnedonestimatesduringtheprogressoftheconstruction,hereinafterreferredtoasearnedretainedfundANDNOWWHEREAS,PrincipalhasrequestedthattheObligeenotretainanyearnedretainedfundsasallowedunderRCW60.28.NOW,THEREFORE,theconditionofthisobligationissuchthatthePrincipalandSuretyareheldandbounduntothebeneficiariesofthetrustfundcreatedbyRCW60.28inthepenalsumof5%ofthefinalcontractcostwhichshallincludeanyincreasesduetochangeorders,increasesinquantitiesofworkortheadditionofanynewitemofwork.IfthePrincipalshallusetheearnedretainedfunds,whichwillnotberetained,forthetrustfundpurposesofRCW60.28,thenthisobligationshallbenullandvoid;otherwise,itshallremaininfullforceandeffect.ThisbondandanyproceedstherefromshallbemadesubjecttoallclaimsandliensandinthesamemannerandpriorityassetforthretainedpercentagesinRCW60.28.PROVIDEDHOWEVER,that:1.TheliabilityoftheSuretyunderthisbondshallnotexceed5%ofthetotalamountearnedbythePrincipalifnomoniesareretainedbytheObligeeonestimatesduringtheprogressofconstruction.2.Anysuitunderthisbondmustbeinstitutedwithinthetimeperiodprovidedbyapplicablelaw.WITNESSourhandsthisMerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)SuretyBy:101Aftney’n-FactJamieArmfieldUSl”trruranceServicesV3rddayofJune2021WestwaterConstructionCompanyBy:MICHAJAPLISPRESIDENTPrincipalNameandAddressofLocalAgent601UnionStreet,Suite1000,Seattle,WA98101206-441-6300AGENDA ITEM #6. b) MERCHANi.BONDINGCOMPANYTMPOWEROFATTORNEYKnowAllPersonsByThesePresents,thatMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.,bothbeingcorporationsoftheStateofIowa(hereincoJlectivelycalledthe“Companies”)doherebymake,constituteandappoint,individually,AmberEngel;DebbieLindstrom;HollyEUlfers;JamieArmfield;PeggyAFirth;RoxanaPalacios;ScottCAldermantheirtrueandlawfulAttorney(s)-in-Fact,tosignitsnameassurety(ies)andtoexecute,sealandacknowledgeanyandallbonds,undertakings,contractsandotherwritteninstrumentsinthenaturethereof,onbehalfoftheCompaniesintheirbusinessofguaranteeingthefidelityofpersons,guaranteeingtheperformanceofcontractsandexecutingorguaranteeingbondsandundertakingsrequiredorpermittedinanyactionsorproceedingsallowedbylaw.ThisPower-of-AttorneyisgrantedandissignedandsealedbyfacsimileunderandbyauthorityofthefollowingBy-LawsadoptedbytheBoardofDirectorsofMerchantsBondingCompany(Mutual)onApril23,2011andamendedAugust14,2015andadoptedbytheBoardofDirectorsofMerchantsNationalBonding,Inc.,onOctober16,2015.“ThePresident,Secretary,Treasurer,oranyAssistantTreasureroranyAssistantSecretaryoranyVicePresidentshallhavepowerandauthoritytoappointAttorneys-in-Fact,andtoauthorizethemtoexecuteonbehalfoftheCompany,andattachthesealoftheCompanythereto,bondsandundertakings,recognizances,contractsofindemnityandotherwritingsobligatoryinthenaturethereof.”‘ThesignatureofanyauthorizedofficerandthesealoftheCompanymaybeaffixedbyfacsimileorelectronictransmissiontoanyPowerofAttorneyorCertificationthereofauthorizingtheexecutionanddeliveryofanybond,undertaking,recognizance,orothersuretyshipobligationsoftheCompany,andsuchsignatureandsealwhensousedshallhavethesameforceandeffectasthoughmanuallyfixed.”InconnectionwithobligationsinfavoroftheFloridaDepartmentofTransportationonly,itisagreedthatthepowerandauthorityherebygiventotheAttorney-in-Factindudesanyandallconsentsforthereleaseofretainedpercentagesand/orfinalestimatesonengineeringandconstructioncontractsrequiredbytheStateofFloridaDepartmentofTransportation.ItisfullyunderstoodthatconsentingtotheStateofFloridaDepartmentofTransportationmakingpaymentofthefinalestimatetotheContractorand/oritsassignee,shallnotrelievethissuretycompanyofanyofitsobligationsunderitsbond.InconnectionwithobligationsinfavoroftheKentuckyDepartmentofHighwaysonly,itisagreedthatthepowerandauthorityherebygiventotheAttorney-in-FactcannotbemodifiedorrevokedunlesspriorwrittenpersonalnoticeofsuchintenthasbeengiventotheCommissioner-DepartmentofHighwaysoftheCommonwealthofKentuckyatleastthirty(30)dayspriortothemodificationorrevocation.4tON4ij’...•-0-2003G)5‘r..•..,,c;;?hP0i9i1i..,.—._a“‘—aInWitnessWhereof,theCompanieshavecausedthisinstrumenttobesignedandsealedthis30thdayof.SIhhhhll,44’3ON4‘‘•!,&..cz,o-0-2003:PSTATEOFIOWA-0-1933April,2021MERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)MERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.BY/7PresidentCOUNTYOFDALLASss.Onthis30thdayofApril2021,beforemeappearedLarryTaylor,tomepersonallyknown,whobeingbymedulysworndidsaythatheisPresidentofMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.;andthatthesealsaffixedtotheforegoinginstrumentaretheCorporateSealsoftheCompanies;andthatthesaidinstrumentwassignedandsealedinbehalfoftheCompaniesbyauthorityoftheirrespectiveBoardsofDirectors.siAçPOLLYMASON,%‘CommissionNumber750576y/j1R”jO”_’‘MyCommissionExpiresVI]‘-January07,2023NotarjPublic(Expirationofnotary’scommissiondoesnotinvalidatethisinstrument)I,WilliamWarner,Jr.,SecretaryofMERCHANTSBONDINGCOMPANY(MUTUAL)andMERCHANTSNATIONALBONDING,INC.,doherebycertifythattheaboveandforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofthePOWER-OF-ATTORNEYexecutedbysaidCompanies,wIichisstillinfullforceandeffectandhasnotbeenamendedorrevoked.InWitnessWhereof,IhavehereuntosetmyhandandaffixedthesealoftheCompaniesonthis3rddayofPOA0018(1/20)a.“qP044g.__:1933.•.‘..June,2021SecretanjAGENDA ITEM #6. b) Client#:324787WESTWCONACORDTMCERTIFICATEOFLIABILITYINSURANCETHISCERTIFICATEISISSUEDASAMATTEROFINFORMATIONONLYANDCONFERSNORIGHTSUPONTHECERTIFICATEHOLDER.THISCERTIFICATEDOESNOTAFFIRMATIVELYORNEGATIVELYAMEND,EXTENDORALTERTHECOVERAGEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIESBELOW.THISCERTIFICATEOFINSURANCEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEACONTRACTBETWEENTHEISSUINGINSURER(S),AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVEORPRODUCER,ANDTHECERTIFICATEHOLDER.IMPORTANT:IfthecertificateholderisanADDITIONALINSURED,thepolicy(ies)musthaveADDITIONALINSUREDprovisionsorbeendorsed.IfSUBROGATIONISWAIVED,subjecttothetermsandconditionsofthepolicy,certainpoliciesmayrequireanendorsement.Astatementonthiscertificatedoesnotconferanyrightstothecertificateholderinlieuofsuchendorsement(s).CONTLCtPleasesendallrequestsbyPRODUCERNAMEIFAX610-362-8518USIInsuranceServicesNWCLPHONE:faxoremailI(NC,No):(NC,No,Ext)601UnionStreet,Suite1000E-MAIL:clcertrequest@usi.comADDRESSSeattle,WA98701INSURER(S)AFFORDINGCOVERAGENAIC#INSURERA:AlaskaNationalInsuranceCompany38733INSUREDINSURERB:WestwaterConstructionCompanyINSURERC:16209SE173rdPlaceINSURERD:Renton,WA98058-9102INSURERE:INSURERF:COVERAGESCERTIFICATENUMBER:REVISIONNUMBER:THISISTOCERTIFYTHATTHEPOLICIESOFINSURANCELISTEDBELOWHAVEBEENISSUEDTOTHEINSUREDNAMEDABOVEFORTHEPOLICYPERIODINDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDINGANYREQUIREMENT,TERMORCONDITIONOFANYCONTRACTOROTHERDOCUMENTWITHRESPECTTOWHICHTHISCERTIFICATEMAYBEISSUEDORMAYPERTAIN,THEINSURANCEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIESDESCRIBEDHEREINISSUBJECTTOALLTHETERMS,EXCLUSIONSANDCONDITIONSOFSUCHPOLICIES.LIMITSSHOWNMAYHAVEBEENREDUCEDBYPAIDCLAIMS.GEN’LAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER:IIPRO-POLICYL]JECTLOCAUTOMOBILELIABILITYXANYAUTOOWNED—AUTOSONLYHIRED—AUTOSONLYX-IAPDDAMAGETORENTEDPREMISEStEaoccurrence)$500,000MEDEXP(Anyoneperson)sf5,000PERSONAL&ADVINJURYsl,000,000GENERALAGGREGATEs2,000,000PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGGs2,000,000BODILYINJURY(Perperson)$BODILYINJURY(Peraccident)$PROPERTYDAMAGE$(Peraccident)AxUMBRELLALIABLcJOCCUR—2OGLUJJ20807/01/202007/01/2021EACHOCCURRENCE58,000,000EXCESSLIABJCLAIMS-MADEExcessofGL,AGGREGATEs8,000,000DEDXRETENTION$70000Auto&EmpLiab$WORKERSCOMPENSATIONPER0TH-ANDEMPLOYERS’LIABILITYYINSTATUTEERANYPROPRtETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVEr—EL.EACHACCIDENT$OFFICER/MEMBEREXCLUDED?LiN/A(MandatoryinNH)EL.DISEASE-EAEMPLOYEE$Ifyes,describeunderDESCRIPTIONOFOPERATIONSbelow——EL.DISEASE-POLICYLIMIT$AContractor’s2OGIA11208)7/01/202007/01/2027$250,000Leased/RentedEquipment$1,000DeductibleSpecialForm——ActualCashValueDESCRIPTIONOFOPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES(ACORD107,AdditionalRemarksSchedule,maybeattachedifmorespaceisrequired)HouserWayIntersectionandPedestrianImprovementsProject,WA#CAG-21-003.CityofRenton,ContractingAgencyanditsofficers,electedofficials,employees,agents,andvolunteersareAdditionalInsuredandcoverageisprimaryandnoncontributoryasrespectsGeneralLiability,AutomobileLiabilityifrequiredbywrittencontractperattachedendorsements.UmbrellaLiabilityfollowsform.CERTIFICATEHOLDERCANCELLATION.SHOULDANYOFTHEABOVEDESCRIBEDPOLICIESBECANCELLEDBEFORECityofRentonTHEEXPIRATIONDATETHEREOF,NOTICEWILLBEDELIVEREDIN10555GradyWayACCORDANCEWITHTHEPOLICYPROVISIONS.Renton,WA98057AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE4”*.A’tDATE(MM/DDNYYY)6/03/2021TYPEOFINSURANCEADDLSUBRINSRWVDCOMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITYCLAIMS-MADEOCCURPDDed:2,000WAStopGapPOLICYNUMBER2OGPS11208POLICYEFFPOLICYEXP(MM/DDNYYY)(MM/DDNYYY)OTHER:A)7/07/202007/01/2021LIMITSEACHOCCURRENCE$1,000,000SCHEDULEDAUTOSNON-OWNEDAUTOSONLY2OGAS1J208HiredAutoPhysicalDamage$100DedComp$100DedCoil07/01/202007/07/2021COMBINEDSINGLELIMIT(Esaccident)WAStopGap$1,000,000ACVACV$1,000,000$©1988-2015ACORDCORPORATION.Allrightsreserved.ACORD25(2016/03)1of1TheACORDnameandlogoareregisteredmarksofACORD#S32280155/M29207130GZNZPAGENDA ITEM #6. b) I?AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYCONTRACTORS’GENERALLIABILITYENHANCEMENTENDORSEMENTTHISENDORSEMENTCHANGESTHEPOLICY.PLEASEREADITCAREFULLY.Thisendorsementmodifiesinsuranceprovidedunderthefollowing:COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITYCOVERAGEPARTCoverageaffordedunderthisextensionofcoverageendorsementdoesnotapplytoanypersonororganizationcoveredasanadditionalinsuredonanyotherendorsementnoworhereafterattachedtothisCoveragePart.SCHEDULEOFCOVERAGESARESUMMARIZEDBELOW1.MiscellaneousAdditionalInsureds8additionalinsuredextensions.PrimaryandNoncontributoryInsurance2.DamageToPremisesRentedtoYouLimitincreasedto$500,000.3.MedicalPaymentsLimitsincreasedto$15,000.Reportingperiodincreasedtothedateofaccident.4.Non-ownedWatercraftIncreasedto50feet.5.SupplementaryPaymentsCostofbailbondsincreasedto$10,000.Dailylossofearningsincreasedto$500.9.NoticeofOccurrence10.BroadKnowledgeofOccurrence11.BodilyInjury-ExtensionofCoverage12.ExpectedOrIntendedInjuryReasonableforce-bodilyinjuryorpropertydamage.13.BlanketWaiverofSubrogationWaiverofsubrogationwhererequiredbywrittencontractorwrittenagreement.1.Currentlyineffectorbecomingeffectiveduringthetermofthispolicy;and2.Executedpriortothe“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”or“personalinjuryandadvertisinginjury”,butOnlythefollowingpersonsororganizationsareadditionalinsuredsunderthisendorsementandcoverageprovidedtosuchadditionalinsuredsislimitedasprovidedherein:a.StateorGovernmentalAgencyorSubdivisionorPoliticalSubdivisionsconnectionwithoperationsperformedbyyouoronyourbehalfandthatyouarerequiredbyanyordinance,laworbuildingcodetoincludeasanadditionalinsuredonthiscoveragepartisanadditionalinsured,butonlywithrespecttoliabilityfor“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”,“personalandadvertisinginjury”arisingoutofsuchoperations.14.InRemActions1.MISCELLANEOUSADDITIONALINSUREDSSectionIIWhoIsAnInsuredisamendedtoincludeasanadditionalInsuredanypersonororganizationdescribedinParagraphs2.a.through2.h.belowwhomyouarerequiredtoaddasanadditionalinsuredonthispolicyunderawrittencontractorwrittenagreement.However,thewrittencontractorwrittenagreementmustbe:threeyearsfrom6.NewlyFormedOrAcquiredOrganizationsCoverageextendedtotheendofthepolicyperiodorthenextanniversaryofthispolicy’seffectivedate.7.LiberalizationClause8.UnintentionalFailureToDiscloseHazardsAnystateorsubdivisionthathasgovernmentalagencyororpoliticalsubdivisionissuedapermitinANICGL11870716Page1of6AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYTheinsuranceprovidedtosuchstateorpoliticalsubdivisiondoesnotapplytoany“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”or“personalandadvertisinginjury”arisingoutofoperationsperformedforthatstateorpoliticalsubdivision.b.ControllingInterestAnypersonsororganizationswithacontrollinginterestinyoubutonlywithrespecttotheirliabilityarisingoutof:(1)Theirfinancialcontrolofyou,or(2)Premisestheyown,maintainorcontrolwhileyouleaseoroccupythesepremises.Thisinsurancedoesnotapplytostructuralalterations,newconstructionanddemolitionoperationsperformedbyorforsuchadditionalinsured.c.ManagersorLessorsofPremisesAmanagerorlessorofpremisesbutonlywithrespecttoliabilityarisingoutoftheownership,maintenanceoruseofthatspecificpartofthepremisesleasedtoyouandsubjecttothefollowingadditionalexclusions:Thisinsurancedoesnotapplyto:(1)Any“occurrence”whichtakesplaceafteryouceasetobeatenantinthatpremises;or(2)Structuralalterations,newconstructionordemolitionoperationsperformedbyoronbehalfofsuchadditionalinsured.U.Mortgagee,AssigneeorReceiverAmortgagee,assigneeorreceiverbutonlywithrespecttotheirliabilityasmortgagee,assignee,orreceiverandarisingoutoftheownership,maintenance,oruseofapremisesbyyou.Thisinsurancedoesnotapplytostructuralalterations,newconstructionordemolitionoperationsperformedbyorforsuchadditionalinsured.e.OwnersorOtherInterestsFromWhomLandHasBeenLeasedAnownerorotherinterestfromwhomlandhasbeenleasedbyyoubutonlywithrespecttoliabilityarisingoutoftheownership,maintenanceoruseofthatspecificpartofthelandleasedtoyouandsubjecttothefollowingadditionalexclusions:Thisinsurancedoesnotapplyto:(1)Any“occurrence”whichplaceafteryouceasetothatland;or(2)Structuralalterations,newconstructionordemolitionoperationsperformedbyoronbehalfofsuchadditionalinsured.1.Co-ownerofInsuredPremisesAco-ownerofapremisesco-ownedbyyouandcoveredunderthisinsurancebutonlywithrespecttotheco-ownersliabilityasco-ownerofsuchpremises.g.LessorofEquipmentAnypersonororganizationfromwhomyouleaseequipment.Suchpersonororganizationisanadditionalinsuredonlywithrespecttotheirliabilityfor“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”or“personalandAdvertisinginjury”caused,inwholeorinpart,byyourmaintenance,operationoruseofequipmentleasedtoyoubysuchpersonororganization.Aperson’sororganization’sstatusasanadditionalinsuredunderthisendorsementendswhentheirwrittencontractorwrittenagreementwithyouforsuchleasedequipmentends.Thisinsurancedoesnotapply:(1)Toany“occurrence”whichtakesplaceaftertheequipmentleaseexpires;ortakesleaseWithrespecttotheaffordedtheseadditionalthefollowingadditionalapply:insuranceinsureds,exclusionsANICGL11870716Page2of6AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalLJINSURANCECOMPANY(2)To“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”,or“personalandadvertisinginjury”arisingoutofthesolenegligenceofsuchadditionalinsured.h.Owners,LesseesorContractors(1)Suchpersonororganizationisanadditionalinsuredfor“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”and“personalandadvertisinginjury”if,andonlytotheextentthat,theinjuryordamageiscausedbynegligentactsoromissionsofyouoryoursubcontractorintheperformanceof“yourwork”towhichthewrittencontractapplies.Thispersonororganizationdoesnotqualifyasanadditionalinsuredwithrespecttoinjuryordamagecausedinwholeorinpartbyindependentnegligentactsoromissionsofsuchpersonororganization.(2)However,thisinsurancedoesnotapplyto“bodilyinjury”,“propertydamage”or“personalandadvertisinginjury”arisingoutofanarchitect’s,engineer’s,orsurveyor’srenderingoforfailuretorenderanyprofessionalservicesincluding:i.thepreparing,approving,orfailingtoprepareorapprovemaps,drawings,opinions,reports,surveys,changeorders,designspecifications;andii.supervisory,engineeringservices.orinspection,or(3)Theinsuranceprovidedtothisadditionalinsured,doesnotcover“bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”causedbyyournegligentactsandomissionsintheperformanceof“yourwork”thatoccurswithinthe“products-completedoperationshazard”,unlessthewrittencontractcontainsaspecificrequirementthatyouprocurecompletedoperationscoverageorcoveragewithinthe“products-completedoperationshazard”fortheadditionalinsured.However,evenifcoveragewithinthe“products-completedoperationshazard”isrequiredbythewrittencontract,suchcoverageisavailabletotheadditionalinsuredonlyifthe“bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”occurspriortotheendofthetimeperiodduringwhichyouarerequiredbythewrittencontracttoprovidesuchcoverageortheexpirationdateofthepolicy,whichevercomesfirst.AnyinsuranceprovidedtoanadditionalinsureddesignatedunderParagraphs2.a.through2.g.abovedoesnotapplyto“bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”includedwithintheproducts-completedoperationshazard.”PrimaryAndNoncontributoryInsuranceThefollowingisaddedtotheOtherInsuranceConditionandsupersedesanyprovisiontothecontrary:Thisinsuranceisprimarytoandwillnotseekcontributionfromanyotherinsuranceavailabletoanadditionalinsuredunderyourpolicyprovidedthat:(1)TheadditionalinsuredisaNamedInsuredundersuchotherinsurance;and(2)Youhaveagreedinwritinginacontractoragreementthatthisinsurancewouldbeprimaryandwouldnotseekcontributionfromanyotherinsuranceavailabletotheadditionalinsured.SectionIII-LimitsofInsurance,thefollowingisadded:WithrespecttotheinsuranceaffordedtotheadditionalinsuredsdescribedinParagraphsa.throughh.above,themostwewillpayonbehalfofsuchadditionalinsuredistheamountofinsurance:(1)Requiredbythecontractoragreement;or(2)AvailableundertheapplicableLimitsofInsuranceshownintheDeclarations;whicheverisless.ANICGL11870716Page3of6AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYThisprovisionshallnotincreasetheapplicableLimitsofInsuranceshownintheDeclaration.2.DamageToPremisesRentedtoYouSECTIONIII—LIMITSOFINSURANCE,Paragraph6.isreplacedbythefollowing:6.SubjecttoParagraph5.above,theDamagetoPremisesRentedtoYouLimitisthemostwewillpayunderCoverageAfordamagesbecauseof“propertydamage”toanyonepremises,whilerentedtoyou,orinthecaseofdamagebyfire,whilerentedtoyouortemporarilyoccupiedbyyouwithpermissionoftheowner.IfalimitisshownforDamagetoPremisesRentedtoYouthemostwewillpayunderCoverageAfordamagesbecauseor“propertydamage”toanyonepremisesistheLimitshownintheDeclarationsor$500,000,whicheverisgreater.3.MEDICALPAYMENTSA.SectionIII—LimitsofInsurance,Paragraph7.isreplacedbythefollowing:7.SubjecttoParagraphMedicalExpenseLimitispayunderCoverageCexpensesbecauseofsustainedbyanyoneperson.IfalimitisshownforMedicalExpenseintheDeclarationsthemostwewillpayunderCoverageCforallmedicalexpensesbecauseof“bodilyinjury”sustainedbyanyonepersonistheLimitshownintheDeclarationsor$15,000,whicheverisgreater.B.Thisprovision5.(MedicalPayments)doesnotapplyifSectionI-CoverageCMedicalPaymentsisexcludedeitherbytheprovisionsoftheCoveragePartorbyendorsement.C.ParagraphI.a.(3)(b)ofSectionI-CoverageC-MedicalPayments,isreplacedbythefollowing:(b)Theexpensesandreportedthreeyearsofaccident;and4.NON-OWNEDWATERCRAFTA.IfendorsementCG2109,CG2110,CG2450,orCG2451isattachedtothepolicy,ParagraphA.2.g.(2)(b)isreplacedbythefollowing:(b)Awatercraftthatyoudonotownthatis:(i)Lessthan50feetlong:and(ii)Notbeingusedtocarrypersonsorpropertyforacharge.B.IfParagraphA.doesnotapply,Paragraphg.(2)of2.EXCLUSIONunderSECTIONI—COVERAGES,COVERAGEA-BODILYINJURYANDPROPERTYDAMAGELIABILITYisreplacedbythefollowing:(2)Awatercraftthatyoudonotownthatis:(a)Lessthan50feetlong;and(b)NotbeingusedtocarrypersonsorpropertyforaA.UnderSectionI-SupplementaryPayments-CoverageAandB,Paragraph1.b.,thelimitof$250shownforthecostofbailbondsisreplacedby$10,000;B.InParagraph1.d.,thelimitof$250shownfordailylossofearningsisreplacedby$500.6.NEWLYFORMEDORACQUIREDORGANIZATIONSParagraph3.a.ofSectionII-WhoIsAnInsuredisdeletedandreplacedbythefollowing:Coverageunderthisprovisionisaffordedonlyuntiltheendofthepolicyperiodorthenextanniversaryofthispolicy’seffectivedateafteryouacquireorformtheorganization,whicheverisearlier.5.abovethethemostwewillforallmedical“bodilyinjury”charge.5.SUPPLEMENTARYPAYMENTSareincurredtouswithinthedateoftheANICGL11870716Page4of6AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANY7.LIBERALIZATIONCLAUSEIfweadoptachangeinourformsorruleswhichwouldbroadencoverageforcontractorsunderthisendorsementwithoutanadditionalpremiumcharge,yourpolicywillautomaticallyprovidetheadditionalcoveragesasofthedatetherevisioniseffectiveinyourstate.8.UNINTENTIONALFAILURETODISCLOSEHAZARDSSECTIONIV-COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITYCONDITIONS—Paragraph6.—Representationsisreplacedbythefollowing:6.RepresentationsByacceptingthispolicy,youagree:a.ThestatementsintheDeclarationsareaccurateandcomplete;b.Thosestatementsarebaseduponrepresentationsyoumadetous;andc.Wehaveissuedthispolicyinrelianceprovisiondoesnotaffectourrighttocollectadditionalpremiumortoexerciseourrightsofcancellationornonrenewalinaccordancewithapplicablelawsandregulations.9.NOTICEOFOCCURRENCEThefollowingisaddedtoParagraph2.ofSectionIV-CommercialGeneralLiabilityConditions-DutiesInTheEventofOccurrence,Offense,ClaimorSuit:YourrightsunderthisCoveragePartwillnotbeprejudicedifyoufailtogiveusnoticeofan“occurrence”,offense,claimor“suit”andthatfailureissolelyduetoyourreasonablebeliefthatthe“bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”isnotcoveredunderthisCoveragePart.However,youshallgivewrittennoticeofthis“occurrence”,offense,claimor“suit”tousassoonasyouareawarethatthisinsurancemayapplytosuch“occurrence”,offense,claimor“suit.”10.BROADKNOWLEDGEOFOCCURRENCEThefollowingisaddedtoParagraph2.ofSectionIV-CommercialGeneralLiabilityConditions-DutiesinTheEventofOccurrence,Offense,ClaimorSuit:Youmustgiveusorourauthorizedrepresentativenoticeofan“occurrence”,offense,claim,or“suit”onlywhenthe“occurrence”,offense,claimor“suit’isknownto:(1)You,ifyouareanindividual;(2)Apartner,ifyouareapartnership;(3)Anexecutiveofficerortheemployeedesignatedbyyoutogivesuchnotice,ifyouareacorporation;or(4)Amanager,ifyouarealimitedliabilitycompany.11.EXPANDEDBODILYINJURYSectionV-Definitions,thedefinitionof“bodilyinjury”ischangedtoread:“Bodilyinjury”meansbodilyinjury,sicknessordiseasesustainedbyaperson,includingdeath,humiliation,shock,mentalanguishormentalinjurybythatpersonatanytimewhichresultsasaconsequenceofthebodilyinjury,sicknessordisease.12.EXPECTEDORINTENDEDINJURY-CoverageA-BodilyDamageLiabilityisa.“Bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”expectedorintendedfromthestandpointoftheinsured.Thisexclusiondoesnotapplyto“bodilyinjury”or“propertydamage”resultingfromtheuseofreasonableforcetoprotectpersonsorproperty.uponyourrepresentations.Theunintentionalomissionof,orunintentionalerrorin,anyinformationyouprovidedtouswhichweissuingthispolicywillnotrightsunderthisinsurance.relieduponinprejudiceyourHowever,thisExclusiona.ofSectionIInjuryandPropertyreplacedbythefollowing:ANICGL11870716Page5o16AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANY13.BLANKETWAIVEROFSUBROGATIONTheTransferOfRightsOfRecoveryAgainstOthersToUsCondition(SectionIV-CommercialGeneralLiabilityConditions)isamendedbytheadditionofthefollowing:Wewaiveanyrightofrecoverywemayhaveagainstanypersonororganizationbecauseofpaymentswemakeforinjuryordamagearisingoutof:1.Yourongoingoperations;or2.“Yourwork”includedinthe“products-completedoperationshazard.”However,thiswaiverappliesonlywhenyouhaveagreedinwritingtowaivesuchrightsofrecoveryinacontractoragreement,andonlyifthecontractoragreement:1.Isineffectorbecomeseffectiveduringthetermofthispolicy;and2.Wasexecutedpriortoloss.14.INREMACTIONSAnyactioninremagainstanyvesselowned,operatedbyorfor,orcharteredbyorforyouwillbetreatedinthesamemannerasthoughtheactionwereinpersonamagainstyou.Thisendorsementchangesthepolicytowhichitisattachedand,unlessotherwisestated,iseffectiveonthedateissuedat12:01A.M.standardtimeatyourmailingaddressshowninthepolicy.Theinformationbelowisrequiredonlywhenthisendorsementisissuedsubsequenttocommencementofthepolicy.EndorsementEffectiveInsuredPolicyNo.EndorsementNo.CountersignedByIncludescopyrightedmaterialofInsuranceServicesOffice,Inc.,withitspermissionANICGL11870716Page6of6AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYBUSINESSAUTOCOVERAGEENHANCEMENTENDORSEMENTTHISENDORSEMENTCHANGESTHEPOLICY.PLEASEREADITCAREFULLY.Thisendorsementmodifiesinsuranceprovidedunderthefollowing:BUSINESSAUTOCOVERAGEFORMVariousprovisionsinthisendorsementrestrictcoverage.Readtheentirepolicycarefullytodeterminerights,duties,andwhatisandisnotcovered.Throughoutthispolicy,thewordsrefertotheNamedInsuredDeclarations.Thewordswe”,“us”,thecompanyprovidingthisinsurance.Otherwordsandphrasesthatappearinquotationmarkshavespecialmeaning.RefertoSECTIONV—DEFINITIONSintheBusinessAutoCoverageForm.Thecoveragesprovidedbythisendorsementapplyper“accident”and,unlessotherwisespecified,aresubjecttoalloftheterms,conditions,exclusionsanddeductibleprovisionsofthepolicy,towhichitisattached.SECTIONII—COVEREDAUTOLIABILITYCOVERAGE,ParagraphA.1.WhoIsAnInsuredisamendedtoinclude:U.Any“employee”ofyourswhileoperatingan“auto”hiredorrentedunderacontractoragreementinan“employee’s”name,withyourpermission,whileperformingdutiesrelatedtotheconductofyourbusiness.e.AnypersonororganizationforwhomyouhaveagreedinwritingtoprovideinsurancesuchasisaffordedbythisCoverageForm,butonlywithrespecttoliabilityarisingoutoftheownership,maintenanceoruseof“autos”coveredbythispolicy.Ifsuchpersonororganizationhasotherinsurancethenthisinsuranceisprimarytoandwewillnotseekcontributionfromtheotherinsurance.SECTIONIV—BusinessAutoConditions,ParagraphA.5.—TransferofRightsofRecoveryAgainstOthersToUsisamendedtoinclude:5.TransferofRightsofRecoveryAgainstOtherstoUsThisconditiondoesnotapplytoanyperson(s)ororganization(s)totheextentthatsubrogationagainstthatpersonororganizationiswaivedpriortothe“accident”orthe“loss”underacontractwiththatpersonororganization.SECTIONII—COVEREDAUTOLIABILITYCOVERAGE,ParagraphA.2.a.(2)—SupplementaryPaymentsisreplacedbythefollowing:(2)Upto$10,000forcostofbailbonds(includingbondsforrelatedtrafficlawviolations)requiredbecauseofan“accident”wecover.Wedonothavetofurnishthesebonds.SECTIONII—COVEREDAUTOLIABILITYCOVERAGE,ParagraphA.2.a.(4)—SupplementaryPaymentsisreplacedbythefollowing:(4)Allreasonableexpensesincurredbythe“insured”atourrequest,includingactuallossofearningsupto$500adaybecauseoftimeofffromwork.“you”and“your”shownintheand“our”refertoANICCA11501013Page1of4AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYSECTIONII—COVEREDAUTOLIABILITYCOVERAGE,ParagraphA.2.c.—VoluntaryPropertyDamageisaddedasfollows:c.VoluntaryPropertyDamageAtyourwrittenrequest,wemaymakeavoluntarypaymentforPropertyDamagecausedbyan“insured”,butwithoutliabilitytoathirdparty,upto$25,000.WewillnotmakeaVoluntaryPropertyDamagepaymenttoanyonewhoisan“insured”underthispolicy.SECTIONIll-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,ParagraphA.2.—Towingisreplacedbythefollowing:TowingWewillpayupto$500fortowingandlaborcostsincurredeachtimeacovered“auto”thatisa:a.Privatepassenger;c.“Loss”causedbyfallingobjectsormissiles.However,youhavetheoptionofhavingglassbreakagecausedbyacovered“auto’s”collisionoroverturnconsidereda“loss”underCollisionCoverage.GlassRepair—WaiverofDeductibleNodeductibleappliestoglassbreakage,iftheglassisrepairedratherthanreplaced.SECTIONIII-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,ParagraphA.4.a.—TransportationExpensesisreplacedbythefollowing:a.TransportationExpensesWewillpayupto$200perdaytoamaximumof$1,500fortemporarytransportationexpenseincurredbyyoubecauseofthetotaltheftofacovered“auto”thatisa:lbs.ofGrossHowever,theatplaceofSECTIONIll-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,ParagraphA.3.—GlassBreakage—HittingaBirdorAnimal—FallingObjectsorMissilesisreplacedbythefollowing:GlassBreakage—HittingaBirdorAnimal—FallingObjectsorMissilesIfyoucarryComprehensiveCoverageforthedamagedcovered“auto”,wewillpaythefollowingunderComprehensiveCoverage:a.GlassBreakage;b.“Loss”causedbyhittingabirdoranimal;(1)Privatepassenger;(2)Truck;(3)Pick-uptruck;(4)Panel;or(5)Vantypevehicleunder20,000lbs.ofGrossVehicleWeight.Wewillpayonlyforthosecovered“autos”forwhichyoucarryeitherComprehensiveorSpecifiedCausesofLossCoverage.Wewillpayfortemporarytransportationexpensesincurredduringtheperiodbeginning48hoursafterthetheftandending,regardlessofthepolicy’sexpiration,whenthecovered“auto”isreturnedtouseorwepayforits“loss”.b.Truck;c.Pick-uptruck;U.Panel;ore.Vantypevehicleunder20,000VehicleWeightisdisabled.labormustbeperformeddisablement.andANICCA11501013Page2of4AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANYSECTIONIII—PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,ParagraphA.4.b.—LossofUseExpensesisreplacedbythefollowing:b.LossofUseExpenses—Hired,Rented,orBorrowedAutomobilesWewillpayexpensesforwhichan“insured”becomeslegallyresponsibletopayforlossofuseofavehiclehired,rentedorborrowedwithoutadriverunderawrittenrentalcontractoragreement.Wewillpayforlossofuseexpenses,iicausedby:(1)OtherthanCollision,onlyiftheDeclarationsindicatethatComprehensiveCoverageisprovidedforthevehiclewithdrawnfromservice.(2)SpecifiedCausesofLossonlyiftheDeclarationsindicatethatSpecifiedCausesofLossCoverageisprovidedforthevehiclewithdrawnfromservice.onlyiftheDeclarationsthatCollisionCoverageisforthevehiclewithdrawnHowever,themostwewillpayforanyexpensesforlossofuseis$200perday,toamaximumof$1,500.Ill-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,A.4.c.—Non-TransportationLossofUseisaddedasfollows:c.Non-TransportationLossofUseExpensesWewillpayupto$2,000fornon-transportationexpenseincurredbyyou,becauseof“loss”toacovered“auto”,ifcausedby:(1)OtherthanCollision,onlyiftheDeclarationsindicatethatComprehensiveCoverageisprovidedforthe“auto”withdrawnfromservice;(2)SpecifiedCausesofLossonlyiftheDeclarationsindicatethatSpecifiedCausesofLossCoverageisprovidedforthe“auto”withdrawnfromservice;or(3)CollisiononlyiftheDeclarationsindicatethatCollisionCoverageisprovidedforthe“auto”withdrawnfromservice.Ill-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,A.4.d.—AirbagCoverageisaddedasd.AirbagCoverageWewillpayforthecosttorepair,replace,orresetanairbagthatinflatesforanyreasonotherthanasaresultofacollision,iftheDeclarationsindicatethatthecovered“auto”hasComprehensiveCoverageorSpecifiedCausesofLossCoverage.e.RentalReimbursementCoverageWewillpayupto$75perdayforrentalreimbursementexpensesincurredbyyoufortherentalofan“auto”becauseof“loss”toacovered“auto”thatisa:(1)PrivatePassenger;(2)Truck;(3)Pick-uptruck;(4)Panel;or(5)Vantypevehicleunder20,000lbs.ofGrossVehicleWeight.Paymentappliesinadditiontotheotherwiseapplicableamountofeachcoverageyouhaveonacovered“auto”.Nodeductiblesapplytothiscoverage.SECTIONParagraphfollows:(3)Collisionindicateprovidedfromservice.SECTIONParagraphCoverageIII-PHYSICALDAMAGECOVERAGE,A.4.e.—RentalReimbursementisaddedasfollows:SECTIONParagraphExpensesANICCA11501013Page3of4AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AlaskaNationalINSURANCECOMPANY(1)Wewillpayonlyforthoseexpensesincurredduringthepolicyperiodbeginning24hoursafterthe“loss”andending,regardlessofthepolicy’sexpiration,withthelesserofthefollowingnumberofdays:(a)Thenumberofdaysreasonablyrequiredtorepairorreplacethecovered“auto”.(b)30days.(2)Thiscoveragedoesnotapplywhiletherearespareorreserve“autos”availabletoyouforyouroperations.(3)TheRentalReimbursementCoveragedescribedabovedoesnotapplytoacovered“auto”thatisdescribedordesignatedasacoveted“auto”onRentalReimbursementCoverageFormCA9923.SECTIONIV—BUSINESSAUTOCONDITIONS—ParagraphB.2.—Concealment,MisrepresentationOrFraudisamendedbyaddingUnintentionalFailuretoDiscloseHazardsattheendofParagraphB.2.asfollows:UnintentionalFailuretoDiscloseHazardsIfyouunintentionallyfailtodiscloseanyhazardsexistingattheinceptiondateofyourpolicy,wewillnotdenycoverageunderthisCoverageFormbecauseofsuchfailure.However,thisprovisiondoesnotaffectourtighttocollectadditionalpremiumorexerciseourrightofcancellationornon-renewal.SECTIONIV—BUSINESSAUTOCONDITIONS—ParagraphB.5.b.—OtherInsuranceisreplacedbythefollowing:b.ForHiredAutoPhysicalDamageCoverage,thefollowingaredeemedtobecovered“autos”youown:(1)Anycovered“auto”youlease,hire,tent,orborrow;and(2)Anycovered“auto”hiredorrentedbyyour“employee”underacontractinthatindividual“employee’s”name,withyourpermission,whileperformingdutiesrelatedtotheconductofyourbusiness.However,any“auto”thatisleased,hired,rentedorborrowedwithadriverisnotacovered“auto”.SECTIONV—DEFINITIONS—ParagraphC.—“Bodilyinjury”isreplacedbythefollowing:C.“Bodilyinjury”meansbodilyinjury,sicknessordiseasesustainedbyapersonincludingdeathormentalanguishresultingfromanyofthese.MentalanguishmeansanytypeofmentaloremotionalillnessordiseaseThisendorsementchangesthepolicytowhichitisattachedand,unlessotherwisestated,iseffectiveonthedateissuedat12:01A.M.standardtimeatyourmailingaddressshowninthepolicy.Theinformationbelowisrequiredonlywhenthisendorsementisissuedsubsequenttocommencementofthepolicy.EndorsementEffectiveInsuredPolicyNo.EndorsementNo.CountersignedBy©InsuranceServicesOffice,Inc.,2009ANICCA11501013Page4of4AGENDA ITEM #6. b) Project: Houser Way Intersection Pedestrian Improvements Project - CAG-21-003 Due Date: May 25, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Opening Date: May 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Video Conference) CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Bid Total from Cover Non-Coll Bid Sub Recycle Wage Sched Sign Adden Schedule of Prices Sheet Prop Dec Bond List Mat Comp Prices Page 1 *Includes Sales Tax Active Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 430 1 Puyallup x x x x x x x x x x $1,353,353.00 WA 98371 David Ceccant Nordvind Company 43112 248th Avenue SE 2 Enumclaw x x x x x x x x x x $1,442,432.20 WA 98022 Eric Peterson Northwest Cascade, Inc. P.O. Box 7339 3 Puyallup x x x x x x x x x x $1,282,746.50 WA 98373 Clinton Myers Bidder FORMS Engineer's Estimate $1,092,486.00 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) Project: Houser Way Intersection Pedestrian Improvements Project - CAG-21-003 Due Date: May 25, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Opening Date: May 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Video Conference) CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Bid Total from Cover Non-Coll Bid Sub Recycle Wage Sched Sign Adden Schedule of Prices Sheet Prop Dec Bond List Mat Comp Prices Page 1 *Includes Sales Tax Bidder FORMS R.W. Scott Construction Co. 4005 West Valley Highway, Suite A 4 Auburn x x x x x x x x x x $1,365,324.00 WA 98001 Jeff Scott Westwater Construction Company P.O. Box 59237 5 Renton $1,169,755.00 WA 98058 Michael Caplis Engineer's Estimate $1,092,486.00 AGENDA ITEM #6. b) AB - 2907 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jul 2021 SUBJECT/TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD: Duvall Ave NE - NE 9th St to Sunset Blvd (SR-900) Project, CAG-20-065 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur DEPARTMENT: City Clerk STAFF CONTACT: Jason Seth, City Clerk EXT.: 6502 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Bid Award: $5,218,171.95 Total Budget: $6,061,203 Engineer's Estimate: $6,480,887.94 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City Clerk Division opened bids for the Duvall Ave NE - NE 9th St to Sunset Blvd (SR-900) project, CAG-20- 065, on June 24, 2021. The bids met the following Council criteria: 1) More than one bid was received; 2) The lowest responsive and responsible bid was within the project budget; and 3) There were no irregularities with the lowest responsive and responsible bid. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the Duvall Ave NE - NE 9th St to Sunset Blvd (SR-900) project to lowest responsive and responsible bidder Reed Trucking & Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $5,218,171.95 EXHIBITS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Bid Tab STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award the Duvall Ave NE - NE 9th St to Sunset Blvd (SR-900) project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Reed Trucking & Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $5,218,171.95. AGENDA ITEM #6. c) AGENDA ITEM #6. c) Jason Seth Page 2 of 2 July 12, 2021 This project will provide pedestrian improvements along the east side of Duvall Avenue NE between NE 9th Street and NE 10th Street. The project also includes landscaped medians to help control access at intersections and prevent weaving onto on-coming traffic. The project aims to promote multimodal transportation by improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility and by helping to complete a missing link in the sidewalk and bicycle system network between Sunset Blvd NE and NE 4th Street. Attachments: TIP #20-15 Bid Tabulations Bid Evaluation cc: Martin Pastucha, Public Works Administrator Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director Ron Straka, Utilities Systems Director Vangie Garcia, Transportation Planning Manager Heather Gregersen, Program Development Coordinator II Josef Harnden, Transportation Administrative Secretary I File AGENDA ITEM #6. c) City of Renton | 2021-2026 Transportation Improvement Program TIP #:20-15 Duvall Ave NE Roadway Improvements, NE 7th Pl to NE Sunset Blvd Project City Account #:122702 Planning Area:Highlands, East Plateau Street Classification:Principal Arterial Project Length:0.67 mi Description:Reconstruction/resurfacing of roadway, including new pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage, channelization and bike lanes from NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE. Purpose:To enhance safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles along this corridor. Project Aspects: Maintenance and Preservation, Operations and Safety, Active Transportation Status/ Changes: The City was awarded a TIB grant in the amount of $3,468,289 (2015) for the roadway reconstruction between NE 10th St and NE 12th St, curb, gutter, sidewalk and streetlights on the west side and channelization from NE 12th St to south of the intersection with NE Sunset Blvd. The City was also awarded a Department of Ecology (DOE) grant (2018) in the amount of $1,223,939 for water quality improvements via the installation of water quality treatment facilities and a TIB grant of $500,000 (2018) for non-motorized improvements along the east side of Duvall Ave NE, from NE 9th St to NE 10th St. This project is anticipated to be ready for construction by fall 2020. Funding Status: Fully Funded - CN Planning: Preliminary Engineering $1,485,693 ROW:$164,200 Construction:$6,257,064 Expenditures: Priority Rank 5 For Projects, these expenditures are for the life of the project. For Programs, they are the total expenditures programmed for the 6 years in the TIP, 2021-2026 - 43 - RESOLUTION NO. 4418 AGENDA ITEM #6. c) Bid Due: June 22, 2021 Bid Opening: June 24, 2021 ITEM  NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION SPEC.  SECTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION A1 SPCC PLAN 1‐07 L.S. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $150.00 $150.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A2 MOBILIZATION 1‐09 L.S. 1 $523,800.00 $523,800.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $398,400.00 $398,400.00 $504,351.01 $504,351.01 $420,000.00 $420,000.00 $494,000.00 $494,000.00 $440,000.00 $440,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $577,000.00 $577,000.00 A3 MIN BID REQ ‐ TYPE B PROGRESS SCHEDULE 1‐02 L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A4 PROJECT RED LINE DRAWINGS 1‐05 L.S. 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 A5 CONTRACTOR SURVEYING 1‐05 L.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $60,500.00 $60,500.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $43,860.00 $43,860.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00 A6 ADA FEATURES SURVEYING 1‐05 L.S. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,200.00 $5,200.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,375.00 $5,375.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 A7 UTILITY POTHOLING 1‐07 EA 25 $800.00 $20,000.00 $300.00 $7,500.00 $800.00 $20,000.00 $350.00 $8,750.00 $800.00 $20,000.00 $550.00 $13,750.00 $750.00 $18,750.00 $750.00 $18,750.00 $475.00 $11,875.00 A8 RESOLUTION OF UTILITY CONFLICTS 1‐07 FA 1 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 A9 COVID‐19 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN 1‐07 L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 A10 OTHER TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1‐10 L.S. 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $58,300.00 $58,300.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $384,000.00 $384,000.00 A11 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR 1‐10 L.S. 1 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $135,150.00 $135,150.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $178,000.00 $178,000.00 A12 FLAGGERS 1‐10 HR 3,200 $70.00 $224,000.00 $60.00 $192,000.00 $60.00 $192,000.00 $67.50 $216,000.00 $65.00 $208,000.00 $60.00 $192,000.00 $57.55 $184,160.00 $75.00 $240,000.00 $63.50 $203,200.00 A13 OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR 1‐10 HR 1,000 $70.00 $70,000.00 $65.00 $65,000.00 $60.00 $60,000.00 $67.50 $67,500.00 $83.00 $83,000.00 $60.00 $60,000.00 $67.60 $67,600.00 $52.00 $52,000.00 $85.50 $85,500.00 A14 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS CLASS A1‐10 SF 1,200 $10.00 $12,000.00 $30.00 $36,000.00 $30.00 $36,000.00 $21.00 $25,200.00 $18.00 $21,600.00 $28.00 $33,600.00 $18.50 $22,200.00 $3.00 $3,600.00 $30.00 $36,000.00 A15 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1‐10 HR 8,200 $25.00 $205,000.00 $4.00 $32,800.00 $2.50 $20,500.00 $2.00 $16,400.00 $3.00 $24,600.00 $5.00 $41,000.00 $3.35 $27,470.00 $4.00 $32,800.00 $4.00 $32,800.00 A16 OFF‐DUTY UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER 1‐10 HR 80 $90.00 $7,200.00 $110.00 $8,800.00 $135.00 $10,800.00 $140.00 $11,200.00 $145.00 $11,600.00 $85.00 $6,800.00 $101.00 $8,080.00 $150.00 $12,000.00 $85.00 $6,800.00 A17 SEQUENTIAL ARROW SIGN 1‐10 HR 15,000 $5.00 $75,000.00 $2.00 $30,000.00 $1.50 $22,500.00 $0.66 $9,900.00 $3.00 $45,000.00 $1.00 $15,000.00 $2.25 $33,750.00 $1.00 $15,000.00 $1.30 $19,500.00 A18 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2‐01 ACRE 0.7 $10,400.00 $7,280.00 $20,000.00 $14,000.00 $27,500.00 $19,250.00 $150,000.00 $105,000.00 $22,000.00 $15,400.00 $35,000.00 $24,500.00 $23,000.00 $16,100.00 $50,000.00 $35,000.00 $31,500.00 $22,050.00 A19 REMOVING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2‐02 EACH 9 $700.00 $6,300.00 $800.00 $7,200.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 $190.00 $1,710.00 $250.00 $2,250.00 $1,150.00 $10,350.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $250.00 $2,250.00 A20 REMOVING STORM SEWER PIPE 2‐02 L.F. 230 $8.00 $1,840.00 $25.00 $5,750.00 $16.00 $3,680.00 $20.00 $4,600.00 $58.00 $13,340.00 $15.00 $3,450.00 $30.00 $6,900.00 $40.00 $9,200.00 $12.00 $2,760.00 A21 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS 2‐02 L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $40,275.00 $40,275.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $220,000.00 $220,000.00 A22 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 2‐02 S.Y. 570 $45.00 $25,650.00 $30.00 $17,100.00 $16.00 $9,120.00 $14.00 $7,980.00 $13.50 $7,695.00 $30.00 $17,100.00 $14.25 $8,122.50 $30.00 $17,100.00 $10.75 $6,127.50 A23 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER 2‐02 L.F. 1,200 $20.00 $24,000.00 $15.00 $18,000.00 $7.00 $8,400.00 $6.00 $7,200.00 $8.00 $9,600.00 $14.00 $16,800.00 $7.70 $9,240.00 $15.00 $18,000.00 $4.00 $4,800.00 A24 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB 2‐02 L.F. 190 $15.00 $2,850.00 $10.00 $1,900.00 $7.00 $1,330.00 $7.00 $1,330.00 $7.50 $1,425.00 $12.00 $2,280.00 $8.55 $1,624.50 $15.00 $2,850.00 $4.00 $760.00 A25 REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT 2‐02 S.Y. 1,230 $13.00 $15,990.00 $25.00 $30,750.00 $14.00 $17,220.00 $12.00 $14,760.00 $5.90 $7,257.00 $25.00 $30,750.00 $50.55 $62,176.50 $40.00 $49,200.00 $17.50 $21,525.00 A26 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2‐03 C.Y. 6,850 $30.00 $205,500.00 $50.00 $342,500.00 $45.00 $308,250.00 $60.00 $411,000.00 $33.00 $226,050.00 $40.00 $274,000.00 $43.00 $294,550.00 $50.00 $342,500.00 $35.00 $239,750.00 A27 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2‐03 TON 530 $30.00 $15,900.00 $35.00 $18,550.00 $27.00 $14,310.00 $30.00 $15,900.00 $19.00 $10,070.00 $34.00 $18,020.00 $54.63 $28,953.90 $45.00 $23,850.00 $40.00 $21,200.00 A28 UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2‐03 C.Y. 400 $40.00 $16,000.00 $60.00 $24,000.00 $100.00 $40,000.00 $50.00 $20,000.00 $172.00 $68,800.00 $50.00 $20,000.00 $60.50 $24,200.00 $55.00 $22,000.00 $92.00 $36,800.00 A29 SUBGRADE PREPARATION 2‐06 S.Y. 15,000 $5.00 $75,000.00 $3.00 $45,000.00 $4.00 $60,000.00 $1.50 $22,500.00 $3.25 $48,750.00 $2.25 $33,750.00 $1.75 $26,250.00 $10.00 $150,000.00 $1.00 $15,000.00 A30 WATER 2‐07 MGAL 200 $25.00 $5,000.00 $50.00 $10,000.00 $22.75 $4,550.00 $60.00 $12,000.00 $38.50 $7,700.00 $40.00 $8,000.00 $56.00 $11,200.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $44.00 $8,800.00 A31 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS B INCL. HAUL 2‐09 C.Y. 330 $50.00 $16,500.00 $70.00 $23,100.00 $42.00 $13,860.00 $17.00 $5,610.00 $26.00 $8,580.00 $5.00 $1,650.00 $39.54 $13,048.20 $85.00 $28,050.00 $38.00 $12,540.00 A32 GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR WALL 2‐09 C.Y. 30 $90.00 $2,700.00 $50.00 $1,500.00 $80.00 $2,400.00 $60.00 $1,800.00 $50.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $97.25 $2,917.50 $150.00 $4,500.00 $68.00 $2,040.00 A33 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE 2‐12 S.Y. 60 $15.00 $900.00 $15.00 $900.00 $5.00 $300.00 $11.50 $690.00 $9.00 $540.00 $15.00 $900.00 $16.75 $1,005.00 $20.00 $1,200.00 $7.50 $450.00 A34 ASPHALT PULVERIZATION FOR USE AS RECYCLED PAVEMENT 4‐01 S.Y. 15,000 $15.00 $225,000.00 $2.00 $30,000.00 $5.50 $82,500.00 $3.00 $45,000.00 $11.40 $171,000.00 $2.25 $33,750.00 $2.60 $39,000.00 $2.50 $37,500.00 $7.00 $105,000.00 A35 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 4‐04 TON 2,570 $60.00 $154,200.00 $40.00 $102,800.00 $50.50 $129,785.00 $38.00 $97,660.00 $28.00 $71,960.00 $36.00 $92,520.00 $48.25 $124,002.50 $60.00 $154,200.00 $36.00 $92,520.00 A36 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 5‐04 S.Y. 3,500 $7.00 $24,500.00 $7.00 $24,500.00 $7.00 $24,500.00 $10.00 $35,000.00 $9.75 $34,125.00 $6.00 $21,000.00 $6.70 $23,450.00 $8.00 $28,000.00 $3.50 $12,250.00 A37 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG 64‐22 5‐04 TON 7,410 $150.00 $1,111,500.00 $103.00 $763,230.00 $88.75 $657,637.50 $93.00 $689,130.00 $92.00 $681,720.00 $92.00 $681,720.00 $99.70 $738,777.00 $93.00 $689,130.00 $96.00 $711,360.00 A38 ROADWAY CORE 5‐04 EACH 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 $975.00 $9,750.00 $280.00 $2,800.00 $580.00 $5,800.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $560.00 $5,600.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 A39 ASPHALT COST PRICE ADJUSTMENT 5‐04 CALC. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 A40 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT 5‐04 CALC. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A41 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT 5‐04 CALC. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A42 CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR RETAINING WALL 3A 6‐11 S.Y. 250 $150.00 $37,500.00 $200.00 $50,000.00 $870.00 $217,500.00 $750.00 $187,500.00 $1,425.00 $356,250.00 $1,500.00 $375,000.00 $1,240.40 $310,100.00 $750.00 $187,500.00 $1,540.00 $385,000.00 A43 SOLID WALL PVC STORM PIPE 4 IN. DIAM. 7‐04 L.F. 190 $50.00 $9,500.00 $20.00 $3,800.00 $83.00 $15,770.00 $31.00 $5,890.00 $70.00 $13,300.00 $45.00 $8,550.00 $97.50 $18,525.00 $100.00 $19,000.00 $52.00 $9,880.00 A44 POLYPROPYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM.7‐04 L.F. 2,910 $100.00 $291,000.00 $55.00 $160,050.00 $81.00 $235,710.00 $82.00 $238,620.00 $62.00 $180,420.00 $100.00 $291,000.00 $94.50 $274,995.00 $110.00 $320,100.00 $70.00 $203,700.00 A45 POLYPROPYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 18 IN. DIAM.7‐04 L.F. 130 $120.00 $15,600.00 $75.00 $9,750.00 $126.00 $16,380.00 $135.00 $17,550.00 $90.00 $11,700.00 $130.00 $16,900.00 $121.00 $15,730.00 $200.00 $26,000.00 $95.00 $12,350.00 A46 POLYPROPYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 24 IN. DIAM.7‐04 L.F. 70 $200.00 $14,000.00 $120.00 $8,400.00 $223.00 $15,610.00 $300.00 $21,000.00 $137.50 $9,625.00 $170.00 $11,900.00 $201.00 $14,070.00 $220.00 $15,400.00 $137.00 $9,590.00 A47 TR. 1 ST. STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM. 7‐04 L.F. 10 $150.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $173.00 $1,730.00 $64.00 $640.00 $135.00 $1,350.00 $140.00 $1,400.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 $285.00 $2,850.00 $96.00 $960.00 A48 DUCTILE IRON SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM. 7‐04 L.F. 280 $150.00 $42,000.00 $90.00 $25,200.00 $105.00 $29,400.00 $112.00 $31,360.00 $124.00 $34,720.00 $170.00 $47,600.00 $225.00 $63,000.00 $150.00 $42,000.00 $140.00 $39,200.00 A49 CONCRETE INLET 7‐05 EACH 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1,445.00 $1,445.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 A50 CATCH BASIN TYPE 17‐05 EACH 25 $2,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,400.00 $35,000.00 $1,825.00 $45,625.00 $1,500.00 $37,500.00 $1,735.00 $43,375.00 $1,700.00 $42,500.00 $1,590.00 $39,750.00 $2,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,550.00 $38,750.00 A51 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1L 7‐05 EACH 5 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,550.00 $7,750.00 $2,025.00 $10,125.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,640.00 $8,200.00 $1,900.00 $9,500.00 $1,895.00 $9,475.00 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 $1,750.00 $8,750.00 A52 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DIAM. 7‐05 EACH 2 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $4,525.00 $9,050.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,200.00 $8,400.00 A53 CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 7‐05 EACH 11 $1,000.00 $11,000.00 $1,500.00 $16,500.00 $825.00 $9,075.00 $900.00 $9,900.00 $725.00 $7,975.00 $3,000.00 $33,000.00 $1,255.00 $13,805.00 $500.00 $5,500.00 $1,100.00 $12,100.00 A54 ADJUST CATCH BASIN 7‐05 EACH 5 $600.00 $3,000.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $750.00 $3,750.00 $650.00 $3,250.00 $340.00 $1,700.00 $750.00 $3,750.00 $645.00 $3,225.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $535.00 $2,675.00 A55 ADJUST VALVE BOX 7‐05 EACH 18 $600.00 $10,800.00 $500.00 $9,000.00 $600.00 $10,800.00 $300.00 $5,400.00 $345.00 $6,210.00 $650.00 $11,700.00 $545.00 $9,810.00 $500.00 $9,000.00 $535.00 $9,630.00 A56 ADJUST MANHOLE 7‐05 EACH 5 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $750.00 $3,750.00 $750.00 $3,750.00 $650.00 $3,250.00 $505.00 $2,525.00 $750.00 $3,750.00 $644.00 $3,220.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $535.00 $2,675.00 A57 MANHOLE #33 PARTIAL REPLACEMENT 7‐05 EACH 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $17,670.00 $17,670.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $9,900.00 $9,900.00 A58 TRENCH DRAIN 7‐05 L.F. 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 $200.00 $10,000.00 $300.00 $15,000.00 $280.00 $14,000.00 $133.00 $6,650.00 $225.00 $11,250.00 $220.00 $11,000.00 $280.00 $14,000.00 $240.00 $12,000.00 A59 TREE BOX BIOFILTRATION UNIT 7‐06 EACH 13 $28,900.00 $375,700.00 $26,000.00 $338,000.00 $23,400.00 $304,200.00 $25,000.00 $325,000.00 $26,000.00 $338,000.00 $22,000.00 $286,000.00 $24,410.00 $317,330.00 $25,000.00 $325,000.00 $26,000.00 $338,000.00 A60 FILLING PIPE WITH CDF 7‐08 C.Y. 42 $250.00 $10,500.00 $300.00 $12,600.00 $240.00 $10,080.00 $550.00 $23,100.00 $520.00 $21,840.00 $400.00 $16,800.00 $230.00 $9,660.00 $200.00 $8,400.00 $280.00 $11,760.00 A61 SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B7‐08 S.F. 750 $2.00 $1,500.00 $1.00 $750.00 $1.00 $750.00 $1.25 $937.50 $19.50 $14,625.00 $1.00 $750.00 $8.35 $6,262.50 $5.00 $3,750.00 $2.00 $1,500.00 A62 TELEVISION INSPECTION 7‐08 L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $19,200.00 $19,200.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $6,650.00 $6,650.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $8,100.00 $8,100.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 A63 EROSION CONTROL AND WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION 8‐01 L.S. 1 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $14,570.00 $14,570.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 A64 SILT FENCE 8‐01 L.F. 4,300 $7.00 $30,100.00 $6.00 $25,800.00 $5.75 $24,725.00 $6.00 $25,800.00 $6.25 $26,875.00 $4.25 $18,275.00 $5.70 $24,510.00 $10.00 $43,000.00 $5.00 $21,500.00 A65 INLET PROTECTION 8‐01 EACH 30 $100.00 $3,000.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $90.00 $2,700.00 $105.00 $3,150.00 $75.00 $2,250.00 $70.00 $2,100.00 $51.00 $1,530.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $75.00 $2,250.00 A66 SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING 8‐02 SY 970 $12.00 $11,640.00 $5.00 $4,850.00 $3.75 $3,637.50 $2.00 $1,940.00 $4.00 $3,880.00 $4.00 $3,880.00 $2.05 $1,988.50 $3.00 $2,910.00 $2.00 $1,940.00 A67 TOPSOIL TYPE A8‐02 C.Y. 480 $60.00 $28,800.00 $53.00 $25,440.00 $46.50 $22,320.00 $48.00 $23,040.00 $48.00 $23,040.00 $50.00 $24,000.00 $48.15 $23,112.00 $50.00 $24,000.00 $48.50 $23,280.00 A68 PLANTS FOR LANDSCAPING 8‐02 L.S. 1 $90,200.00 $90,200.00 $77,000.00 $77,000.00 $73,000.00 $73,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $103,500.00 $103,500.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $104,000.00 $104,000.00 A69 BARK MULCH 8‐02 C.Y. 100 $50.00 $5,000.00 $63.00 $6,300.00 $46.50 $4,650.00 $61.50 $6,150.00 $48.00 $4,800.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $61.60 $6,160.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $62.00 $6,200.00 A70 SYNTHETIC TURF 8‐02 S.F. 550 $20.00 $11,000.00 $25.00 $13,750.00 $25.00 $13,750.00 $18.50 $10,175.00 $22.00 $12,100.00 $20.00 $11,000.00 $18.50 $10,175.00 $25.00 $13,750.00 $18.50 $10,175.00 A71 IRRIGATION SYSTEM RESTORATION 8‐03 L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $6,700.00 $6,700.00 $4,470.00 $4,470.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $6,720.00 $6,720.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 A72 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 8‐03 L.S. 1 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $27,325.00 $27,325.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $37,110.00 $37,110.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 A73 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 8‐04 L.F. 4,600 $60.00 $276,000.00 $25.00 $115,000.00 $30.50 $140,300.00 $37.00 $170,200.00 $23.25 $106,950.00 $35.00 $161,000.00 $29.80 $137,080.00 $30.00 $138,000.00 $25.75 $118,450.00 A74 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB 8‐04 L.F. 160 $50.00 $8,000.00 $40.00 $6,400.00 $38.75 $6,200.00 $37.00 $5,920.00 $24.00 $3,840.00 $38.00 $6,080.00 $40.50 $6,480.00 $35.00 $5,600.00 $27.25 $4,360.00 A75 CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CURB 8‐04 L.F. 145 $75.00 $10,875.00 $30.00 $4,350.00 $29.00 $4,205.00 $28.00 $4,060.00 $26.50 $3,842.50 $35.00 $5,075.00 $43.10 $6,249.50 $25.00 $3,625.00 $32.50 $4,712.50 A76 EXTRUDED CURB 8‐04 L.F. 2,350 $20.00 $47,000.00 $10.00 $23,500.00 $8.75 $20,562.50 $9.00 $21,150.00 $9.00 $21,150.00 $9.00 $21,150.00 $8.85 $20,797.50 $10.00 $23,500.00 $9.00 $21,150.00 A77 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TYPE 18‐06 S.Y. 160 $150.00 $24,000.00 $90.00 $14,400.00 $140.00 $22,400.00 $75.00 $12,000.00 $90.47 $14,475.20 $95.00 $15,200.00 $115.15 $18,424.00 $75.00 $12,000.00 $105.00 $16,800.00 A78 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE 18‐09 HUND 11 $350.00 $3,850.00 $300.00 $3,300.00 $220.00 $2,420.00 $225.00 $2,475.00 $223.50 $2,458.50 $225.00 $2,475.00 $224.00 $2,464.00 $250.00 $2,750.00 $226.00 $2,486.00 A79 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE 28‐09 HUND 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $350.00 $1,050.00 $300.00 $900.00 $310.00 $930.00 $310.00 $930.00 $325.00 $975.00 $310.25 $930.75 $300.00 $900.00 $313.00 $939.00 A80 CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 48‐12 L.F. 30 $100.00 $3,000.00 $75.00 $2,250.00 $108.00 $3,240.00 $81.00 $2,430.00 $82.00 $2,460.00 $80.00 $2,400.00 $81.30 $2,439.00 $90.00 $2,700.00 $99.00 $2,970.00 A81 MONUMENT CASE AND COVER 8‐13 EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 $950.00 $1,900.00 $825.00 $1,650.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $860.00 $1,720.00 $3,250.00 $6,500.00 $725.00 $1,450.00 A82 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 8‐14 S.Y. 1,810 $125.00 $226,250.00 $60.00 $108,600.00 $59.00 $106,790.00 $51.00 $92,310.00 $55.00 $99,550.00 $65.00 $117,650.00 $68.35 $123,713.50 $55.00 $99,550.00 $57.50 $104,075.00 A83 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL 8‐14 EACH 11 $4,500.00 $49,500.00 $3,000.00 $33,000.00 $1,740.00 $19,140.00 $3,300.00 $36,300.00 $2,100.00 $23,100.00 $1,300.00 $14,300.00 $2,360.00 $25,960.00 $3,500.00 $38,500.00 $2,200.00 $24,200.00 A84 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTIONAL 8‐14 EACH 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $1,740.00 $1,740.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $2,568.00 $2,568.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 A85 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, COMPLETE 8‐20 L.S. 1 $462,000.00 $462,000.00 $825,000.00 $825,000.00 $724,000.00 $724,000.00 $650,000.00 $650,000.00 $725,000.00 $725,000.00 $825,000.00 $825,000.00 $728,270.00 $728,270.00 $875,000.00 $875,000.00 $740,000.00 $740,000.00 A86 PERMANENT SIGNING 8‐21 L.S. 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,500.00 $20,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $12,815.00 $12,815.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 A87 REMOVING PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8‐22 L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,010.00 $1,010.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A88 PAINT LINE 8‐22 L.F. 12,300 $6.00 $73,800.00 $0.60 $7,380.00 $0.40 $4,920.00 $0.38 $4,674.00 $0.40 $4,920.00 $0.50 $6,150.00 $0.38 $4,674.00 $0.50 $6,150.00 $0.38 $4,674.00 A89 PAINTED WIDE LANE LINE 8‐22 L.F. 350 $8.00 $2,800.00 $0.75 $262.50 $0.55 $192.50 $0.56 $196.00 $0.60 $210.00 $0.55 $192.50 $0.56 $196.00 $1.00 $350.00 $0.56 $196.00 A90 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 8‐22 EACH 27 $290.00 $7,830.00 $200.00 $5,400.00 $165.00 $4,455.00 $170.00 $4,590.00 $167.50 $4,522.50 $175.00 $4,725.00 $168.00 $4,536.00 $200.00 $5,400.00 $169.00 $4,563.00 A91 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 8‐22 S.F. 500 $12.00 $6,000.00 $13.00 $6,500.00 $10.75 $5,375.00 $11.00 $5,500.00 $11.00 $5,500.00 $11.00 $5,500.00 $11.10 $5,550.00 $12.00 $6,000.00 $11.00 $5,500.00 A92 PLASTIC STOP LINE 8‐22 L.F. 240 $18.00 $4,320.00 $16.00 $3,840.00 $13.50 $3,240.00 $14.00 $3,360.00 $14.00 $3,360.00 $14.00 $3,360.00 $13.95 $3,348.00 $15.00 $3,600.00 $14.00 $3,360.00 A93 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL 8‐22 EACH 20 $280.00 $5,600.00 $200.00 $4,000.00 $110.00 $2,200.00 $111.00 $2,220.00 $110.00 $2,200.00 $115.00 $2,300.00 $110.85 $2,217.00 $125.00 $2,500.00 $112.00 $2,240.00 A94 PLASTIC TRAFFIC LETTER 8‐22 EACH 8 $135.00 $1,080.00 $200.00 $1,600.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $155.00 $1,240.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $152.00 $1,216.00 A95 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING ‐ SHORT DURATION 8‐23 L.F. 31,500 $1.00 $31,500.00 $0.20 $6,300.00 $0.45 $14,175.00 $0.25 $7,875.00 $0.30 $9,450.00 $0.30 $9,450.00 $0.28 $8,820.00 $0.50 $15,750.00 $0.17 $5,355.00 A96 FUEL COST ADJUSTMENT 1‐09 CALC. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A97 STEEL COST ADJUSTMENT 1‐09 CALC. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A98 MAILBOX SUPPORT, TYPE 18‐18 EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 $750.00 $750.00 $740.00 $740.00 $850.00 $850.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $750.00 $750.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 TOTAL FOR SCHEDULE A = $5,766,405.00 $4,689,752.50 $4,813,375.00 $4,894,303.51 $4,996,940.70 $5,015,617.50 $5,135,652.85 $5,383,415.00 $5,783,269.00 *NOTE: All applicable sales tax shall be included in the unit and lump sum bid price per section 1‐07.2(1) and WAC 458‐20‐171. ITEM  NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION SPEC.  SECTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION B1 MOBILIZATION  AND  DEMOLITION  (NOT  TO EXCEED 10% OF TOTAL OF  BID SCHEDULE B) 7‐16 L.S. 1 $49,390.00 $49,390.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 B2 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS 7‐16 L.S. 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,150.00 $3,150.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 B3 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION 7‐16 TON 100 $50.00 $5,000.00 $60.00 $6,000.00 $63.00 $6,300.00 $63.00 $6,300.00 $77.50 $7,750.00 $75.00 $7,500.00 $111.00 $11,100.00 $65.00 $6,500.00 $59.00 $5,900.00 B4 SELECT IMPORTED TRENCH BACKFILL 7‐16 TON 1,265 $40.00 $50,600.00 $35.00 $44,275.00 $10.00 $12,650.00 $51.00 $64,515.00 $22.50 $28,462.50 $50.00 $63,250.00 $29.00 $36,685.00 $40.00 $50,600.00 $40.00 $50,600.00 B6 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8‐INCH CL 52 WATER MAIN WITH  RESTRAINED‐JOINT FITTINGS AND POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT 7‐16 L.F. 20 $200.00 $4,000.00 $140.00 $2,800.00 $245.00 $4,900.00 $185.00 $3,700.00 $232.50 $4,650.00 $175.00 $3,500.00 $381.00 $7,620.00 $400.00 $8,000.00 $169.00 $3,380.00 B7 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12‐INCH CL 52 WATER MAIN WITH  RESTRAINED‐JOINT FITTINGS AND POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT 7‐16 L.F. 62 $250.00 $15,500.00 $125.00 $7,750.00 $180.00 $11,160.00 $150.00 $9,300.00 $178.00 $11,036.00 $175.00 $10,850.00 $185.50 $11,501.00 $200.00 $12,400.00 $149.00 $9,238.00 B8 FURNISH AND INSTALL 16‐INCH CL 52 WATER MAIN WITH  RESTRAINED‐JOINT FITTINGS AND POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT 7‐16 L.F. 740 $300.00 $222,000.00 $135.00 $99,900.00 $189.00 $139,860.00 $160.00 $118,400.00 $178.00 $131,720.00 $190.00 $140,600.00 $143.55 $106,227.00 $200.00 $148,000.00 $168.00 $124,320.00 B9 ADDITIONAL DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS 7‐16 LBS 3600 $5.00 $18,000.00 $5.00 $18,000.00 $4.25 $15,300.00 $6.00 $21,600.00 $6.75 $24,300.00 $4.00 $14,400.00 $4.35 $15,660.00 $1.00 $3,600.00 $7.00 $25,200.00 B10 CONCRETE FOR THRUST BLOCKING AND DEAD‐MAN ANCHOR BLOCKS 7‐16 C.Y. 27 $350.00 $9,450.00 $100.00 $2,700.00 $415.00 $11,205.00 $315.00 $8,505.00 $170.00 $4,590.00 $500.00 $13,500.00 $222.55 $6,008.85 $250.00 $6,750.00 $550.00 $14,850.00 B11 CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER MAIN 7‐16 EACH 4 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,500.00 $14,000.00 $3,100.00 $12,400.00 $3,750.00 $15,000.00 $2,950.00 $11,800.00 $4,500.00 $18,000.00 $4,605.00 $18,420.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 B12 CUT AND CAP EXISTING WATER MAIN AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER  FACILITIES 7‐16 EACH 11 $5,000.00 $55,000.00 $650.00 $7,150.00 $400.00 $4,400.00 $1,100.00 $12,100.00 $700.00 $7,700.00 $1,000.00 $11,000.00 $1,195.00 $13,145.00 $2,500.00 $27,500.00 $925.00 $10,175.00 B14 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8‐INCH GATE VALVE ASSEMBLY 7‐16 EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,400.00 $2,800.00 $1,650.00 $3,300.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,120.00 $4,240.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $1,915.00 $3,830.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $1,925.00 $3,850.00 B15 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12‐INCH GATE VALVE ASSEMBLY 7‐16 EACH 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,850.00 $2,850.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $3,330.00 $3,330.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,265.00 $3,265.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,125.00 $3,125.00 B16 FURNISH AND INSTALL 16‐INCH GATE VALVE ASSEMBLY 7‐16 EACH 1 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,425.00 $8,425.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,350.00 $9,350.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,020.00 $9,020.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,925.00 $8,925.00 B17 FURNISH AND INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ON NEW WATER MAIN 7‐16 EACH 2 $7,000.00 $14,000.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $7,400.00 $14,800.00 $8,250.00 $16,500.00 $9,375.00 $18,750.00 $9,000.00 $18,000.00 $9,780.00 $19,560.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $8,100.00 $16,200.00 B18 FURNISH AND INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ON EXISTING WATER  MAIN INCLUDING WET TAP BY APPROVED WET‐ TOP CONTRACTOR 7‐16 EACH 7.0 $9,000.00 $63,000.00 $8,000.00 $56,000.00 $9,350.00 $65,450.00 $9,250.00 $64,750.00 $13,900.00 $97,300.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00 $9,675.00 $67,725.00 $12,500.00 $87,500.00 $9,450.00 $66,150.00 B19 FURNISH AND INSTALL 1‐INCH WATER SERVICE CONNECTION 7‐16 EACH 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $4,690.00 $4,690.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $4,480.00 $4,480.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00 B20 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (AND TESC) PLAN AND  IMPLEMENTATION 7‐16 L.S. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $250.00 $250.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $500.00 $500.00 $3,450.00 $3,450.00 B21 FURNISH AND INSTALL 2‐INCH PERMANENT BLOW‐OFF ASSEMBLY 7‐16 EACH 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,370.00 $1,370.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,980.00 $1,980.00 $6,415.00 $6,415.00 $3,625.00 $3,625.00 Subtotal for Schedule B = $547,240.00 $311,075.00 $346,100.00 $374,220.00 $410,538.50 $435,650.00 $354,176.85 $439,765.00 $403,113.00 Sales Tax (10.1%) = $55,271.24 $31,418.58 $34,956.10 $37,796.22 $41,464.39 $44,000.65 $35,771.86 $44,416.27 $40,714.41 TOTAL FOR SCHEDULE B = $602,511.24 $342,493.58 $381,056.10 $412,016.22 $452,002.89 $479,650.65 $389,948.71 $484,181.27 $443,827.41 *NOTE: All applicable sales tax shall be included in the unit and lump sum bid price per section 1‐07.2(1) and WAC 458‐20‐171. ITEM  NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION SPEC.  SECTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION UNIT PRICE* EXTENSION C1 SPCC PLAN 1‐07 L.S. 1 $200.00 $200.00 $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $150.00 $150.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $350.00 $350.00 C2 MOBILIZATION 1‐09 L.S. 1 $9,230.00 $9,230.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,400.00 $20,400.00 $500.00 $500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $11,978.62 $11,978.62 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 C3 JOINT UTILITY TRENCH 8‐31 L.F. 180 $40.00 $7,200.00 $100.00 $18,000.00 $92.00 $16,560.00 $150.00 $27,000.00 $78.00 $14,040.00 $100.00 $18,000.00 $150.00 $27,000.00 $175.00 $31,500.00 $38.00 $6,840.00 C4 LATERAL TRENCH 8‐31 L.F.1,150 $35.00 $40,250.00 $75.00 $86,250.00 $88.00 $101,200.00 $50.00 $57,500.00 $89.00 $102,350.00 $80.00 $92,000.00 $103.35 $118,852.50 $125.00 $143,750.00 $30.00 $34,500.00 C5 INSTALL VAULT ‐ PSE TYPE 2'6"x2'6"x2'0" 8‐31 EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,200.00 $4,400.00 $325.00 $650.00 $1,825.00 $3,650.00 $2,200.00 $4,400.00 $906.00 $1,812.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 C6 INSTALL VAULT ‐ PSE TYPE 4'8"x7'0"x5'8" 8‐31 EACH 4 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,675.00 $18,700.00 $1,700.00 $6,800.00 $2,435.00 $9,740.00 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 $1,110.00 $4,440.00 $1,250.00 $5,000.00 $2,400.00 $9,600.00 C7 INSTALL VAULT ‐ PSE TYPE 5'3"x2'3"x2'9" 8‐31 EACH 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,925.00 $2,925.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $2,335.00 $2,335.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,110.00 $1,110.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 C8 INSTALL VAULT ‐ COMCAST TYPE 1'6"x3'0" PEDESTAL 8‐31 EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $750.00 $750.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $200.00 $200.00 $735.00 $735.00 $900.00 $900.00 $793.00 $793.00 $750.00 $750.00 $1,125.00 $1,125.00 C9 INSTALL CONDUIT PIPE ‐ 2 IN. DIAM. ‐ PSE 8‐31 L.F. 30 $4.00 $120.00 $12.00 $360.00 $3.25 $97.50 $11.00 $330.00 $3.25 $97.50 $4.00 $120.00 $3.65 $109.50 $5.00 $150.00 $3.50 $105.00 C10 INSTALL CONDUIT PIPE ‐ 3 IN. DIAM. ‐ PSE 8‐31 L.F. 270 $4.00 $1,080.00 $13.00 $3,510.00 $4.25 $1,147.50 $4.00 $1,080.00 $4.50 $1,215.00 $5.00 $1,350.00 $4.85 $1,309.50 $7.00 $1,890.00 $4.75 $1,282.50 C11 INSTALL CONDUIT PIPE ‐ 4 IN. DIAM. ‐ PSE 8‐31 L.F. 3280 $5.00 $16,400.00 $11.00 $36,080.00 $5.00 $16,400.00 $3.00 $9,840.00 $5.00 $16,400.00 $6.00 $19,680.00 $6.00 $19,680.00 $8.00 $26,240.00 $6.00 $19,680.00 C12 INSTALL CONDUIT PIPE ‐ 6 IN. DIAM. ‐ PSE 8‐31 L.F. 220 $6.00 $1,320.00 $22.00 $4,840.00 $5.50 $1,210.00 $5.00 $1,100.00 $5.50 $1,210.00 $9.00 $1,980.00 $7.80 $1,716.00 $10.00 $2,200.00 $7.75 $1,705.00 C13 INSTALL CONDUIT PIPE ‐ 4 IN. DIAM. ‐ COMCAST 8‐31 L.F. 180 $5.00 $900.00 $11.00 $1,980.00 $5.00 $900.00 $4.00 $720.00 $5.00 $900.00 $6.00 $1,080.00 $6.00 $1,080.00 $8.00 $1,440.00 $6.00 $1,080.00 Subtotal for Schedule C = $101,700.00 $168,870.00 $186,140.00 $107,270.00 $163,672.50 $169,610.00 $190,131.12 $221,420.00 $89,467.50 Sales Tax (10.1%) = $10,271.70 $17,055.87 $18,800.14 $10,834.27 $16,530.92 $17,130.61 $19,203.24 $22,363.42 $9,036.22 TOTAL FOR SCHEDULE C = $111,971.70 $185,925.87 $204,940.14 $118,104.27 $180,203.42 $186,740.61 $209,334.36 $243,783.42 $98,503.72 *NOTE: All applicable sales tax shall be included in the unit and lump sum bid price per section 1‐07.2(1) and WAC 458‐20‐171. BID SUMMARY Total of Schedule A (Brought forward)$5,766,405.00 $4,689,752.50 $4,813,375.00 $4,894,303.51 $4,996,940.70 $5,015,617.50 $5,135,652.85 $5,383,415.00 $5,783,269.00 Total of Schedule B (Brought forward)$602,511.24 $342,493.58 $381,056.10 $412,016.22 $452,002.89 $479,650.65 $389,948.71 $484,181.27 $443,827.41 Total of Schedule C (Brought forward)$111,971.70 $185,925.87 $204,940.14 $118,104.27 $180,203.42 $186,740.61 $209,334.36 $243,783.42 $98,503.72 TOTAL BID AMOUNT $6,480,887.94 $5,218,171.95 $5,399,371.24 $5,424,424.00 $5,629,147.01 $5,682,008.76 $5,734,935.92 $6,111,379.69 $6,325,600.13 SCHEDULE A ‐ ROAD, DRAINAGE, ILLUMINATION Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc BID TABULATIONS Duvall Avenue NE, CAG‐20‐065 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI) Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc SCHEDULE B ‐ WATER MAIN ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI) Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc SCHEDULE C – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI) Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc Duvall Avenue NE TED4004100 Page 1 of 1 Bid Tabulations 2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. c) City of Renton Bid Due Date: June 22, 2021; Bid Opening Date: June 24, 2021 Duvall Avenue NE CAG-20-065 Duvall Avenue NE Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI)Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc 1a The Bidder is not prequalified when so required;N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1b The authorized Proposal form furnished by the Contracting Agency is not used or is altered;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1c The completed Proposal form contains any unauthorized additions, deletions, alternate Bids, or conditions;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1d The Bidder adds provisions reserving the right to reject or accept the award, or enter into the Contract;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1e A price per unit cannot be determined from the Bid Proposal; NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1f The Proposal form is not properly executed;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1g The Bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Subcontractor list, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1h The Bidder fails to submit or properly complete a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Certification, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6;N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1i The Bidder fails to submit written confirmation from each DBE firm listed on the Bidder's completed DBE Utilization Certification that they are in agreement with the bidders DBE participation commitment, if applicable as required in Section 1-02.6, or if the written confirmation that is submitted fails to meet the requirements of the Special Provisions; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1j The Bidder fails to submit DBE Good Faith Effort documentation, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to demonstrate that a Good Faith Effort to meet the Condition of Award was made; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1k The Bidder fails to submit a DBE Bid Item Breakdown form, if applicable, as required in Section 1-02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to meet the requirements of the Special Provisions; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1l The Bidder fails to submit DBE Trucking Credit Forms, if applicable, as required in Section 1- 02.6, or if the documentation that is submitted fails to meet the requirements of the Special Provisions; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1m The Bid Proposal does not constitute a definite and unqualified offer to meet the material terms of the Bid invitation; or NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1n More than one Proposal is submitted for the same project from a Bidder under the same or different names.NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 2a The Proposal does not include a unit price for every Bid item;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 2b Any of the unit prices are excessively unbalanced (either above or below the amount of a reasonable Bid) to the potential detriment of the Contracting Agency;TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 2c Receipt of Addenda is not acknowledged;NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 2d A member of a joint venture or partnership and the joint venture or partnership submit Proposals for the same project (in such an instance, both Bids may be rejected); or NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 2e If Proposal form entries are not made in ink.NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 3. A Proposal may be considered irregular and may be rejected if: 3a The Bidder fails to submit with their Bid Proposal, evidence of signatory’s authority to sign the Bid Proposal on behalf of the business entity, as required in Section 1-02.6 (below). NO - signed by president. Signatory's authority evidence. NO - signed by vice president. Signatory's authority evidence.NO - signed by president. NO - signed by CEO. Signatory's authority evidence. NO - Signed by president.NO - signed by president. Signatory's authority evidence. NO - signed by president. Signatory's authority evidence. NO - signed by vice president. Signatory's authority evidence. Proposal Signed by Shawn Reed Matthew Wagester David Ceccanti Jacob Cimmer Jared Rodarte Mark Pivetta Michael Caplis Clinton Myers The Contracting Agency will accept only those Proposals properly executed on the physical forms it provides, or electronic forms that the Bidder has been authorized to access. Unless it approves in writing, the Contracting Agency will not accept Proposals on forms attached to the Plans and stamped “Informational”. All prices shall be in legible figures (not words) written in ink or typed, and expressed in U.S. dollars and cents. The Proposal shall include: 1 A unit price for each item (omitting digits more than four places to the right of the decimal point),YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2 An extension for each unit price (omitting digits more than two places to the right of the decimal point), and YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 3 The Total Bid Amount (the sum of all extensions).YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 4 If a minimum bid amount has been established for any item, the unit or lump sum price must equal or exceed the minimum amount stated.YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 5 Any correction to a bid made by interlineation, alteration, or erasure, shall be initialed by the signer of the bid.YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES In the space provided on the signature sheet, the Bidder shall confirm that all Addenda have been received. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES The Bidder shall submit with the Bid a list of: 1 1. Subcontractors who will perform the work of heating, ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing as described in RCW 18.106 and electrical as described in RCW 19.28, and YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2 2. The work those Subcontractors will perform on the Contract.YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 3 3. Shall not list more than one Subcontractor for each category of work identified, except, when Subcontractors vary with Bid alternates, in which case the Bidder shall identify which Subcontractor will be used for which alternate. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES If no Subcontractor is listed, the Bidder acknowledges that it does not intend to use any Subcontractor to perform those items of work. The Bidder shall make no stipulation on the Bid Form, nor qualify the bid in any manner. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Recycled Materials Proposal is provided YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 Certification of Compliance with Wage Payment Statutes is provided YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Proposal - original Bid Proposal Deposit is provided YES YES YES YES YES - Bid Bond not checked on proposal form. Bid Bond provided YES YES YES Bid Bond is valid (confirm with Surety - contact name/valid or invalid/date&time of call)YES - Brandon Bush, VALID, phone 425-449-9943 6/30/2021, 3:15 pm YES - Eric Zimmerman, VALID, 6/30/2021, 12:48 pm YES - Holli Albers/via text, VALID 6/29/2021, 4:00 pm YES - Nicholas Fredrickson/VALID, phone, 6/29/21, 3:57pm YES - Lori McKimmy, VALID, phone, 6/30/2021 8:56 am YES - Jim Kuich, VALID, phone, 7/1/2021, 8:37 am YES - Jamie Armfield, VALID, phone, 6/29/2021, 4:13 pm YES - Carley Espiritu, phone, VALID, 6/30/2021, 1:11 pm Bid bonds shall contain the following: 1 Contracting Agency-assigned number for the project;YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2 Name of the project;YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 3 The Contracting Agency named as obligee;YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 4 The amount of the bid bond stated either as a dollar figure or as a percentage which represents five percent of the maximum bid amount that could be awarded;YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 5 Signature of the bidder’s officer empowered to sign official statements. The signature of the person authorized to submit the bid should agree with the signature on the bond, and the title of the person must accompany the said signature; YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 6 The signature of the surety’s officer empowered to sign the bond and the power of attorney.YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Bid Bond is affixed with surety's corporate seal YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Power of Attorney is affixed with seal YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI)Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc 1 Date 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 06/22/2021 2 Time 12:45pm 12:53pm 12:58pm 12:50pm 12:57pm 12:50pm 12:25pm 12:37pm Received by (initial)City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW City Clerk - SW BID RECEIVED - DATE/TIME STAMP Bidder Responsiveness 2021 Standard Specification 1-02.7 Bid Deposit Special Provision 1-02.6(1) Recycled Materials Proposal 2. A Proposal may be considered irregular and may be rejected if: Criteria 1. A Proposal will be considered irregular and will be rejected if: Bidders Special Provision 1-02.13 Irregular Proposals (October 1, 2020 APWA GSP) Special Provision 1-02.6 Preparation of Proposal. Special Provision 1-02.6(2) Certification of Compliance with Wage Payment Statutes Updated: 07/01/2021 9:02 AM AGENDA ITEM #6. c) City of Renton Bid Due Date: June 22, 2021; Bid Opening Date: June 24, 2021 Duvall Avenue NE CAG-20-065 Item Description Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI)Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc 1 Before award of a public works contract, a bidder must meet the following responsibility criteria to be considered a responsible bidder and qualified to be awarded a public works project. The bidder must: a At time of bid submittal, have certificate of registration in compliance with chapter 18.27 RCW; <Dept. of Labor and Industries>YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES b Have a current state unified business identified (UBI) number;YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES c If applicable, have industrial insurance coverage for the bidder's employees working in Washington as required in Title 51 RCW; an employment security department number as required in Title 50 RCW; and a state excise tax registration number as required in Title 82 RCW; YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES d Not be disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or 39.12.065(3);YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES e If bidding on a public works project subject to the apprenticeship utilization requirements in RCW 39.04.320, not have been found out of compliance by the Washington state apprenticeship and training council for working apprentices out of ration, without appropriate supervision, or outside their approved work processes as outlined in their standards of apprenticeship under chapeter 49.04 RCW for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of the bid solicitation; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A f Have received training on the requirements related to public works and prevailing wage under this chapter and chapter 39.12 RCW. The bidder must designate a person or persons to be trained on these requirements. The training must be provided by the department of labor and industries or by a training provider whose curriculum is approved by the department. The department, in consultation with the prevailing wage advisory committee, must determine the length of the training. Bidders that have completed three or more public works projects and have had a valid business license in Washington for three or more years are exempt from this subsection. The department of labor and industries must keep records of entities that have satisfied the training requirement or are exempt and make the records available on its web site. Responsible parties may rely on the records made available by the department regarding satisfaction of the training requirement or exemption; and NO - Exempt from LNI NO - Exempt from LNI NO - Exempt from LNI. Completed training on 1/18/2019 NO - Exempt from LNI. Completed the training on 11/15/2019 Exempt from LNI. Completed the training on 1/18/2019 NO - Exempt from LNI NO - Exempt from LNI NO - Exempt from LNI g Within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the bid solicitation, not have been determined by a final and binding citation and notice of assessment issued by the department of labor and industries or through a civil judgement entered by a court of limited or general jurisdiction to have willfully violated, as defined in RCW 49.48.082, any provision of chapter 49.46, 49.48, or 49.52 RCW. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2 Before award of a public works contract, a bidder shall submit to the contracting agency a signed statement in accordance with RCW 9A.72.085 verifying under penalty of perjury that the bidder is in compliance with the responsible bidder criteria requirement of subsection (1)(g) of this section. A contracting agency may award a contract in reasonable reliance upon such a sworn statement. YES. Signed by president. YES. Signed by vice president.YES. Signed by president. YES. Signed by CEO/Principal.YES. Signed by president.YES. Signed by president.YES. Signed by president.YES. Signed by vice president. 3 In addition to the bidder responsibility criteria in subsection (1) of this section, the state or municipality may adopt relevant supplemental criteria for determining bidder responsibility applicable to a particular project which the bidder must meet. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A a Supplemental criteria for determining bidder responsibility, including the basis for evaluation and the deadline for appealing a determination that a bidder is not responsible, must be provided in the invitation to bid or bidding documents. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A b In a timely manner before the bid submittal deadline, a potential bidder may request that the state or municipality modify the supplemental criteria. The state or municipality must evaluate the information submitted by the potential bidder and respond before the bid submittal deadline. If the evaluation results in a change of the criteria, the state or municipality must issue an addendum to the bidding documents identifying the new criteria. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A c If the bidder fails to supply information requested concerning responsibility within the time and manner specified in the bid documents, the state or municipality may base its determination of responsibility upon any available information related to the supplemental criteria or may find the bidder not responsible. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A d If the state or muncipality determines a bidder to be not responsible, the state or municipality must provide, in writing, the reasons for the determination. The bidder may appeal the determination with the time period specified in the bidding documents by presenting additional information to the state or municipality. The state or municipality must consider the additional information before issuing its final determination. If the final determination affirms that the bidder is not responsible, the state or municipality may not execute a contract with any other bidder until two business days after the bidder determined to be not responsible has received the final determination. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A e If the bidder has a history of receiving monetary penalties for not achieving the apprentice utilization requirements pursuant to RCW 39.04.320, or is habitual in utilizing the good faith effort exception process, the bidder must submit an apprenticeship utilization plan within ten business days immediately following the notice to proceed date. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 The capital projects advisory review board created in RCW 39.10.220 shall develop suggested guidelines to assist the state and municipalities in developing supplemental bidder responsibility criteria. The guidelines must be posted on the board's web site. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A LNI Doing Business As (DBA)REED TRUCKING & EXCAVATING INC RCNW ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION INC JOHANSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC PIVETTA BROTHERS CONST INC WESTWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NORTHWEST CASCADE INC WA UBI No. 601915034 602286010 273001533 602498928 600264803 600522209 601173970 278049149 License No.REEDTEI016JW RCNW*CN978L6 ACTIVCI164JL JOHANCC800KL RODARI*225D9 PIVETBC063B9 WESTWCC110KD NORTHCI148BG Entity Type Corporation Corporation Corporation Limited Liability Company Corporation Corporation Corporation Corporation Entity Name Registered with Secretary of State REED TRUCKING & EXCAVATING, INC.ROAD CONSTRUCTION NORTHWEST, INC.ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC.JOHANSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC RODARTE CONSTRUCTION, INC.PIVETTA BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.WESTWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NORTHWEST CASCADE, INC. Item Description Reed Trucking & Excavating Inc Road Construction Northwest, Inc Active Construction, Inc (ACI)Johansen Construction Co Rodarte Construction, Inc Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc Westwater Contruction, Co Northwest Cascade, Inc 1 The Required Contract Provisions Federal Aid Construction Contracts (FHWA 1273) Revised May 1, 2012 and the amendments thereto supersede any conflicting provisions of the Standard Specifications and are made a part of this Contract; provided, however, that if any of the provisions of FHWA 1273, as amended, are less restrictive than Washington State Law, then the Washington State Law shall prevail. FHWA-1273. 1b. The inability of a person to provide the certification set out below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective first tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency’s determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective first tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such a person from participation in this transaction. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * DBA = Doing Business As DUNS No.N/A 135180045 27319565 781169797 95721015 121165286 074166330 29695053 Bidder Responsibility Bidders Criteria Bidders Special Provision 1-02.14 Qualifications of Bidders Disqualification of Bidders (May 17, 2018 APWA GSP, Option A) (RCW 39.04.350(1)) Special Provision 1-07.12 Federal Agency Inspection (January 25, 2016, WSDOT GSP, Option 1) Required Federal Aid Provisions - NOT A FHWA PROJECT Criteria Updated: 07/01/2021 9:02 AM AGENDA ITEM #6. c) Project: Duvall Avenue NE Project - CAG-20-065 Due Date: June 22, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Opening: June 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. (Video Conference) CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Prop Bid Total from Sched Non-Col Sub Recycled Wage Sign Bid Adden Schedule of Prices Prop Prices Decl List Mat Compl Page Bond Ack *Includes Sales Tax Active Construction, Inc. (ACI) P.O. Box 430 1 Puyallup x x x x x x x x x $5,424,424.00 WA 98371 David Ceccanti Johansen Construction Co P.O. Box 874 2 Buckley x x x x x x x x x $5,629,147.01 WA 98321 Jacob Cimmer Northwest Cascade, Inc. P.O. Box 73399 3 Puyallup x x x x x x x x x $6,325,107.55 WA 98373 Clinton Myers Bidder Engineer's Estimate: $6,300,000.00AGENDA ITEM #6. c) Project: Duvall Avenue NE Project - CAG-20-065 Due Date: June 22, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Opening: June 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. (Video Conference) CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Prop Bid Total from Sched Non-Col Sub Recycled Wage Sign Bid Adden Schedule of Prices Prop Prices Decl List Mat Compl Page Bond Ack *Includes Sales Tax Bidder Pivetta Brothers Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 370 4 Sumner x x x x x x x x x $5,734,935.92 WA 98390 Mark Pivetta REED Trucking & Excavating 2207 Inter Ave, Ste. A 5 Puyallup x x x x x x x x x $5,218,171.95 WA 98372 Shawn Reed Road Construction Northwest, Inc PO Box 2228 6 Renton x x x x x x x x x $5,399,371.24 WA 98056 Matthew Wagester Engineer's Estimate: $6,300,000.00AGENDA ITEM #6. c) Project: Duvall Avenue NE Project - CAG-20-065 Due Date: June 22, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Opening: June 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. (Video Conference) CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET Prop Bid Total from Sched Non-Col Sub Recycled Wage Sign Bid Adden Schedule of Prices Prop Prices Decl List Mat Compl Page Bond Ack *Includes Sales Tax Bidder Rodarte Construction, Inc. 17 East Valley Hwy E 7 Auburn x x x x x x x x x $5,682,008.76 WA 98092 Jared Rodarte Westwater Construction, Co P.O. Box 59237 8 Renton x x x x x x x x x $6,111,379.69 WA 98058 Michael Caplis 9 Engineer's Estimate: $6,300,000.00AGENDA ITEM #6. c) AB - 2905 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jul 2021 SUBJECT/TITLE: Cost Reimbursement Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur DEPARTMENT: Police Department STAFF CONTACT: Dave Leibman, Commander EXT.: x7573 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The Renton Police Department will be reimbursed up to $16,246.55 in overtime funds. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The proposed agreement would allow the Renton Police Department to receive funds from, and work with, the King County Sheriff's Office for the purpose of verifying the address and residency of registered sex and kidnapping offenders. The goal of this verification is to improve public safety by establishing a greater presence and emphasis by the Renton Police Department in Renton neighborhoods. The Detectives work overtime doing this, and then the Police Department submits the overtime to the King County S heriff's Office for reimbursement under this grant. EXHIBITS: A. 2021-2022 Cost Reimbursement Agreement B. Exhibit A-Verification Request C. Exhibit B-Officer Contact Worksheet D. Exhibit C-Witness Statement-Failure to Register STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Cost Reimbursement Agreement. AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Executed By King County Sheriff’s Office, a department of King County, hereinafter referred to as “KCSO,” Department Authorized Representative: Mitzi Johanknecht, Sheriff King County Sheriff’s Office W-150 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 and Renton Police Department, a department of the City of Renton, hereinafter referred to as “”Contractor,” Department Authorized Representative: Jon Schuldt, Chief of Police 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 WHEREAS, KCSO and Contractor have mutually agreed to work together for the purpose of verifying the address and residency of registered sex and kidnapping offenders; and WHEREAS, the goal of registered sex and kidnapping offender address and residency verification is to improve public safety by establishing a greater presence and emphasis by Contractor in King County neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, as part of this coordinated effort, Contractor will increase immediate and direct contact with registered sex and kidnapping offenders in their jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, KCSO is the recipient of a Washington State Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program grant through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for this purpose, and WHEREAS, KCSO will oversee efforts undertaken by program participants in King County; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: KCSO will utilize Washington State Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program funding to reimburse for expenditures associated AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Page 2 of 6 July 14, 2021 with the Contractor for the verification of registered sex and kidnapping offender address and residency as set forth below. This Interagency Agreement contains eleven (11) Articles: ARTICLE I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Cost Reimbursement Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2021 and shall end on June 30, 2022 unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof. ARTICLE II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES This agreement is for the purpose of reimbursing the Contractor for participation in the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. The program’s purpose is to verify the address and residency of all registered sex and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. The requirement of this program is for face-to-face verification of a registered sex and kidnapping offender’s address at the place of residency. In the case of level I offenders, once every twelve months. of level II offenders, once every six months. of level III offenders, once every three months. For the purposes of this program unclassified offenders and kidnapping offenders shall be considered at risk level I, unless in the opinion of the local jurisdiction a higher classification is in the interest of public safety. ARTICLE III. REPORTING Two reports are required in order to receive reimbursement for grant-related expenditures. Both forms are included as exhibits to this agreement. “Exhibit A” is the Offender Watch generated “Registered Sex Offender Verification Request (WA)” that the sex or kidnapping offender completes and signs during a face-to-face contact. “Exhibit B” is an “Officer Contact Worksheet” completed in full by an officer/detective during each verification contact. Both exhibits representing each contact are due quarterly and must be complete and received before reimbursement can be made following the quarter reported. Original signed report forms are to be submitted by the 5th of the month following the end of the quarter. The first report is due October 5, 2021. Quarterly progress reports shall be delivered to Attn: Tina Keller, Project Manager King County Sheriff’s Office 500 Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 M/S ADM-SO-0200 Seattle, WA 98104 AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Page 3 of 6 July 14, 2021 Phone: 206-263-2122 Email: tina.keller@kingcounty.gov ARTICLE IV. REIMBURSEMENT Requests for reimbursement will be made on a monthly basis and shall be forwarded to KCSO by the 10th of the month following the billing period. Please note the following terms will be adhered to for the 2021-2022 Registered Sex Offender Address Verification Program: Any agency not meeting at least 90% of required verifications will not receive that quarter’s grant payment. Any agency not using Offender Watch to track verifications will not receive that quarter’s grant payment. Overtime reimbursements for personnel assigned to the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program will be calculated at the usual rate for which the individual’s’ time would be compensated in the absence of this agreement. Each request for reimbursement will include the name, rank, overtime compensation rate, number of reimbursable hours claimed and the dates of those hours for each officer for whom reimbursement is sought. Each reimbursement request must be accompanied by a certification signed by an appropriate supervisor of the department that the request has been personally reviewed, that the information described in the request is accurate, and the personnel for whom reimbursement is claimed were working on an overtime basis for the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. Overtime and all other expenditures under this Agreement are restricted to the following criteria: 1. For the purpose of verifying the address and residency of registered sex and kidnapping offenders; and 2. For the goal of improving public safety by establishing a greater presence and emphasis in King County neighborhoods; and 3. For increasing immediate and direct contact with registered sex and kidnapping offenders in their jurisdiction Any non-overtime related expenditures must be pre-approved by KCSO. Your request for pre-approval must include: 1) The item you would like to purchase, AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Page 4 of 6 July 14, 2021 2) The purpose of the item, 3) The cost of the item you would like to purchase. You may send this request for pre-approval in email format. Requests for reimbursement from KCSO for the above non-overtime expenditures must be accompanied by a spreadsheet detailing the expenditures as well as a vendor’s invoice and a packing slip. The packing slip must be signed by an authorized representative of the Contractor. All costs must be included in the request for reimbursement and be within the overall contract amount. Over expenditures for any reason, including additional cost of sales tax, shipping, or installation, will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Requests for reimbursement must be sent to Attn: Tina Keller, Project Manager King County Sheriff’s Office 500 Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-263-2122 Email: tina.keller@kingcounty.gov The maximum amount to be paid under this cost reimbursement agreement shall not exceed Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six Dollars and Fifty Five Cents ($16,246.55). Expenditures exceeding the maximum amount shall be the responsibility of Contractor. All requests for reimbursement must be received by KCSO by July 31, 2022 to be payable. ARTICLE V. WITNESS STATEMENTS "Exhibit C” is a “Sex/Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program Witness Statement Form.” This form is to be completed by any witnesses encountered during a contact when the offender is suspected of not living at the registered address and there is a resulting felony “Failure to Register as a Sex Offender” case to be referred/filed with the KCPAO. Unless, due to extenuating circumstances the witness is incapable of writing out their own statement, the contacting officer/detective will have the witness write and sign the statement in their own handwriting to contain, verbatim, the information on the witness form. ARTICLE VI. FILING NON-DISCOVERABLE FACE SHEET “Exhibit D” is the “Filing Non-Discoverable Face Sheet.” This form shall be attached to each “Felony Failure to Register as a Sex Offender” case that is referred to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. ARTICLE VII. SUPPLEMENTING, NOT SUPPLANTING AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Page 5 of 6 July 14, 2021 Funds may not be used to supplant (replace) existing local, state, or Bureau of Indian Affairs funds that would be spent for identical purposes in the absence of the grant. Overtime - To meet this grant condition, you must ensure that: Overtime exceeds expenditures that the grantee is obligated or funded to pay in the current budget. Funds currently allocated to pay for overtime may not be reallocated to other purposes or reimbursed upon the award of a grant. Additionally, by the conditions of this grant, you are required to track all overtime funded through the grant. ARTICLE VIII. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless King County, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, its officers, employees, contractors, and/or agents related to Contractor’s activities under this Agreement. Contractor agrees that its obligations under this paragraph extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, Contractor, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects King County only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event King County incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorney’s fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from Contractor. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE Contractor shall maintain insurance policies, or programs of self-insurance, sufficient to respond to all of its liability exposures under this Agreement. The insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by the Contractor engaged in work contemplated in this Agreement shall respond to claims within the following coverage types and amounts: General Liability. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form number CG 00 01 covering COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY. $5,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence, and for those policies with aggregate limits, a $5,000,000 aggregate limit. King County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City. Additional Insured status shall include Products-Completed Operations-CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent. AGENDA ITEM #6. d) Cost Reimbursement Agreement Page 6 of 6 July 14, 2021 By requiring such liability coverage as specified in this Article IX, King County has not, and shall not be deemed to have, assessed the risks that may be applicable to Contractor. Contractor shall assess its own risks and, if deemed appropriate and/or prudent, maintain greater limits or broader coverage than is herein specified. Contractor agrees to maintain, through its insurance policies, self-funded program or an alternative risk of loss financing program, coverage for all of its liability exposures for the duration of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to provide KCSO with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of any material change or alternative risk of loss financing program. ARTICLE X. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no third party beneficiaries to this agreement. This agreement shall not impart any right enforceable by any person or entity that is not a party hereto. ARTICLE XI. AMENDMENTS No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to modify this Agreement, by mutual agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by having their representatives affix their signatures below. Renton Police Department KING COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE Armondo Pavone, Mayor Mitzi Johanknecht, Sheriff Date Date Attest: Jason Seth, City Clerk Date City Attorney, City of Renton Date AGENDA ITEM #6. d) axumn A Page:1 Ver1f1cai1onRequest Agency:King County WA Sheriffs Of?vce Administrator:King County Sheriffs Office Rscphone;(206)263-2120 ' Date:6/16/2016 Offender Information Offender Photo Name (981 .lest Registration ii 2353765 J‘V POE SSN Doe 01/01/1990 Age 26 Au Reg 1: y ‘‘ sax’om",Drv.Llcr/State 3 ‘Lenora~o+»tvAiufxaLej. R399 Nat.No Selection FB' t I Height -Hair state in Weight Eyes Last Verified:\ Risk Type Date Comm. Active Officer Alert LOOKHEREFOR OFFICERSAFETYINFORMATION Employmentlschool Name Address Supervisor Phone Residence Street Alias ScarsITattoosPhone(Bold -Primary Contact Numbers) LocationNumberType Vehicle Make 'Model License State VIN Comments Offense ‘ Date RS Code/Description Convicted Released Case #Crime Details I do hereby attest,under penalties of perjury.that any and all information contained here is current and accurate on this day of 20 Offender Signature: Of?cer Signature: ‘ ‘Date: Produced by Clifanderwalch ~www.wa|chsysiems.ccm AGENDA ITEM #6. d) o -RE 1 TERED EX OFFENDER ADDRE VERIFI ATIONEXh1b1tBGSOFEICERCONTACTWORKSSSHEETCOFFENDERDETAILS:OFF ENDER’S NAME:DOB:ADDRESS:CITY/STATE/ZIP:OFFENDER PHONE:ZIP CODE.:EMPLOYER:WORK PHONE:OFFENDER LEVEL IF KNOWN:FORM OF ID: DATE &TIME OF CONTACTS:’-‘SEEKEY BELOW FOR CODING DATE /RESULT:DATE/RESULT: T]1\/IE:TIME: DATE RESULT:DATE/RESULT: TINIE:THVIE: DATE /RESULT:DATE/RESULT: TIIVIE:THVIE: RESULT OF CONTACT: MADE IN PERSON CONTACT:YES NO FTR CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED IN OCONTACTMADE: STATEMENT TAKEN:YES NO REPORTING PARTY INFORMATION: REPORTING PERSON:DOB: MAILING ADDRESS:CITY/ZIP: TELEPHONE:ALT # RELATION TO OFFENDER:NONE (UNKNOWN)KNOWN RELATION: *CONTACT CODE KEY:1 =OFFENDER MOVED 5 =HOUSE FOR SALE 9 =TOOK STATE MENT2=BAD ADDRESS 3 =NOT HOME 6 =ARRESTED AGENDA ITEM #6. d) E hob-t B REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ADDRESSVERIFICATIONX11OFFICERCONTACTWORKSHEETOFFENDERDETAILS:4 =CHANGE OF ADDRESS 3 =DEADOFFICER/DETECTIVE:AGENCY:AGENDA ITEM #6. d) EXHIBIT C Date Agency/Of?cer Incident number Witness Statement —Failure to Register Suspect’s Name: SL1spect’sLast Registered Address: Witness’Name: Witness’s Home Address: Witness’Home Phone Number Cell:Other: How do they know the suspect (please be as detailed as possible)? *If suspect rented an apartment or a room from the witness,please have them provide a copy of any documentationsto this effect and any documentationsthe suspect moved out. Did the witness ever see the suspect at his/her last registered address? How often would they see him/her there? When did the witness start seeing him/her there? When did they stop? Why did the suspect stop staying at the address? Did the suspect keep any personal belongings there? In general,when is the last time they saw the suspect ‘.7 Do they know where the suspect moved to or their current whereabouts? Can they provide the names and contact informationof any other witnesses who would have seen the suspect staying at his/her last registered address? Is the witness willing to assist in prosecution? Under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington,I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Witness’Signature date AGENDA ITEM #6. d) AB - 2892 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jul 2021 SUBJECT/TITLE: Ratification of the 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Utilities Committee DEPARTMENT: Public Works Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Joe Farah, Surface Water Utility Engineering Manager EXT.: 7248 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The ratification of the 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update (Plan) has no fiscal impact to the Surface Water Utility's 2021 Capital Improvement Program budget. There are no immediate financial commitments required by WRIA 9 member jurisdictions as part the Plan. However, there are three capital improvement projects in the Plan that aim to restore salmon habitat, which may result in funds being budgeted by the Surface Water Utility in the future towards the execution of those project in partnership with WRIA 9. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), of which Renton is a partner jurisdiction, put together ‘Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, Salmon Habitat Plan in 2005. The purpose of the original and the updated WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan is to protect, restore, and enhance habitat for Chinook Salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act, a watershed-wide effort for their recovery, which also benefits other fish species in the Green/Duwamish Watershed. This Plan was updated based on new information and coordination with partners and member jurisdictions. The Plan update outlines a portfolio of 12 recovery strategies to address priority pressures, increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity, and build long-term population resiliency. Successful implementation of the plan hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capital investment programs, and community outreach messaging are consistent with identified watershed priorities. The Plan includ es: 1. A Strategic Assessment Update summarizing new findings that address important data gaps identified in the 2005 Plan. New information related to habitat use and fish productivity, climate change, temperature, and contaminants supported a reassessment of functional linkages between priority stressors, habitat conditions, and viable salmon population parameters. 2. An updated list of capital projects that was developed in partnership with ILA member jurisdictions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. The updated project list identifies 127 capital habitat projects across the five sub-watersheds. Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects have significant, moderate, and limited potential, respectively, to advance recovery and contribute to habitat goals. The Plan includes one tier 2 project (Lower Springbrook Creek Restoration) and two tier 3 projects (Panther Creek at Talbot Road South and East Valley Road culvert replacements) located in Renton. 3. A Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines monitoring priorities intended to help evaluate progress and inform strategic adaptation of the recovery strategies. The MAMP establishes a framework for tracking implementation goals, assessing project effectiveness, evaluating habitat status and trends, evaluating the population status of Green River Chinook salmon, and prioritizing research and monitoring investments. This framework will guide data collection to support regular assessment of progress and allow WRIA 9 to reassess prioritization and sequencing of recovery actions. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Staff believes the plan update is important in prioritizing action and projects to protect and enhance the salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. EXHIBITS: A. 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan B. 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Appendicies C. Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution to authorize the city to ratify the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update and present the resolution for reading and adoption. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 3 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 Alternate formats available Voice: 206-296-6519 TTY Relay: 711 For Additional Copies of this Plan: King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-6519 Recommended Citation: Water Resource Investory Area 9 (WRIA 9). 2021. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Water- shed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update. Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Approved by the Watershed Ecosystem Forum February 11, 2021. File Archive: 2102_10102L_W9SHP-REPORTt.indd King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Unit archives Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 4 Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................8 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................................10 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 1: Background ................................................................................................................................................................13 Regional Salmon Recovery Context ..........................................................................................................................................13 WRIA 9 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................................................................15 Equity and Social Justice ...................................................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed – A Snapshot .......................................17 Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle – Connecting a Diverse Watershed ...........................................23 Adult Upstream Migration/Spawning ......................................................................................................................................23 Egg Incubation/Emergence .............................................................................................................................................................23 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/Migration .................................................................................................................................24 Juvenile Estuary Rearing ....................................................................................................................................................................24 Marine Nearshore Rearing ...............................................................................................................................................................25 Ocean Migration .......................................................................................................................................................................................25 Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals .....................................................................................27 Viable Salmon Population Criteria – Current Status and Goals ...........................................................................27 Habitat Goals – Implementation Targets ...............................................................................................................................30 Chapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures ...........................................33 Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus) ............................................................................................................................................33 Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies .............................................................................................................................................49 Strategy: Restore and Improve Fish Passage ...................................................................................................................49 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity .....................................................................51 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat ...............................52 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors ...............................................................................53 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality .......................................................55 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines .................................................................................58 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat ....................................................................................60 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia ............................62 Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education ....................................................................................................64 Strategy: Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives .........................................66 Strategy: Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning ...........................................................................68 Plan Implementation and Funding ..............................................................................................................................................70 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 5 ROGER TABOR Chapter 7: Capital Projects ......................................................................................................................................................73 Project Prioritization ................................................................................................................................................................................74 Capital Project Information by Subwatershed. ...................................................................................................................75 Marine Nearshore Subwatershed ...............................................................................................................................76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed ..........................................................................................................................102 Lower Green River Subwatershed ............................................................................................................................118 Middle Green River Subwatershed .........................................................................................................................146 Upper Green River Subwatershed ..........................................................................................................................160 Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................................................163 Annual Funding Package.................................................................................................................................................................. 163 Salmon Recovery Funding............................................................................................................................................................... 164 WRIA 9 CWM Funding Allocation.............................................................................................................................................. 164 Outyear Project Planning (6-year CPIP)............................................................................................................................... 165 Performance Management............................................................................................................................................................. 165 Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................167 Adaptive Management Framework.......................................................................................................................................... 167 Implementation Monitoring............................................................................................................................................................ 168 Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................. 168 Validation Monitoring........................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Chapter 10: References ............................................................................................................................................................173 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. ........................................14 Figure 2. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Watershed Map............................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Land Use Designations Map ................................................................................................21 Figure 4. The Salmon Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). ...........................................................................................................................................25 Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement. .................................................................................................................................29 Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation. ..........................................................................................34 Figure 8. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a result of climate change. .............................................................................................................................................................................36 Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services). ........................................................................37 Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperaturesmeasured from 2001-2014. ........................................................................................................................................39 Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood control structures. .............................................................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 12. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2018). ...............................................43 Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience very low marine survival rates ...............................................................................................................................................................44 Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project (Ecology). ...............................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non-natal tributaries (Mike Perfetti) .......................................................................................................50 Figure 16. Healthy juvenile chinook sampled from a non-natal tributary in 2018 (Chris Gregersen) .....................50 Figure 17. The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi-benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements. ..................................51 Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re-Green the Green Strategy. .................................................................................................................................................................54 Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park ..........................................57 Figure 20. Before and after Phase II restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien ....................................................58 Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon. ........................................................................61 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 7 Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. ..................................................63 Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation. ....................................................................................................................................66 Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River. ...................................71 Figure 25. Number of Projects by Subwatershed ...........................................................................................................................................72 Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects (Map) ................................................................................................................77 Figure 27. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects (Map) ...........................................................................................................103 Figure 28. Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map) ..............................................................................................................119 Figure 29. Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map) ...........................................................................................................147 Figure 30. Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map ..............................................................................................................160 Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary ......................................................................................................................................................................................168 Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework. .........................................................................................................................169 List of Tables Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals ............................................................................................................................................28 Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. .............................................................................................31 Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ....................................................................................................................98 Table 4. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ..................................................................................................................116 Table 5. Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ................................................................................................................144 Table 6. Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ...............................................................................................................158 Appendices Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green/Duwamish Watershed Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix G: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 8 Foreward On behalf of the Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Watershed Ecosystem Forum, we are pleased to present this update to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, “Making Our Watershed Fit for a King” (2005 Plan). The 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Plan Update (Plan Update) represents a renewed commitment to salmon recovery efforts in WRIA 9 and provides a science-based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years. It refines and adds key recovery strategies based on new science and ensures resources will continue to be directed to where they provide the greatest benefit for Chinook salmon. The original 2005 Plan translated science into actions. Plan implementation by multiple WRIA 9 entities in the last 15 years helped leverage over $200 million of local, state and federal funding to realign more than 2 miles of levees to reconnect floodplains, restore over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline and revegetate 500 acres of riparian habitat. While we recognize these achievements, we also acknowledge that salmon recovery is a long-term endeavor that requires continued coordinated action. Chinook salmon numbers remain critically low and human population growth and climate change are only magnifying the challenges we face in salmon recovery. Chinook salmon are an integral part of our regional identity. The Watershed Ecosystem Forum - a regional partnership of 17 local governments, state resource agencies, business interests and non- profit organizations – is collectively committed to implementing actions that will improve watershed conditions for our salmon populations. Plan implementation supports more than just salmon recovery; it supports tribal treaty rights, community flood hazard reduction, water quality improvement, open space protection, and outdoor recreation. While the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed has faced numerous challenges, we are optimistic about the future of our watershed. The downstream fish passage facility at Howard Hansen Dam, clean-up of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund sites, and a regional commitment to integrated floodplain management reflect a projected investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10-15 years. As we work towards an improved future, we are reminded of a quote from a historical planning guide for the Green River corridor: ROGER TABORAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Forward edits In third paragraph, second line, recommend inserting “and” between “business interests” and “non-profit” There are extra spaces in several places between words. That may be a graphics issue, but in case it can be fixed, I found them in the following places: i. Second paragraph, 3rd line, between “than” and “2” ii. Second paragraph, 5th line, between “is” and “a” iii. Third paragraph, 3rd line, between “collectively” and “committed” iv. Fourth paragraph, 1st line between “While” and “the” Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 9 As we look at the Green River corridor, we must say, ‘This is the way the people want it to be.’ Therefore, in each locality, someone should steadily be asking, ‘is this the way we want it to be, now and in the future?’ The ultimate condition of the Green River Basin should be the result of informed and far- sighted public decisions. River of Green, 1978 We look forward to collaborating with all our local, state, federal, and tribal partners in realizing our collective vision for this watershed and welcoming back ever stronger runs of salmon. Sincerely, Councilmember Nancy Tosta City of Burien Co-Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Councilmember Lisa Herbold City of Seattle Co-Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 10 Acknowledgements Primary Authors Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Kollin Higgins, King County Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Report Preparation GIS Analysis: Todd Klinka, King County Design: Laurel Preston, King County Watershed Ecosystem Forum Chris Stearns, Auburn Tamie Deady, Black Diamond Nancy Tosta, Burien Jennifer Harjehausen, Covington Matt Pina, Des Moines Chris Searcy, Enumclaw Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Dana Ralph, Kent Dow Constantine, King County Susan West, Normandy Park Valerie O’Halloran, Renton Erin Sitterly, SeaTac Lisa Herbold, Seattle Scott Dewhirst, Tacoma Public Utilities Allan Ekberg, Tukwila Wendy McDermott, American Rivers Katie Moxley, Boeing Company Steve Lee, Covington Water District James Rassmussen, Green/Duwa- mish Watershed Alliance Burr Mosby, King Conservation District Michelle Clark, King County Flood Control District Jeanette Dorner, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Sandy Kilroy, Port of Seattle Max Prinsen, SHADOW Jeff Dillon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Weston Brinkley, Green-Duwamish Urban Waters Partnership Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Stewart Reinbold, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Joe Miles, Washington Department of Natural Resources Implementation Technical Committee Joe Anderson, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Kerry Bauman, King County Katie Beaver, King County Elizabeth Butler, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office David Casey, City of Maple Valley Jeanette Dorner, Mid Sound Fisheries Alexandra Doty, Puget Sound Partnership Joseph Farah, City of Renton Larry Fisher, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Chris Gregersen, King County Meara Heubach, City of Kent Kollin Higgins, King County Josh Kahan, King County Katherine Lynch, Seattle Public Utilities Nathan Malmborg, US Army Corps Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle Kathryn Moxley, Boeing Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Nikolas Novotny, Tacoma Water Jessica Olmstead, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Brandon Parsons, American Rivers Mike Perfetti, City of Tukwila Dennis Robertson, City of Tukwila Patty Robinson, King County Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Rowena Valencia-Gica, City of Kent Financial Support Funding provided by the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement among 17 local government partners and Cooperative Watershed Management funds provided by the King County Flood Control District. Management Committee Chris Stearns, City of Auburn Jennifer Harjehausen, City of Covington Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Toni Troutner, City of Kent Josh Baldi, King County Susan West, City of Normandy Park Valerie O’Halloran, City of Renton Susan Saffery, City of Seattle Former WRIA 9 Leadership Bill Peloza, City of Auburn Marlla Mhoon, City of Covington Dennis Roberton, City of Tukwila Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 11 Executive Summary as Threatened. Population abundance, productivity, diversity and spatial distribution have not improved, and in some cases have continued to decline. A Strategic Assessment Update summarizes new research findings that address important data gaps identified in the 2005 Plan. New information related to habitat use and fish productivity, climate change, temperature, and contaminants supported a reassessment of functional linages between priority stressors, habitat conditions, and VSP parameters. This information serves as the foundation for the other core elements of the Plan Update. Although the Plan Update maintains existing NOAA-approved VSP goals, it introduces new 10-year habitat goals (implementation targets) that represent continued progress towards the long-term necessary future conditions for achieving a viable salmon popu- lation, as outlined in 2005 Plan. The numerical targets for key habitats serve as a benchmark for evaluating plan implementation over time and informing ongo- ing adaptive management. The Plan Update outlines a portfolio of 12 recov- ery strategies – including embedded policies and programs – to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resiliency. Successful This document updates the 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, Salmon Habitat Plan. The 2005 Plan served as the blueprint for salmon habitat recovery in WRIA 9 for 15 years. It is fitting that the Puget Sound Regional Council award- ed the original 2005 Plan a Vision 2020 Award. Al- though the Plan Update reflects over a decade of new science regarding salmon conservation and recovery since the award, the core recovery strategies and un- derlying scientific framework remain largely valid to- day and continue to provide an important foundation for salmon recovery. The Plan Update – designed to be a stand-alone document – is intended to update, not replace, the 2005 Plan. The two documents, along with the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint and the 2016 Re- green the Green, provide a science-based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions. This document provides a status update for Green River Chinook salmon using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved viable salmon population (VSP) criteria. Over 20 years have passed since the listing of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Despite significant investments and large-scale restoration projects, Green River Chinook salmon remain listed AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 12 implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capi- tal investment programs, and community outreach messaging are consistent with identified watershed priorities. An updated list of capital projects was developed in partnership with interlocal agreement member jurisdictions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. The updat- ed project list identifies 127 capital habitat projects across the five subwatersheds. Individuals projects are ranked within their specific subwatershed – not across subwatersheds. Projects are tiered based on overall benefit towards recovery and to provide con- text for the level of financial need. Tier 1 projects have significant potential to advance recovery and sub- stantively contribute to habitat goals. Tier 2 and Tier 3 have moderate and limited potential, respectively, to advance recovery and contribute to achieving habitat goals. The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines monitoring priorities intended to help evaluate progress and inform strategic adapta- tion of the recovery strategies. The MAMP establishes a framework for (1) tracking implementation goals, (2) assessing project effectiveness, (3) evaluating habitat status and trends, (4) evaluating the popula- tion status of Green River Chinook salmon, and (4) prioritizing research and monitoring investments. This framework will guide data collection to support regular assessment of progress and allow the WRIA to reassess prioritization and sequencing of recovery actions. PHOTO: ELI BROWNELL Green River Natural Area AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 13 Chapter 1: Background The 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, Making Our Water- shed Fit for a King, represented the culmination of over five years of technical reconnaissance, research, and policy development. The Plan was a local wa- tershed-based response to the federal government’s 1999 listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The 2005 Plan – which received a Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2020 Award – translated a tremendous wealth of science into discrete policy recommenda- tions and management actions necessary to sup- port recovery of natural origin Green River Chinook salmon. The 2005 Plan provided the blueprint for Chinook salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound for 15 years. It helped watershed part- ners leverage upwards of $200 million dollars of local, state and federal funding for salmon recovery. Plan implementation resulted in nearly 2 miles of levee setbacks, over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline resto- ration, and approximately 500 acres of revegetation. Despite of these accomplishments, the continued decline of Chinook salmon – both locally and region- ally – highlights the urgent need for expanding and accelerating recovery efforts. This Salmon Habitat Plan Update represents the next chapter of salmon recovery efforts in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. It provides a science-based framework for identify- ing, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years. The integration of over a decade of new science informed important refinements to recovery priorities and investment strategies outlined in the 2005 Plan. These refine- ments reflect the watershed’s commitment to adap- tive management and ensure that limited resources are directed to where they can provide the greatest benefit towards Chinook salmon recovery. Although the focus of this plan is on Chinook salmon recovery, implementation will also provide parallel benefits to other salmon and steelhead. Regional Salmon Recovery Context This addendum updates the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed chapter of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved 2007 Puget Sound Salmon Recov- ery Plan. The Green River Chinook salmon popula- tion is one of six Chinook salmon populations in the Central/South sub-basin and one of 22 remaining populations in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evo- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 14 Why does the data on salmon abundance begin to improve in 1975? The quality of data on annual salmon population runs improves starting in 1975, when the Washington Department of Fisheries (predecessor to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) initiated data collection in response to the federal court mandate to develop and share annual abun- dance of salmon returning to individual rivers in Puget Sound. Chinook Salmon Recovery Timeline Puget Sound Chinook listed as threatened species Population 2016 Seattle: 689,000 Green River 1963 Howard Hanson Dam Built Lowest number of natural origin spawners (182) recorded in the Green River 1870 1881 1890 19091906 1913 1916 1950 197519631919 2009 0k 750k 250k 150k 50k 550k 450k 350k 650k 1975WILD PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON RUN SIZE Puget Sound Wild Chinook Population Logging 1881 First splash dam built for logging in Washington Railroad 1870 Northern Pacific Railroad survey triggers land boom Harbor Island finished 1909 Much of the Duwamish Estuary filled for industry Population 1890 Seattle population 42,000 Population 1950 Seattle 465,000 Green River 1919 Private levee construction begins throughout the river Cedar River 1916 Diverted away from the Green River, into Lake Washington White River 1906 Diverted out of the Green River into the Puyallup River 201920161999 Natural spawners Green River Chinook salmon escapement 1803_8972a_Green_River_Salmon_Timeline_WRIA9.ai WRIA 9 Chinook salmon abundance goals: 1,000–4,200 27,000 returning natural origin spawning adult fish by 2025 returning natural origin spawning adults by 2055 Source: WDFW salmonid stock inventory 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1975198019851990199520002005201020152020Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 15 lutionary significant unit (ESU). NOAA ESU recovery criteria require status improvement in all populations and two to four viable populations in each of the sub-basins. The Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership), the state agency leading the region’s collective effort to restore and protect Puget Sound, serves as the regional salmon organization for the 15 lead entities within the Puget Sound, advised by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. The Partnership co-manages the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund and works in partnership with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and Recreation and Conservation Of- fice (RCO) on statewide salmon recovery issues. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board, facilitated by the RCO, is a Governor-appointed 10-person board with a primary responsibility for making grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and salmon recovery activ- ities. This salmon recovery infrastructure, and the grant and loans for habitat project implementation, is supported through state and federal funds from NOAA’s Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and the State Salmon Recovery Funding. Additionally, within Puget Sound, salmon recovery is supported by the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. WRIA 9 Organizational Structure Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 serves as a lead entity for salmon recovery under the State of Washington’s watershed-based framework for salmon recovery established under RCW 77.85. It is a watershed-based organization comprised of local, state and federal partners, non-profit organizations, business interests, and citizens. Per statute, WRIA 9 is mandated to “compile a list of habitat projects, establish priorities for individual projects, define the sequence for project implementation, and submit these activities as the habitat project list. The com- mittee shall also identify potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources.” The 17 local governments within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) formalized a partnership under an interlocal agreement (ILA) (WRIA 9 ILA) in 2000. The initial ILA (2000–2005) funded a strategic, science-based assessment of the watershed and a long-term, com- prehensive recovery plan for the Green River Chinook salmon population. Following approval of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, the local government partners forged a 10-year ILA from 2007–2017 intended to guide plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ongoing commitment to watershed-based salmon recovery was renewed in 2017. The current ILA extends through 2025. The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF) serves as the advisory body for plan implementation and adaptive management. It is comprised of elected officials from the ILA partners and other watershed stakeholders. The Management Committee serves as the executive committee to the WEF. It directs work plan development and manages the ILA budget. The Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) is a technical- and policy-focused subcommittee that supports plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ITC defines monitoring and research prior- ities, interprets new technical information as it relates to salmon recovery, and provides science-based recommendations to WEF. Equity and Social Justice Salmon recovery efforts within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound watershed overlap with numerous communities experiencing deeply entrenched social, economic, and environmental inequities. Race and place influence opportunity and quality of life. People of color, immigrants, and low-income residents experience inequities in access to key determinants of equity – including access to parks and natural resources. Although best available science drives project identification and prioritization, equity and social justice (ESJ) issues should be care- fully considered. Applying an ESJ lens to habitat pro- jects can help ensure salmon recovery efforts align with ESJ initiatives and do not inadvertently reinforce existing inequities. Integrating residents and commu- nity-based organizations into project design can help build community support and achieve multi-benefit outcomes that advance equity in the watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 16 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 17 Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed – A Snapshot The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed spans 575 square miles of diverse landscape, ranging from an industrial waterfront to preserved old growth forest. This section provides a high-level over- view of the five subwatersheds (Upper Green, Middle Green, Lower Green, Duwamish, and Nearshore) that serve as an overarching framework for salmon recovery. It also provides context for the strategies and actions outlined in subsequent chapters. For a more comprehensive review, please refer to the Chapter 3 of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. The Upper Green Subwatershed extends up- stream of Howard Hanson Dam, river mile 64.5, and represents approximately 45 percent of the Green/ Duwamish River watershed. Historically, the Upper Green provided important spawning and freshwater rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. It encompasses between 78-165 miles of suitable instream habitat, although fish passage has been blocked by a combi- nation of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam and Howard Hanson Dam since 1911. Checkered ownership in the subwatershed compli- cates coordinated land management. Although the primary land use is commercial forestry, the Upper Green also serves at the primary municipal water supply for the City of Tacoma. Additionally, a road and railroad alignment have constrained the river in plac- es, the Upper Green Subwatershed is largely undevel- oped and contains relatively high-quality, yet currently inaccessible, aquatic habitat. Long-term recovery of Chinook salmon depends on providing fish passage to the Upper Watershed. The Middle Green Subwatershed extends between river miles 64.5 and 32. It includes the two largest tributaries to the Green River – Soos and Newaukum Creeks. Low-velocity habitats, including off-channel habitats, sidechannels, floodplain wetlands, and river edge, provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Land use in the Middle Green is characterized pre- dominantly by agricultural lands and rural residential development. Land use development adjacent to river and tributaries has resulted in loss of riparian habitat contributing to elevated instream temperatures. Mod- ified flow regimes have disrupted natural transport of large wood and sediment. In addition, a network of training levees designed to restrict lateral channel migration – as opposed to prevent flooding – have simplified channel complexity along some reaches. Restoring floodplain connectivity and expanding rear- ing habitat capacity are critical to increasing Chinook salmon productivity. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 18 The Lower Green River Subwatershed flows from river mile 32 downstream to river mile 11. It serves as an important migratory corridor for adult upstream migration and juvenile downstream migra- tion. Available rearing and high-flow refuge habitat is limited compared to the Middle Green – many reach- es currently lack large wood, side channels, sloughs, and slow-water edge habitats. The Lower Green River also supports Chinook salmon spawning upstream of approximately river mile 25. The Lower Green River valley is the second largest warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The floodplain is heavily developed and character- ized by a combination of industrial, commercial, and urban residential development. The 1906 diversion of the White River left the floodplain perched above the mainstem channel and disconnected historic off-channel habitats. An extensive network of flood control facilities (27 miles of levees and revetments) currently restricts floodplain connectivity and limits channel complexity. A corresponding loss of riparian tree canopy contributes to elevated instream temper- atures. An integrated, multi-benefit approach to flood- plain management is needed to balance fish habitat needs with flood risk reduction and other community priorities in this subwatershed. The Duwamish Subwatershed extends from river mile 11 at the Black River Pump Station downstream to the north end of Harbor Island. The extent of salt influence – as depicted by the saltwater wedge – var- ies based on flows and tide, but can extend upstream as far as the Foster Bridge (RM 10.2) during low flows and high tides. Juvenile Chinook rear in the estuarine waters of the Duwamish as they undergo the physio- logical transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Extensive dredge and fill of the Duwamish has transformed the estuary into an industrial waterway, characterized by straightened channel with armored banks and a lack of riparian tree canopy. More than 98 percent of the historical tidal wetlands have been transformed into commercial and industrial land uses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared the Lower Duwamish Waterway a “Superfund” site in 2001 due to legacy contamination, and clean-up is not expected to be complete for another decade. Sediment cleanup and restoration of estuarine habitat are essential to increasing juvenile Chinook salmon survival. The Nearshore Subwatershed extends 92 line- ar miles from Elliott Bay south to the Pierce County boarder, including Vashon Island. It represents the interface of upland and aquatic habitats; shallow productive zone and deep water habitats; and fresh and marine waters. The nearshore is a dynamic environment – shaped by wave energy and sediment transport that support high species diversity. A variety of habitats, including beaches, eelgrass beds, and pocket estuaries, provide important foraging habitat and a migratory corridor to the Pacific Ocean for juvenile Chinook salmon. Development along the marine shorelines has altered significant stretches of the nearshore ecosystem. Approximately two-thirds of WRIA 9 shoreline is ar- mored, which has disrupted natural sediment delivery and transport. The intensity of shoreline development varies substantially across the watershed. The highest intensity development is located along the industrial and commercial shores of Elliott Bay. The mainland shoreline from Seattle south to Federal Way is pre- dominantly residential. Vashon Island is predominant- ly rural. Improving nearshore habitat is essential to increasing juvenile salmon residence times, growth rates, and overall marine survival. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) HowardHansonDam Tacoma HeadworksDiversion Dam Smay CrSunday CrJenkins Cr.Snow CrSawmill CrMiller CrMill CrTwin Ca m p C rChampion CrTacom a Cr Gale Cr LakeSawyer Deep CrCoal CrBear CrNewauku m C r Newauku m C r Charley C r N. Fork Green RiverLi t t l e Soo s C r Duwa m ish River Green RiverRavensdaleCr.Big Soo s C r Lake Youngs Puget Sound Elliott Bay HowardHansonReservoir SEATTLE Seattle KENT VashonIsland Maury Island RENTON SEATAC AUBURN ALGONA AUBURN FEDERAL WAY BURIEN TUKWILA COVINGTON DESMOINES ENUMCLAW MAPLEVALLEY BLACKDIAMOND NORMANDYPARK 405 509 518 167 99 99 18 99 5 5 5 UPPER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED LOWER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED LOCATION MAP WRIA 4WRIA 5 WRIA 8 WRIA 10 WRIA 6 WRIA 15 WRIA 11 WRIA 23 WRIA 38 WRIA17 WRIA 26 WRIA 39 WRIA 12 WRIA45 WRIA 7 WRIA 9 13 KingCountyKingCounty SnohomishCountySnohomishCounty PierceCountyPierceCounty King County Data Sources:King County Datasets: TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, Tribal_lands, Urban_growth, and KC BNDRY. Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. Produced by: King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Figure 2 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed River Mile River/creek Major Road Urban Growth Area Line WRIA 9 Subwatershed Boundary WRIA 9 Boundary Open Water King County Boundary Muckleshoot Tribal Lands VC File: smb://wlrbafs1.dnrp.kingcounty.lcl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/2010_10202L_W9SHP_W9whsdMap.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 0 2 4 61 Miles October 2020 N 0 5 10 Miles AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Smay CrSunday CrJenkins CrJenkins CrSnow C r Sawmill CrMiller CrMiller CrMill CrMill CrTwin Ca m p C rChampion CrTacom a Cr Gale CrGale Cr LakeSawyer LakeSawyer Deep CrDeep CrCoal CrCoal CrBear CrBear CrNewauku m C r Newauku m C r Charley C rCharley C r N. Fork Green River N. Fork Green RiverLi t t l e Soo s C rLi t t l e Soo s C r Duwa m ish River Green RiverCovington Cr Covington CrBig Soo s C r Lake Youngs Lake Youngs Puget Sound Elliott Bay HowardHansonReservoir HowardHansonReservoir NameName SEATTLE SEATTLE KENT Vashon Island Maury Island RENTON SEATAC AUBURN ALGONA AUBURN FEDERAL WAY BURIEN TUKWILA COVINGTON DESMOINES ENUMCLAW MAPLEVALLEY BLACKDIAMOND NORMANDYPARK NAME 405 509 518 167 99 99 18 99 5 5 5 King County Data Sources:Similar land use designations were combined and derived from King County GIS Center land use coverage LANDUSE_KC_CONSOL_20 based on multi-jurisdictional zoning data. Other King County datasets include TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, Tribal_lands, Urban_growth, and KC BNDRY. Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. Figure 3 Land Use Designations Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed LAND USE CATEGORIES Produced by: King County IT Design and Civic Engagement KCIT DCE File: smb://wlrbafs1.dnrp.kingcounty.lcl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/2102_10202L_W9SHP_W9_LANDUSEmap.ai LPRE GIS Data:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 0 2 4 61 Miles October 2020 N OTHER SYMBOLS Incorporated Area Name River/Creek Major Road Urban Growth Area Line WRIA 9 Boundary Open Water and Name King County Boundary Tribal Lands Industrial Commercial Mixed Use Residential Rural Residential Agricultural Public Lands Forest Parks, Open Space or Golf Course Mineral Resource Lands Aviation/Transportation Undesignated AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 23 October, between approximately river miles 25 and 61. Spawning primarily occurs within the Lower and Middle Mainstem Green River and Newaukum Creeks. Additional spawning occurs in Soos, Burns and Covington Creeks. Fish passage to the upper watershed has been blocked by a combination of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam (1911) and Howard Hanson Dam (1961). Although fish passage was provided at the Tacoma facility in 2007, a downstream fish passage facility has not been completed at Howard Hanson Dam. The dams also block natural gravel delivery and transport; however, available spawning habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor in Chinook recovery. Egg Incubation/Emergence Egg incubation and alevin emergence generally occurs September through January within the same reaches where spawning occurs. Timing is variable and influenced by water temperatures – warmer temperatures drive an earlier emergence. High- flow events and sedimentation during this critical development period can scour redds and result in high mortality. As a result, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam influences incubation/ emergence success. The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon life cycle provides a common thread linking together a diverse watershed. Each of the five distinct subwatersheds plays a critical role in the Chi- nook salmon life cycle. Recovery of a viable salmon population hinges on collective action across the watershed to improve aquatic habitat. The concep- tual life cycle model presented in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan remains an important tool for assess- ing aquatic habitat needs in relationship to priority stressors that adversely impact survival at distinct life history stages and across different life history types. Understanding aquatic habitat needs throughout the life cycle and how they relate observed bottlenecks in survival allows recovery managers to strategically focus limited resources where they are expected to provide the largest benefit to recovery objectives. Figure 5 highlights the relationship between the sub- watersheds and specific life history phases. Adult Upstream Migration/Spawning Chinook salmon enter the Green/Duwamish between July and October. Timing of river entry and upstream migration is impacted by water temperature and flow. Spawning generally occurs mid-September through Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle – Connecting a Diverse Watershed CHRIS GREGERSON AGENDA ITEM #6. e) The Salmon Cycle Spawning Incubation and emergence Stream rearing Downstream migration Adult Migration Migration To Puget Sound Maturation (Marine waters) Nearshore Foraging Estuary rearing DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED LOWER/MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHEDS MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED/OFFSHORE Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 24 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/Migration Juvenile Chinook salmon rear in the Lower and Middle Green subwatershed from mid-December to mid-July. The length of the freshwater rearing period varies among life history types (Figure 5) and is influenced by habitat availability and flows. Subyearling Chinook rely on low-velocity habitats, including mainstem river margins, pools, and off- channel habitats. Rearing habitat availability is a limiting factor for Chinook productivity. Extensive flood control facilities and floodplain development have disconnected floodplain habitats, reduced habitat complexity, and eliminated much of the historic freshwater rearing habitat. Instream flows influence accessibility of off-channel rearing habitats. During low-flow periods, off-channel habitats and floodplain wetlands may become disconnected from the mainstem. In contrast, high-flow events may flush juvenile Chinook downstream if they are unable to access suitable refuge habitat. Given the connection to instream flows, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam can impact habitat connectivity/ availability during the rearing period. Juvenile Estuary Rearing Subyearlying Chinook salmon generally migrate downstream into the Duwamish estuary between February and July, with fry-type life histories predom- inantly entering earlier in the year (Feb-Mar) than parr (May-Jun). Residence times in the Duwamish vary considerably, with some fish spending days and others (i.e., estuarine reared fry) spending weeks to months in the estuary. The Duwamish Estuary – specifically the transition zone (RM 1-9) – is critical for juvenile salmon making the physiological transition from fresh to salt water. Juvenile Chinook salmon rely on shallow, low gradient habitats (e.g., marshes, mud- flats, and tidal sloughs) to escape stronger currents and support efficient foraging and growth prior to en- tering Puget Sound. Extensive industrial development along the Duwamish has transformed the estuary to an industrial waterway, resulting in extensive loss of slow water rearing habitats and contamination of sediments. The lack of high-quality habitat may contribute to accelerated downstream migration and reduced survival upon entry into Puget Sound. Figure 4. The Salmon Cycle AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 25 (Ja n -Ju n ) (Jan-D ec-Jun) FRY (Jan-Apr) FRY (Jan-Apr) FRY FRY (days) F RY (Jan-Apr) S M O LT (w e e k s )? SMOLT (days) ? S M O L T (w e e k s ) FR Y YEA RLINGPARR (d a y s ) (t o m o n t h s ) (weeks to months) (to weeks) ? (days) ? (40 mm) RIVER Yearling RARE (>105 mm) Middle Green Parr COMMON (70-95 mm) Lower Green Parr LESS COMMON (70-95 mm) Estuarine Reared Fry COMMON (70-95 mm) Marine Direct Fry LESS COMMON (40-50 mm) PUGET SOUNDDUWAMISHLOWER GREEN P A R R MIDDLE GREEN (d a y s t o w e eks) Green/Duwamish River Chinook Juvenile Rearing Trajectories Green/Duwamish River Chinook Juvenile Rearing Trajectories Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). The most intense shoreline modifications are located in urbanized Elliott Bay, with more natural shorelines located along the largely rural Vashon Island. Ocean Migration By fall, most Green River Chinook exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca and migrate north along the outer coast of Vancouver Island. While Chinook salmon may spend up to five years in marine waters, most Green River Chinook spend two to three years at sea before returning to spawn. In addition to predators, Chinook salmon are subject to various commercial fisheries during their marine migration. Marine Nearshore Rearing Juvenile Chinook salmon generally rear in the Puget Sound nearshore from later winter through fall. Shal- low nearshore habitats support foraging, growth, and refuge from predators, while also providing a migra- tory corridor to offshore waters. Although considera- ble uncertainty surrounds marine nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon, it is widely accepted that the early marine rearing period is a critical period of growth that strongly influences long-term survival. The Central Puget Sound marine nearshore waters not only support Green River Chinook, but also at least eight different stocks of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Shoreline development has extensively modified nearshore habitat and processes in WRIA 9. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 26 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) ROGER TABOR Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 27 Recovery goals provide a framework from which to evaluate both plan implementation and overall pro- gress towards Chinook recovery. Tracking population metrics and habitat conditions provides important data used to evaluate current population status and overall habitat conditions. This information serves as a key input for informing ongoing adaptive manage- ment. Viable Salmon Population Criteria – Current Status and Goals The Viable Salmon Population1 (VSP) concept – as defined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – provides the foundation for all established recovery goals for Chinook salmon within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. NMFS defines a viable salmon population as a population that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local en- vironmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe (McElhany et al. 2000). The VSP goals outlined in this section remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan and are presented in Table 1. They 1 NOAA technical Memorandum NMFS-NWSSC-42: Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evo- lutionarily significant units. are based on recovery planning targets developed by a team of scientists (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team) appointed by NOAA to support the original 2007 Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook. Four parameters are used to assess the viability of salmon populations: abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. These parameters are rea- sonable predictors of extinction risk, reflect general processes important to all salmon populations, and measurable over time. Abundance Abundance is the number of individuals in the pop- ulation at a given life stage or time. The number of natural origin Green River Chinook spawners is the primary abundance indicator. Chinook abundance indicates an overall decline since before the first plan was adopted in 2005 (Figure 6 and Table 1). In 2009, the number of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) was the lowest ever recorded, with less than 200 fish. For five of the past 10 years (2010–2019), the number of NOS has been below the planning target range (1,000 -4,200 NOS) for WRIA 9. Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 28 Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals VSP Parameter Indicator 2006-2010 (average) 2011-2015 (average) 2016-2019 (average) 10-Year Goal 50-100 Year Goal Abundance Natural Origin Spawners 1975 (average) 963 (average) 2041 (average)1000-42002 27,000 Productivity Egg-to-Migrant Survival 2.9%8.7%5.3%a >8%>8% Diversity Percent Hatchery Origin 56.4%60.6%68.2%Decreasing <30% Proportion 5-6 yr- old Spawners 19.2 9.6%N/A Increasing >15% Relative Abundance of Parr 46%30.6%32.8%a No Target3 No Target Spatial Diversity Spawning Distribution Spawning in Green River mainstem (below Howard Hanson Dam), Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek Spawning above Howard Hanson Dam Maintain spawning distribution Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database a2016-2018 2 A range is used because the productivity of each year’s run varies depending on a variety of factors. If fish are expe- riencing high productivity, fewer adults are needed to reach future targets than if they are experiencing low productivity, which would require more fish returning to reach future targets. 3 No target established because it is not considered a reliable metric of diversity. However, relative abundance of fry and parr does provide important information for projecting future abundance. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 29 Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement. Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database. Productivity Productivity or population growth rate is the ratio of abundance in the next generation as compared to current abundance. The WRIA uses WDFW data to track egg-to-migrant survival rates as a primary means of evaluating productivity (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Egg-to-migrant survival rate is defined as the pro- portion of fertilized eggs that survive to migrate as fry or parr into the Lower Green, as quantified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) smolt trap at river mile 34. Although, the average rate for wild Chinook populations is 10.4 percent (Quinn 2005), the WRIA set a target of 8 percent because the elevated proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds is assumed to reduce reproductive fitness (see VSP diversity metric below). Between 2006 and 2018, the survival rate has ranged from 0.09 percent to 11 percent, with an average of 5.7 percent (Table 1). While the long-term average is below the target, the egg-to-migrant survival rate has exceeded the 8 percent target in five of the last 10 years of data. VSP-Spatial Structure The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator or metric for spatial structure. However, natural origin adults predominantly spawn in Newaukum Creek and the mainstem Green River. Recent changes to hatchery operations will maintain the area in Soos Creek above the weir as a natural production empha- sis area with only natural-origin adults passed above the weir. Adult Chinook will not be passed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) in order to access the upper watershed until downstream fish passage is provided at HHD. A 2019 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that the construction of a downstream fish passage facility at HHD was nec- essary for the recovery of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Southern resident orcas. It sets a 2030 deadline for construction and operation of a downstream fish passage facility. For the spatial structure of the population to improve, natural origin spawners are needed within both of these areas that were part of their historic range. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020NUMBER OF SPAWNERSTotal spawners Natural origin 10-Yr. VSP goal (range) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 30 VSP-Diversity Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by individuals within a population. WRIA 9 has used three metrics to mea- sure diversity: • Percentage of hatchery origin spawners. The target is for fewer than 30 percent hatchery origin Chinook spawners (HSRG 2004). The target has not been met since 2002, and since plan adoption in 2005, the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawn- ing grounds has ranged from 35 percent to 75 per- cent and has appeared to be increasing (Table 1); • Percentage of juvenile Chinook that outmigrate as parr. Based on recent analyses, this indicator is influenced by basic habitat capacity, the number of natural origin spawners, and the streamflows experienced during rearing (Anderson and Topping 2018). As such, tracking the percentage of parr is no longer recommended as a reliable metric for evaluating diversity of the population. However, the metric does continue to provides important popula- tion-level information related to productivity; and • Proportion of natural origin adults that return as five- and six-year old fish, with a simple target of an increasing percentage of older fish returning over time. Since 2005, there have been no six-year old fish, thus monitoring data reflect only five-year old Chinook. Excluding 2009, which was an outlier year with the lowest return of adults on record, the proportion of five-year olds has ranged from a high of 17 percent to a low of 1 percent (Table 1). The average percent return from 2006 to 2015, 14.4 per- cent, is similar to the average over the last 46 years of 15.4 percent. Habitat Goals – Implementation Targets Habitat goals outline both the necessary future ecological conditions to support a viable salmon population and shorter term implementation targets designed to assess plan implementation progress. WRIA 9 developed goals for key ecological indicators that reflect priority habitat needs and environmental stressors that span all life stages of Chinook salmon – adult migration, spawning, incubation and emergence, stream rearing, downstream migration, estuary rearing, and nearshore foraging. The indicators and associated goals presented in Table 2 are organized by subwatershed. This Plan Update does not outline specific goals related to marine migration outside of WRIA 9 boundaries. WRIA 9 developed long-term goals – or necessary future conditions – during the development of the 2005 plan using scientific guidance developed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. The 2004 WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment and 2005 Salmon Hab- itat Plan summarize the full suite of necessary future conditions to support a viable salmon population in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed. They were not amended as part of this Plan Update. The subset of necessary future conditions outlined in Table 2 represents a strategic subset that can be readily assessed related to project implemen- tation across shorter intervals of time. Table 2 also outlines updated short term – 10 year – habitat targets used to directly track plan imple- mentation. The 10-year targets were developed by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee based on a review priority stressors, limiting factors, implementation progress under the 2005 Plan, and a review of common indicators proposed for regional tracking by the Puget Sound Partnership. Specific targets are intended to be aspirational and reflect the significant level of investment needed to substantive- ly advance recovery within the watershed. The Mon- itoring and Adaptive Management chapter summa- rizes recommended methodology and timelines for periodic assessments of these and other longer-term status and trends indicators (e.g., water temperature, contamination). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 31 Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. Necessary Future Conditions and Implementation Targets Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Cond. (2005 Plan) 10-year Target 2005 Plan (achieved)Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (2030) Marine Nearshore Shoreline Armor 65% of shoreline in natural condition Restore 13,500 ft of shoreline (1500 ft restored – net gain of 70 ft of armor). 36%/33 mi of shoreline in natural condition Remove 3,000 ft of hard armor and achieve a net reduction in hard armor. Marine Riparian Vegetation 65% of marine shoreline characterized by riparian tree cover. No target developed 40%/36 mi of shoreline has riparian tree cover Revegetate 60 ac and/or 3.25 mi (~3.5% gain) of shoreline. Shoreline Conservation Not applicable Protect 5 mi of shoreline. (4 mi protected). 9.5 mi of adjacent upland protected as natural lands Acquire 2 mi of shoreline for permanent protection, prioritizing beaches and feeder bluffs. Duwamish Shallow Water Habitat 173 ac of shallow water habitat in the transition zone (RM 1-10) (30% of historic) Restore 26.5 ac of shallow water habitat (~6 ac restored) Unknown Create 40 ac of shallow water habitat between RM 1-10. Riparian Forest 65% of each bank of the river has > 165 ft of riparian tree cover- age (586 ac total) No target was developed 69 ac/12% of 165 ft buffer contains tree cover Revegetate 170 ac (~29% of 165-ft buffer)/9.8 mi of streambank. Lower Green Off-Channel Habitat 45% of historical off-channel habitat. Restore 2.8 mi of side channels, 450 ac of floodplain wetlands, and 5,039 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain habitat (total of 8,839 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain). Restore 16.5 ac of reconnected off-channel and riparian habitat (20.7 ac restored) 3,800 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain that is accessible to juvenile fish Restore 240 ac of floodplain habitat. Side Channels: 550-ft high flow/ 3,740-ft low flow Floodplain Tributaries: 3,080 ft Backwater: 75 ac Floodplain Wetland: 66 ac Other 100-yr Floodplain: 99 ac Riparian Forest 75% of each bank of the river to >165 ft wide (828 ac total) No target was developed 222 ac/27% of 165-ft buffer contains tree cover Revegetate 250 ac (~30% of 165-ft buffer)/ 8.52 mi of high-priority, unforested shoreline (continued on next page) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 32 Necessary Future Conditions and Implementation Targets, continued Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Cond. (2005 Plan) 10-year Target 2005 Plan (achieved)Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (2030) Lower Green, continued Large woody debris 1,705 pieces per mi (21 key pieces) No target developed.2004: 54 pieces/ mi. 2014: 48.5 pieces/ mi. Achieve 425 pieces/mi. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount 2014: 42 mi of river bank armored (17.7-mi levees; 9.8 mi maintained revetments; 14.5 mi of semi-armored roads acting like levees and natural banks) Set back 1 mi of levee. Middle Green Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration Floodplain subject to lateral channel migration represents 65% of historical conditions Restoration of 50 ac of off-channel habitat and riparian vegetation (45 ac restored) 2017: 1,751 ac or 55% of historic floodplain connected Reconnect 200 ac of floodplain as measured by area subject to lateral channel migration. Riparian forest > 65% of Channel Migration Zone (1,424 of 2,190 ac) and up to 165 ft wide where possible No target developed 2005: 50.3% 2009: 50.5% of the Channel Migration Zone forested Revegetate 175 ac (8% of Channel Migration Zone). Large wood debris 10 jams/mi No target developed 2006: 2.2 jams/mi 2015: 3.8 jams/mi Achieve 5 jams/mi. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount (>1% reduction) 2004: 25% armored 2009: 24% armored Set back 1 mi of revetment/ levee. Upper Green Fish passage Up and downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam Fish passage provided (upstream passage provided) Upstream passage facility complete. Downstream passage not complete. Provide downstream passage at Howard Hanson Dam. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount 2004: 15% armored 2009: 15% armored Remove/setback 0.5 mi of bank armoring. Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. (Continued) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 33 Chapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures The 2005 Strategic Assessment provided the scien- tific foundation for the Salmon Habitat Plan. Although the majority of science remains relevant today, new research findings have refined our understanding of priority pressures and limiting factors related to Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria. The 2005 Strategic Assessment evaluated functional linkages between priority pressures; habitat conditions; and Chinook abundance, diversity, productivity and spatial struc- ture. The functional linkages were used to create a series of conservation hypotheses that outlined how improvements in habitat conditions and natural pro- cesses will drive changes in VSP parameters. From 2017-2018, WRIA 9 produced a series of white papers as addendums to summarize new research and address priority data gaps in the original 2005 Strategic Assessment. White papers included Fish Habitat Use & Productivity (Higgins 2017); Water Temperature (Kubo 2017); Contamination (Colton 2018); and Climate Change (Engel, Higgins and Ostergaard 2017). This chapter provides a summary of the highlights of those papers as they relate to priority pressures impacting Chinook salmon in the Green/ Duwamish Watershed. These refinements in our understanding of priority pressures informed both the recovery strategies presented in Chapter 6 and the prioritization of capital projects in Chapter 7. Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus) Addressing priority habitat stressors is critical to restoring a viable salmon population in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. The following stressors have clear functional linkages to one or more VSP parameters (abundance, pro- ductivity, diversity, and spatial structure). Applicable research and monitoring information is highlighted to reflect new research and best available science since the 2005 Plan. Altered Instream Flows (Middle Green, Lower Green) Watershed Status Operations at Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) and the Tacoma Headworks diversion dam regulate instream flows within the mainstem Green River below river mile 64.5. Water storage, diversion, and release are jointly managed by the U.S. Army Corps and Taco- ma Water utility. Although flood risk reduction is the primary mission of HHD, water storage also supports Tacoma municipal and industrial uses, and fish con- servation uses. In 2007, Tacoma Water’s Additional Water Storage Project provided capacity to store an addition 20,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) for municipal use. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 34 Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation. Water capture and storage generally occur between late February and June 1. Figure 7 depicts how a spring water storage target of 49,000 ac-ft is legally allocated between municipal and fish conservation uses. Phase 2 of the Additional Water Storage Project (to be completed at a later date following down- stream fish passage) would raise the conservation pool to 1,177 feet and store an additional 12,000 ac-ft of water. The U.S. Army Corps convenes a bi-weekly Green River Flows Management Coordination Com- mittee to inform water capture and a subsequent flow augmentation period that extends from July 15 to November depending on fall rainfall. Augmentation of flows is intended to support Chinook salmon migra- tion and spawning, maximize summer rearing habitat, and minimize dewatering of steelhead redds. Lim- ited Fish Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration allotments frequently require tradeoffs among these ecological benefits – especially in dry and/or warm years with low snowpack. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan establishes a minimum stream flow of 225 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Auburn Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. gauge. During the summer of 2015, the minimum flow at the Auburn gauge reached 226 cfs. Although flows are not regulated in tributaries, in- streams flows are impacted by stream withdrawals and groundwater wells used to support residential and agricultural uses. In 2018, the Washington Leg- islature passed the Streamflow Restoration Law to offset the impacts of future permit exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals and help restore instream flows. The law was in response to a 2017 Washington State Supreme Court decision (Hirst Decision) that restricted building permits for new residential homes that would be reliant on permit-exempt wells. The legislature appropriated $300 million over 15 years to support implementation of projects to improve stream flows across the state. The Washington State Department of Ecology is developing a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to identify and prioritize water offset projects in WRIA 9. HOWARD HANSON DAM PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD - 180,000 ac-ft AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL - 104,000 ac-ft FISH CONSERVATION - 24,000 ac-ft TURBIDITY POOL - 600 ac-ft 48-in. bypass pipeinvert elev. 1,069 ft MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL AWSP - 20,000 ac-ft Dam crest elev. 1,228 ft ELEVATION 1,224 ft 1,206 ft 1,167 ft 1,147 ft 1,141 ft 1,075 ft 1,035 ft ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SECTION , ac-ft Spillway invert elev. 1,176 ft 19-ft outlet tunnel invert elev. 1,035 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 35 Research/Monitoring Flow management at HHD dictates instream habitat conditions within the mainstem Green River. As a result, water storage and subsequent release timing not only impacts natural hydraulic processes, but also influences available salmon habitat and produc- tivity. Maintaining minimum instream flows of 250 cfs during dry summer months provides important benefits to available fish habitat. However, associated water capture and storage has reduced the frequency and magnitude of high – habitat forming – flows while prolonging the duration of moderate flows (Higgins 2017). Moderate flows between 5000-8000 cfs are not sufficient to drive process-based habitat formation, but do have the potential to scour redds (R2 Re - source Consultants 2014). Climate Change (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Climate change science was not incorporated into the 2005 Plan because future climate scenarios were unclear. However, climate change has been the focus of intense research, both global and regional, over the last decades. This research highlights the need to prepare for the current and future impacts of climate change and incorporate what we know about climate change into salmon recovery actions. Climate change will directly impact salmon recov- ery work in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. The UW Climate Impacts Group (Mauger et al. 2015) and others predict that Pacific Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bring- ing warmer, wetter falls, winters, and springs. Floods will be more intense and more frequent, with peak flows expected to increase by 28-34 percent by 2080. As winters become warmer and wetter, the water- shed is projected to shift from mixed rain and snow to a rain-dominated basin with less mountain snow melting earlier in the spring. The decrease in amount and earlier disappearance of the snow pack will exacerbate drought-like summer low flow conditions in currently snow-dominated areas of the watershed. Summertime rain is expected to decrease by ~22% by 2050. A projected 4-5°F increase in air tempera- tures will increase water temperature in both rivers and the ocean. Nearshore and estuary areas will be impacted by sea level rise, food web alteration and ocean acidification. A changing climate will exacer- bate typical climate variability, causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The potential impacts to various life histories of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, as a result of climate change are summarized in Figure 8. Flows above 8,800 cfs are needed to initiate lateral channel migration and support creation of off-channel habitats that are critical for juvenile Chinook rearing (Konrad et al. 2011). Long-term juvenile Chinook outmigration data col- lected by WDFW highlights the function relationship between instream flows and Chinook productivity (Anderson and Topping 2018). High flows (between ~8,000–10,000 cfs) from November through mid-Jan- uary appear to scour eggs, sharply reducing the overall productivity of the number of juveniles per spawner. High flows (~6,000-8,000 cfs) during the typical fry outmigration period (mid-January through the end of March) reduce the number of parr pro- duced in the Middle Green, likely because fish are flushed into habitats downstream of the trap. The frequency of spring flows (April through June) above 1,200 cfs appears to increase the number of parr produced. This is likely due to increased connectivity to off-channel habitats, like side-channels. A separate study (R2 Resource Consultants 2013) showed that, at flows below 1,200 cfs, side channel habitats become less connected to the mainstem and overall habitat complexity decreases. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 36 Figure 8. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a result of climate change. Adapted from Beechie et al. (2012). Fish timing represents typical fish behavior. Pink Year 3Year 1 Year 2 Subyearling Yearling Climate Change Impacts on WRIA 9 Salmonids Chinook Coho Chum Steelhead Spawn Incubate Rearing Spawn Smolt Smolt Smolt Rearing Spawn Incubate Rearing Smolt Spawn Incubate Smolt Rearing Spawn Incubate 1-2 Year Rearing Smolt Spawn Incubate Smolt Rearing 2010_W9climate_sh_impacts.aiIncreased summer temperature may decrease growth or kill juvenile salmon where temperatures are already high and block/delay migration. May also decrease spawning fecundity (e.g. Chinook). Decreased summer low flow may contribute to increased tempera-ture, decrease rearing habitat capacity for juvenile salmonids, and decrease access to or availability of spawning areas. Increased winter floods may increase scour of eggs, or increase mortaility of rearing juveniles where flood refugia are not available, displace juveniles to less desira ble habitats. Loss of spring snowmelt may decrease or eliminate spawning opportunities for steelhead, may alter survival of eggs or emergent fry for other salmonid species, cause early dewatering of o- channel and side channel habitats, and reduce connectivity to the floodplain. Incubate River entry River entry River entry River entry River entry River entry Jun.Jul.Aug.Jan.Feb.Mar. Apr. Jun.Jul.MaySept.Dec.Nov.Oct.Aug.Jan.Feb.Mar. Apr. Jun.Jul.MaySept.Dec.Nov.Oct.Aug.Ocean3-5 Years3-5 Years1-2 Years2-4 Years2-4 Years1-2 YearsOceanOceanOceanPuget Sound/OceanOceanOceanAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 37 NATURAL SHORELINE Current sea level ARMORED SHORELINE Current sea level ARMORED SHORELINE Future sea level NATURAL SHORELINE Future sea level Forage fish spawning habitat Forage fish spawning habitat migrates with beach translation. Forage fish spawning habitat Forage fish spawning habitat entirely lost due to armor and sea level rise Future MHHW Current MHHW Former MHHW Current MHHW Future MHHW Former MHHW The Coastal Squeeze Former shoreline edge Water temperatures as measured on July 4, 2015, exceeded the potential lethally threshold (22°C) for salmonids downstream of the Green River Gorge (DeGasperi 2017). Research/Monitoring A changing climate will exacerbate typical climate variability causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The summer of 2015 likely provided a glimpse of the future ecological conditions in the Green/Duwamish watershed. A warm, wet winter with extreme low snowpack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon. (DeGasperi 2017) The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reported adult Chinook salmon dying in the stream just below the Soos Creek hatchery (H. Coccoli, pers. comm.), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) data indi- cated higher than typical numbers of female Chinook mortality with high egg retention (pre-spawn mortal- ity) (Unpublished WDFW data). Other sublethal im- pacts associated with temperatures in excess of 17°C can include developmental abnormalities, altered growth rates, and non-fertilization of eggs; altered migration timing; altered predator/prey relationship; and reduced disease resistance. Sea level in Puget Sound rose 20 centimeters from 1900-2008 and scientists project sea level will rise an additional 0.6 meters by 2100. A 1-foot increase in water surface elevation means an order of magnitude increase in high water events—so a 100-year event turns into a two year event (Mauger et al. 2015). Sea level rise will have myriad effects on the marine nearshore habitats, including increased bank/bluff erosion, landslides, and lost nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass, forage fish spawning habitat, estuary mudflats, etc.) due to the “coastal squeeze” adjacent to armored shorelines. In addition, increased risk of erosion could contribute to a growing demand for additional shoreline armoring. Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn and are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 38 A growing body of research is focusing on the po- tential impacts of ocean acidification on the Puget Sound ecosystem. Ocean acidification is driven by the absorption of carbon dioxide and is expected to impact survival, growth and behavior of marine organisms. In addition to observed impacts to calci- fying organisms (e.g., oysters and crab) there is more recent evidence that ocean acidification may impair sense of smell in salmon, impede growth in herring and other species, and alter plankton populations – which may have a cascading impact on marine food webs. Experiments have shown that coho salmon’s ability to avoid predators declines and risk of being eaten increases in low pH waters (Dunagan 2019). Although considerable uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of ocean acidification on salmon, there is potential for it to exacerbate the issue of marine survival. Elevated Water Temperatures (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Water temperature is a key determinant of the bio- logical integrity of a river – especially as it relates to cold-water dependent salmonids. High water temper- atures can act as a limiting factor for the distribution, migration, health and performance of salmon. Wash- ington State’s water quality standards are protective of viable salmonid habitat in the Green River by assigning a numeric criterion of 16°C, above which the water body is considered impaired (WAC 173- 201A-602). A supplemental criterion of 13°C, in effect between September 15 and July 1 further protects sal- monid habitat. The widespread removal of tall, native trees along the riparian corridor – especially in the middle and lower Green River – allows solar-atmos- pheric radiation to rapidly warm water as it moves downstream below HHD. As a result, large stretches of the Green River, Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek regularly exceed established water quality standards for temperature. In 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures. Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. The Green/Duwamish experienced widespread po- tentially lethal water temperatures in 2015 (DeGasperi 2017). In response, WRIA 9 led the development of the Re-Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy (2016) to emphasize the critical need for increasing riparian canopy and to prioritize revegetation efforts within the watershed. The strategy was adopted as an addendum to the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. It incorporated solar aspect shade maps published in 2014 by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to prioritize areas where increased tree canopy – and thus shade – could provide the largest benefit to preventing ele- vated water temperatures. It also established reveg- etation goals that were directly incorporated into this Plan Update. WRIA 9 developed a Re-green the Green grant program using Cooperative Watershed Management funds from the Flood Control District to accelerate revegetation efforts across the watershed. Research/Monitoring In addition to periodic exceedances of potential lethal water temperatures, a review of 7-DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge (RM 41.5) shows that instream temperatures regularly exceed established thresholds for sublethal impacts to salmon. Figure 10 shows 7-DMax temperatures from 2001-2016 in rela- tion to key Chinook salmon life history stages. These data suggest migration, early spawning, egg incuba- tion, yearling and parr rearing all potentially subject to sublethal impacts associated with elevated water temperatures. A literature review completed for WRIA 9 (Kubo 2017) provides a summary of potential temperature-relat- ed impacts to Chinook salmon. Adult fish migrating upstream may be subject to increased metabolic demand, delayed migration, increased disease expo- sure, decreased disease resistance, and even direct mortality. Spawning fish may experience reduced gamete quality and quantity and reduced fertilization success. Chinook eggs may be subject to reduced embryo survival, decreased hatching-emergence condition, increased abnormalities, and altered meta- bolic rates. Juveniles and outmigrants may be subject to reduced feeding and growth rates, increased dis- ease susceptibility, and accelerated onset of smoltifi- cation and desmoltification. Although many impacts may be sublethal, they can contribute to an increase in delayed mortality. Protecting and restoring mature riparian tree canopy, protecting cold water sources, and promoting hy- porheic exchange between the river/floodplain and the alluvial aquifer are essential to build ecological AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 39 Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured from 2001-2014. State stand- ards for designated uses are noted by the orange line and potentially lethal impacts are indicated by the red line. State standards for designated uses include core summer salmonid habitats (July 1 – September 15) as well as spawning and incubation periods (September 16 – July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook lifestages included below. Source: Adapted from King County 2016. 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan INCUBATION INCUBATION SPAWNING ADULT UPSTREAM MIGRATION YEARLING REARING PARR REARINGFRY REARINGWATER TEMPERATURE (C)Chinook life stages DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge station (GRT10)2001-2014 2015 2016 resilience to rising temperatures and moderate the impacts associated with climate change. By 2080, it is expected that the number of river miles exceeding salmonid thermal tolerances (>18°C) will increase by 70 miles in the Green/Duwamish watershed (G. Mauger 2016). One study suggests that warming of 2-5.5°C could result in the loss of 5-22 percent of salmon habitat by 2090 (O’Neal 2002). Fish Passage Barriers (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status: Fish passage barriers are a critical obstacle to Chinook salmon recovery in the watershed. The presence of Howard Hanson Dam and the Tacoma Headworks Diversion facility block access to approx- imately 40 percent of the historical Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat (NOAA 2019). This barrier alone blocks access to somewhere between 78-165 miles of suitable fish habitat. The 2005 Plan assumed fish passage would be provided by 2015. Ta- coma completed an upstream trap and haul facility at the headworks facility in 2007; however, downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam has not been completed. Predicted temperature increases, lower summer flows and altered precipitation patterns are likely to exacerbate temperature-related stress for Chinook salmon. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 40 In 2019, the NOAA Fisheries released a biological opinion (BiOp) that concluded U.S. Army Corps operations at Howard Hanson Dam would “jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW), and that the proposed action is likely to result in the adverse modification of these three species’ critical habitat designated under the ESA.” In issuing the jeopardy opinion, NOAA stat- ed that without fish passage the population’s abun- dance, productivity, and spatial diversity could not achieve established viability criteria, thus increasing the risk of extirpating the population. In order to avoid jeopardizing ESA-listed Chinook, the BiOp concluded that the U.S. Army Corps must provide operational downstream fish passage no later than February 2031. The resulting facility would be required to satisfy established performance criteria, including achieving 98 percent survival of all fish passing through the facility. The BiOp states that if established performance standards are satisfied, the Upper Green watershed could support self-sustaining populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead, “dra- matically improving the likelihood that the Chinook salmon population would achieve a highly viable status.” In addition to HHD, an unknown number of smaller fish passage barriers impact Chinook salmon move- ments within the watershed. There is a growing recognition that a number of barriers associated with smaller tributaries adjacent to roads, revetments and flood control structures block juvenile access to critical rearing habitats. One of the larger existing barriers is the Black River Pump Station. The pump station is a flood control facility built in 1970, located near the mouth of the Black River. While the facility was originally constructed with both upstream and downstream fish passage facilities, they are outdat- ed and currently do not meet federal fish passage criteria (Jacobs 2020). In its current state, the facility limits both upstream and downstream fish passage and restricts access to over 50 miles of stream, including Springbrook Creek, Panther Lake Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek. Although the majority of stream habitat is primarily suitable for coho and steelhead, Chinook salmon have been found in the system, and the area immediately upstream of the facility could provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Research/Monitoring A 2019 study evaluating the use of small non-natal trib- utaries (streams that do not support Chinook spawn- ing) by juvenile Chinook highlighted the importance of these habitats for both juvenile rearing and flood refuge. Juvenile Chinook were identified in eight of the nine tributaries sampled in the Lower Green River basin and were found up to 480 meters above the con- fluence with the Green River. The results demonstrated (1) widespread use of non-natal tributaries for extend- ed lengths of time; (2) heavily urbanized streams with a large amount of impervious surfaces appear capable of supporting non-natal juvenile rearing; (3) juvenile up- stream passage is an important consideration for fish barriers; and (4) variability in flapgate performance for juvenile fish passage (King County 2019). A follow-up study was funded by WRIA 9 in 2019 to assess flapgate performance and identify potential retrofit and replace- ment options to improve juvenile passability. Long-term fish-in fish-out monitoring by WDFW indicates that Chinook salmon population produc- tivity is limited by available rearing habitat and that parr outmigrants disproportionately contribute to the abundance of returning adults (Anderson and Topping 2018). Restoration of non-natal tributaries has the potential to complement ongoing restoration efforts in the Lower Green River mainstem to provide additional capacity to support fry growth into parr prior to outmigration to the Duwamish estuary. Larger (basins >100 acres), low-gradient (<2%) tributaries likely provide a large amount of rearing habitat and support higher densities of juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor et al. 2011; Tabor and Moore 2018; Tabor, Murray and Rosenau 1989; Scrivener et al. 1994; Bradford et al. 2001). Non-natal tributaries provide important rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green subwatershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 41 Land Conversion (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Located within the greater Seattle metropolitan area, population growth and economic development have significantly modified the watershed, its underlying hydrology, and the salmon habitat within it. In ad- dition to legacy impacts (Chapter 3 of 2005 Plan), the watershed experienced tremendous population growth and development in the 15 years since the 2005 Salmon Plan. The population of King County population swelled approximately 25 percent, adding an additional 444,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2019; King County 2006). During the same timeframe, 46,000 new housing units were constructed in the watershed (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). The extensive development pressures within the watershed – especially in the Nearshore, Duwamish and Lower Green watershed – have degraded large portions of the watershed from natural conditions. In addition to direct habitat loss, land conversion contributes to increased impervious coverage and stormwater runoff. Refer to the Stormwater section in this chapter for additional information on stormwater impacts on salmon. Approximately 32 percent of the watershed is located within established urban growth areas (UGAs). Competition for scarce available land contributes to high restoration/acquisition costs and the loss of restoration priorities to redevelopment pressures. Source: King County, 2019: Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood control structures. 1810_9332m_GreenRiver-TribHabitats-2.aiAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 42 Research/Monitoring Despite the tremendous growth and development pressure, growth management efforts have concen- trated new housing construction within urban growth areas. Only about 3 percent of housing units con- structed in the watershed since the 2005 Plan have occurred outside of UGAs (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). While this is a positive outcome, a compreo- hensive assessment of changes in forest cover and impervious surfaces has not been completed since 2006. In addition, the basin-wide effectiveness of critical area and shoreline protections has not been assessed. A WRIA 9-funded study of marine shoreline development from 2016-2018 observed a net increase in shoreline armoring and permit compliance rates below 50 percent (King County 2019). Additional information about the status of marine shorelines is presented in the Shoreline Armoring section. Levees and Revetments (Middle and Lower Green) Watershed Status An extensive network of flood containment and train- ing levees and revetments protect economic develop- ment and agricultural land in the Lower and Middle Green River valleys. In total. there are approximately 36 miles of levees and revetments in the watershed. Over 27 miles of facilities provide flood protection for the Lower Green River valley – the second larg- est warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The valley contains $7.3 billion of structures and associated content, supports over 100,000 jobs, and generates an annual taxable revenue of $8 billion (Reinelt 2014). Flood control facilities degrade floodplain function and reduce habitat complexity. They disconnect large portions of the historical floodplain, off-channel hab- itats, and tributaries – all important juvenile salmon rearing and refuge habitats. Associated vegetation maintenance standards limit riparian revegetation and contribute to elevated instream temperatures. Facilities also disrupt sediment delivery and filtration, water storage and recharge, and large wood input to the river channel. In addition to the direct impacts of the facilities, they also support land use development on historic floodplains habitats. Due to the diversion of the White and Black rivers, much of the “connected” floodplain is perched above the river channel and only connected during very high flows. Current flows with a 100-year flood event equate to an historic two-year event (King County 2010). At these flows, only 18 percent (3,518 of 19,642 acres) of the historic Lower Green River floodplain is connected (Higgins 2017). The loss of juvenile ChiT- nook salmon-rearing habitat reduces juvenile survival and overall population productivity. Restoration of floodplain habitat in the Lower Green River valley not only requires levee setbacks, but also requires ex- tensive fill removal to reconnect perched floodplains across a larger range of flows. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, studies have shown higher growth rates for Chinook salmon accessing flood- plains when compared to fish rearing exclusively in the mainstem. Increased growth likely results from increased food availability and foraging efficiency in floodplain habitats (Henning 2004; Sommer et al. 2001; Jeffres, Opperman and Moyle 2008; and Lestelle et al. 2005). This research also suggests that any increased risk of stranding during retreating flows is offset by the potential for increased growth rates. These studies emphasize how important flood- plain habitats are to juvenile Chinook growth and provide an important context for understanding how the magnitude of habitat loss in the Lower Green and to a lesser extent in the Middle Green have impacted juvenile Chinook production locally. Analysis of juvenile life history success in adult Green River Chinook salmon (2015-2017) found parr outmi- grants disproportionately contribute to adult returns relative to their abundance. Although parr comprised 3-56 percent of the out-migrating juveniles, more than 97 percent of returning adults were found to have exhibited the parr life history. In comparison, the parr life history is reflected in 64 and 76 per- cent, respectively, of the adult returns in the Skagit and Nooksack watershed (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). These data indicate that Chinook salmon life history success varies between watersheds and that productivity (adult spawner abundance) in the Green is currently driven by parr production, as juveniles exhibiting the fry life history rarely survive to adulthood. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Sediment Contamination (Duwamish) Watershed Status Industrial and commercial development in the Duwamish estuary not only led to dredge and fill of historical estuarine wetlands, but also left a legacy of persistent contaminants within the working water- front. Two Superfund sites require additional clean-up in the Duwamish, the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and Harbor Island/East Waterway (EW). Both sites contain elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), as well as dioxins and furans. The EPA’s Record of Decision for the LDW (2014) outlines the cleanup plan for the 412 acre site, which includes 105 acres of dredging or partial dredging, 24 acres of capping, 48 acres of enhanced natural remediation and 235 acres of monitored nat- ural attenuation. Although early action areas (Slip 4, Terminal 117, Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge, Diag- onal Combined Sewer Overflow [CSO], and Norfork CSO) resulted in cleanup of approximately 50 percent of PCB contamination, cleanup will not be completed until after 2031. Cleanup options for the EW site are under development. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 43 Figure 12. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2017). An analysis of long-term juvenile outmigration data collected by WDFW identified a density-dependent relationship between adult spawner abundance and relative parr abundance (Anderson and Topping 2018). Figure 6 shows that adult escapements in excess of 3,000 fish did not generally result in increased parr production. In contrast, fry production was observed to be density independent. Juvenile Chinook require rearing and refuge habitats (e.g., off-channel habitats, side-channels, etc.) to grow into parr prior to outmigration. When considered in con- cert with the Campbell and Claiborne studies, these results highlight the importance of reconnecting floodplains and restoring rearing habitat to increasing Chinook returns. Productivity in the Green/Duwamish is currently constrained by available rearing habitat in the Lower and Middle Green rivers.NUMBER OF FRYNUMBER OF JUVENILESSPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP 0 1,000 2,000 5,0003,000 4,000 6,000 7,000 100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 NUMBER OF FRYSPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP 0 1,000 2,000 5,0003,000 4,000 6,000 7,000NUMBER OF PARR100,000 0 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 44 Transport pathways carry contaminants from sources to surface waters, as well as within surface waters. Contaminants reach the Green/Duwamish receiving waters via point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and CSOs discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmo- spheric deposition, as well as by spills/leaks and bank erosion. Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated prey. Chinook experience greater chemical exposure during the juvenile phase than during the adult phase due to the comparatively different lengths of time they spend in the Duwamish during these life stages (Colton 2018). Although the 2005 Salmon Plan hypothesized that sediment cleanup would benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on productivity at the time. Research/Monitoring A growing body of research findings suggests that contaminant exposure for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish and Elliott Bay is affecting juvenile Chinook salmon growth, disease resistance, and immunosuppression, and ultimately marine survival. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in industrial estuary and nearshore habitats (e.g., Duwamish, Puyallup and Snohomish) contain elevated levels of organic contaminants as compared to those rearing in less developed watersheds (Skagit and Nisqually) (O’Neil et al. 2015; Varanasi et al. 1993). Juvenile Chinook salmon whole body PCB tissue concentrations from the Duwamish and associated nearshore areas have exceeded adverse impact thresholds (O’Neil et al. 2015; Johnson 2007). PCB levels in wild fingerlings have also been shown to have significantly higher PCB levels than their hatchery counterparts, suggest- ing that wild Chinook have a longer residence time within the Duwamish estuary (Nelson, et al. 2013). An examination of 37 years of hatchery data from 20 hatcheries across 14 watersheds found 45 percent lower smolt-to-adult survival rates for hatchery Chi- nook that outmigrate through contaminated estuaries as compared to uncontaminated estuaries (Meador 2014). The study evaluated the findings against the total amount of estuary habitat, length of freshwater habitat between each hatchery and estuary, as well as growth rates and did not find these factors could explain observed variation in survival rates. Because wild Chinook – especially the fry outmigrant life his- tory type – are more dependant on and have longer residence times in estuarine habitat, the observed decline in survial may be more pronounced in wild Chinook salmon. A recent study by scientists at the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center estimated the potential impact remediation of the Lower Willamette River Su- perfund site would have on Chinook salmon recovery (Lundin et al. 2019). The study used a combination of field and laboratory-collected exposure, growth, and disease resistance data to estimate acute and de- layed mortality rates for juvenile Chinook. These esti- mates were then incorporated into a life cycle model that estimated sediment remediation could improve juvenile survival by 54 percent and increase popula- tion abundance by 20 percent. This study provides a population-scale assessment of the potential impacts of legacy pollutants on Chinook salmon and suggests that remediation in the Duwamish could be a signifi- cant driver for Chinook recovery. Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience very low marine survival rates. In contrast to less developed watersheds, estuarine-reared fry in the Green/Duwamish are not contributing significantly to adult returns. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 45 The research on potential adverse impacts to juvenile Chinook as a result of contaminant exposure is con- sistent with a recent analysis of juvenile life histories expressed by adult Chinook salmon in the Green/Du- wamish River. Analysis of otoliths from returning adult salmon allow resource managers to back-calculate size upon entry in marine waters, allowing differentia- tion between parr and fry migrants. Otolith collection from adult Chinook salmon (2015-2017) indicate that less than 3 percent of fish returning to the water- shed entered marine waters as a fry migrant, despite representing between 44 and 97 of the total juvenile outmigrants (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). Additional research is needed to assess the relative importance of contamination in relation to other stressors (i.e., existing estuarine habitat quality and capacity) in contributing to poor marine survival. Stormwater (Nearshore, Duwamish, Lower and Middle Green) Watershed Status Stormwater runoff and associated hydrological modifications resulting from forest conversion and land use development within the Green/Duwamish watershed adversely impact water quality and salmon habitat. Approximately 59 and 24 percent, respectively, of the 165-foot riparian buffer in the Duwamish and Lower Green is characterized by im- pervious surfaces (King Co. unpublished data, 2013). Although watershed-wide data are not available, the impacts associated with the loss of forest cover and increase in impervious surfaces are not confined to riparian areas. At the basin-wide scale, these levels of impervious coverage can contribute to a two-three fold increase in stormwater runoff above natural conditions (Paul and Meyer 2001). Increased runoff contributes to rapid changes in flows, with larger peak flows and lower low flows; increased pollutant transport and degradation of water quality; shifts in benthic macroinvertebrates communities; elevated water temperatures; increased bank erosion and sediment transport capacity; and altered channel morphology and hydraulics. The majority of the development within the water- shed – and across Puget Sound – predates existing critical area ordinances and low-impact development standards designed to mitigate impacts to aquatic ecosystems. As a result, stormwater runoff is recog- nized within the region as one of the more significant challenges facing both salmon and Puget Sound recovery efforts. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, a significant body of research has focused on stormwater toxicity impacts to salm- on in urban creeks. Consistently high levels of mor- tality (up to 90 percent) in adult coho salmon have been observed in urban watersheds, with the extent of mortality rate related to an urbanization gradient and, more specifically, density of motor vehicle traffic (Scholz 2011; Feist 2017 ). More recent studies have connected observed mortality events to pollutants associated with highway runoff (Scholz 2016; Peter 2018). Research suggests that juvenile Chinook that enter the Duwamish as fry – as opposed to parr – experience very low survival and do not substantively contribute to population abundance as measured by adult escapement. Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) are another area of emerging research. The EPA defines CECs as “chemicals and other substances that have no reg- ulatory standard, have been recently ‘discovered’ in natural streams (often because of improved analytical chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause del- eterious effects in aquatic life (e.g., endocrine disrupt- ers) at environmentally relevant concentrations” (EPA 2008). CECs include hormones, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), and industrial process chemicals. An analysis of juvenile Chinook whole body tissue in several Puget Sound estuaries detected 37 of 150 surveyed PPCPs (Meador et al. 2016). Metabolic disruption consistent with starvation was also observed in juvenile Chinook collected ad- jacent to waste water treatment plants in Sinclair Inlet and the Puyallup River (Meador 2018). The potential impacts to Chinook salmon growth, reproduction, and behavior are not well understood. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 46 6/2/13 3/5/15 Although Chinook salmon do not appear vulnerable to acute toxicity as a result of roadway runoff exposure (Scholz 2019), more research is needed to evaluate potential sublethal impacts. Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project (Ecology). Although studies have shown treatment of runoff can prevent acute toxicity, the large capital expenditures associated with stormwater retrofits have precluded widespread implementation. A comprehensive needs and cost assessment for stormwater retrofit within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound wa- tershed was completed in 2014. The study evaluated 278 square miles of the watershed, excluding Seattle and areas upstream of Howard Hanson Dam. An esti- mated $210 million per year would need to be spend over the next 30 years to build necessary regional facilities, retrofit roads and highways, and retrofit non-forested lands not redeveloped within the next 30 years (King County 2014). Shoreline Armoring (Nearshore) Watershed Status The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed encompasses 92 linear miles of marine shoreline. Associated nearshore habitats provide not only important rearing and migratory habitat for juve- nile salmon, but also spawning habitat for forage fish (e.g., sand lance and surf smelt), which are important prey items for salmon, birds and marine mammals. Delivery of sediment and trees from natural bluffs helps sustain nearshore habitat complexity (beaches, spits, eelgrass beds, etc.) and shoreline resilience to coastal erosion and sea level rise. The degradation of marine shorelines and associated ecological functions has implications not only for Chinook salmon recovery, but also for the ESA-listed southern resident orca population. Shoreline armor – especially along feeder bluffs – disrupts sediment supply and transport, altering nearshore habitat quantity and quality. Shoreline land use ranges from commercial and industrial waterfront in Elliott Bay, urban residential between Seattle and Federal Way, to rural residential and undeveloped shorelines along Vashon Island. Approximately 65 percent of the shoreline is currently armored and only 22 of 52 drift cells have greater than 50 percent of historical feeder bluffs intact (King County 2019; WRIA 9 2012). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 47 Research/Monitoring Recent research reinforces assumptions in the 2005 Plan about the importance of nearshore habitats to salmon. The range of physical and biological impacts in response to shoreline armoring varies across spa- tial and temporal scales. Shoreline armoring impacts wrack and log accumulation, juvenile fish utilization, forage fish spawning, beach profiles, sediment grain size, and marine riparian vegetation. In particular, drift cells with a high proportion of armoring tend to be characterized by skinnier beaches, coarser sedi- ments, fewer drift logs, fewer prey species (Dethier et al. 2016). Natural shorelines convey important benefits to juvenile Chinook salmon. Small juvenile salmon preferentially use low-gradient, unarmored shorelines (Munsch, Cordell and Toft 2016). Riparian vegetation associated with unarmored beaches provide a source of terrestrial prey items for juvenile Chinook and ben- efit forage fish egg survival by moderating substrate temperatures and maintaining humidity (Rice 2006; Toft, Cordell et al. 2007). Even small-scale beach restoration projects (i.e., Olympic Sculpture Park) have resulted in measurable increases in larval fish abun- dance, juvenile salmon, and invertebrate diversity as compared to adjacent armored shorelines (Toft, Ogston et al. 2013). The magnitude of unpermitted shoreline modifica- tions threatens to negate investments in shoreline restoration and undermine the goal of “no net loss” established within the Shoreline Management Act. From 2013-2018, the watershed saw a net increase of 364 feet of shoreline armor despite armor removal and restoration of 382 feet shoreline during the same timeframe. Only 42 percent of observed shoreline modifications were permitted by local governments prior to construction (King County 2019). Although juvenile Chinook from the Green/Duwamish River have been observed to use the marine shore- lines throughout Central Puget Sound, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative importance of non-natal coastal streams and pocket estuaries. A study in the Whidbey Basin found abundant use of non-natal coastal streams (32 of 63 streams) by juve- nile Chinook. The presence of juvenile Chinook was influenced by (1) distance to nearest natal Chinook salmon river; (2) stream channel slope; (3) watershed area; and (4) presence and condition of a culvert at the mouth of a stream. The importance of non-natal coastal streams to juvenile Chinook salmon dropped significantly beyond 7 km from the mouth of a Chi- nook bearing river (Beamer, et al. 2013). Additional research is needed to prioritize non-natal coastal streams in WRIA 9 with respect to potential contribu- tion towards Chinook salmon recovery. Despite the recognized importance of natural shorelines and significant regional investment in armor removal, WRIA 9 continues to experience a net increase in shoreline armoring. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 48 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 49 WRIA 9 developed 11 overarching recovery strategies to organize watershed priorities and guide future investments. These strategies outline priority areas of focus intended to advance salmon recovery over the next 10-20 years. Recovery strategies are not prioritized. Implementation across the portfolio of recovery strategies is necessary to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resil- iency. Successful implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capital investment programs, and commu- nity outreach messaging are consistent with identi- fied watershed priorities. WRIA 9 hosted a series of subwatershed workshops to review and update policies and programs from the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. Revised policies and programs are organized by recovery strategies – as opposed to subwatershed – to reduce redundancy and improve alignment with other Puget Sound salmon plan updates. This structure is intended to provide project sponsors and other recovery part- ners a streamlined communication tool for a shared understanding of what needs to happen, where, and what policy considerations are necessary at the local and regional level to advance Chinook salmon recovery. Strategy: Restore and Improve Fish Passage Location: All Subwatersheds Fish passage barriers block access to important spawning and rearing habitat and can exacerbate localized flooding issues. Legacy transportation and flood control infrastructure were not regularly de- signed for fish passage and/or elevated flood flows associated with climate change. Although address- ing fish passage barriers was a priority in the 2005 Plan, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the State has a treaty-based obligation to address culverts under state-maintained roads in order to preserve tribal harvest rights within their usual and accustomed areas. This ruling has reinforced the need and elevated the urgency for addressing identi- fied barriers in a systematic and strategic manner. Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 50 Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non-natal tributaries. Photos: Mike Perfetti. Figure 16. Healthy juvenile Chinook (right) and coho (left) salmon sampled from a non-natal tributary in 2018. Photo: Chris Gregersen. Programs »Fish Passage Barrier Removal WRIA 9 partners should work towards a compre- hensive inventory of fish passage barriers in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed, and prioritize barrier removal across the watershed to maximize the benefit of fish passage investments. Although the majority of existing barriers in the watershed impact coho salmon and steelhead, special consideration should be given to removing barriers to non-natal tributary rearing habitats. Recent fish monitoring studies have demonstrated the importance of non-natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook and remedying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Recent fish moni- toring studies have demonstrated the importance of non-natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor and Moore 2018) and reme- dying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Many partner jurisdictions do not have the capacity to implement a programmatic approach to barrier identification and removal; instead, barrier removal is driven by infrastructure repair needs and local capital improvement programs. Some, such as the City of Seattle, have an inventory and prioritized list of fish passage barriers but lack sufficient funding for implementation. To support a more compre- hensive approach to fish passage, WRIA 9 partners should leverage available technical assistance from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Passage and King County Fish Pas- sage Restoration Programs to assess and prioritize barriers for removal outside of their scheduled capital improvement programs to expedite high- priority barrier removals. Jurisdictions should apply for funding for high-priority projects through the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board. Regional coordination among WRIA 9 partners on fish barrier removal priorities should help identify synergies and accelerate barrier removal in priority subwa- tersheds. Programmatic improvements within the County Fish Passage Restoration Program may support increased efficiencies within other jurisdic- tions. Fish passage accomplishments and lessons learned should be shared regularly to expedite bar- rier identification and increase coordination across the watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 51 Policies »Fish Passage (FP) 1: Provide efficient and safe fish passage where built infrastructure (e.g., road cross- ings and flood control facilities) intersects instream habitats. Fish passage design considerations should not only facilitate adult upstream migration, but also ensure juvenile salmonid access to rearing habitat provided in non-natal tributaries. Project sponsors should use WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines (2013) to assess feasibility and support alternative development. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity Location: Lower and Middle Green The process of channel migration within the floodplain creates side channels, back-water sloughs, and other off-channel habitats that are critical for juvenile salm- on rearing and refuge. Floodplains also facilitate an exchange of nutrients and organic material between land and water, and provide important flood storage capacity that can mitigate flood damages to adjacent communities. The historic loss of flood- plain habitat within the Green/Duwamish watershed resulted in a loss of habitat complexity, increased peaks flows and water velocities, and a loss of groundwater storage and important cold water recharge during summer months. Flow regulation at Howard Hanson Dam and the diversion of the White River into the Puyallup River has reduced the frequency and mag- nitude of flood events and left much of the floodplain perched well above the current river channel. Reconnecting floodplains and restor- ing floodplain habitats is essential to increas- ing both the available rearing habitat and corresponding salm- on productivity of the system. Figure 17. The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi-benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements. PSE Corrid o r T r ail Russell Road Green River Natural Resources AreaGreenRiver S 2 3 1 s t / S 2 2 8th St S .2 1 2 t h S t. Habitat Area A (Main Channel Edge) Scour Deflectors Relocated Van Doren's Landing Park Hand-Carry Boat Launch Relocated Trailhead Setback Levee 1 2 3 4 5 6 KOA Campground Habitat Area B (Backwater) MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS LOWER RUSSELL LEVEE SETBACK Grading Contour (1 ft.) Floodw all OHW Habitat Wood Eddy Feature and Number Pump and Discharge Site New Van Doren's Park Boundary Green River Trail Levee Trail Secondary Trail Road Improvement Wetland Updated 08/1/2019 Grading Plan 5/3/18 1 0 500 ft. N AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Setback : Relocation of the toe of the levee/revetment landward of ordinar y high water to provide for increased erosion and channel migration. 100-year flood elevation with setback levee Existing 100-year flood elevation Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 52 Programs None identified. Implementation relies on individual capital projects that will be identified in project list. Policies »Floodplain Connectivity (FC) 1: Support multi-benefit flood risk reduction projects that also enhance salmon habitat by allowing rivers and floodplains to function more naturally. Multi-benefit projects can (1) reduce community flood risk; (2) provide critical salmon habitat; (3) increase floodplain storage; (4) improve water quality; (5) replenish groundwater; (6) expand public rec- reation opportunities; and (7) strengthen commu- nity and ecological resilience to extreme weather events due to climate change. »FC2: Wherever possible, flood protection facilities should be (re)located away from the river edge to reconnect floodplains and re-establish natural riv- erine processes. During conceptual design of alter- natives, project sponsors should evaluate opportu- nities to pursue relocation of existing infrastructure and real estate acquisition to support levee set- backs. A process-based approach to restoration is ideal for species recovery; however, where a levee setback is infeasible due to the constraints of past land use activity, alternative facility designs (e.g., levee laybacks) should strive to incorporate plant- ing benches and wood structures that mimic lost ecosystem services and improve critically needed edge habitat. »FC3: Local government should utilize critical areas and shoreline regulations and associated land use policies to protect creek riparian areas and asso- ciated floodplains to increase the flood storage capacity of these areas. »FC4: Vacating and relocating roads should be evaluated as tools to support salmon restoration priorities where impacts are negligible and/or can be mitigated. Coordinating transportation infra- structure improvements with salmon habitat needs (e.g., floodplain reconnection and fish passage) can improve outcomes and reduce project costs. Road vacation policies should be updated to consider level of use and road standards. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Flood protection facilities (e.g., Howard Hanson Dam, revetments, and levees) and loss of riparian habitat have disrupted sediment transport, simplified hab- itat complexity, contributed to a loss of rearing and refuge habitat, and impeded natural recruitment of spawning gravels. Although process based restora- tion is preferred, ongoing intervention is necessary to replace/mimic natural processes where they cannot be restored. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 53 Programs »Middle Green River Gravel and Wood Supplementation Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Pub- lic Utilities should continue gravel and wood sup- plementation in the Middle Green River to account for disruption of natural sediment transport and wood recruitment caused by Howard Hanson Dam. Up to 14,000 tons of spawning gravels are deposit- ed annually at two sites located near river mile 60, just downstream of the Tacoma Headworks Facility. High flows during the winter months engage the deposited gravel and naturally distribute it down- stream. Regular monitoring of gravel distribution should inform quantity, size gradation, and timing to maximize benefits for salmonids. The U.S. Army Corps Corps should continue to transport large wood (> 12 in. diameter; > 20 ft. in length; >4 ft. diameter root ball) that is stranded in the reservoir to below the Tacoma Headworks Facility. Large wood increases channel complexi- ty, provides habitat for juvenile fish, and provides nutrients and substrate for aquatic insects. The upper watershed is heavily forested and large wood is transported to the reservoir during high flow events, but is unable to move downstream of the dam without intervention. Existing quantities of large wood downstream of the dam remain signifi- cantly below recommended wood volumes (Fox and Bolton 2007) to support salmon recovery. Peri- odic surveys should be completed to monitor large wood volumes and ensure project success. Policies Channel Complexity (CC) 1: Project designs should incorporate best available science related to climate change predictions and anticipated changes to seasonal instream flow patterns to enhance channel complexity and edge habitat across a range of flows. Lower spring and summer flows could make restored rearing habitat inacces- sible during juvenile Chinook outmigration. Special consideration should be given to project designs that ensure juvenile salmon rearing habitat remains accessible in low flow years. »CC2: For habitat restoration projects calling for the addition of large woody debris, placement of wood should consider risk to river users, such as boaters and swimmers. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors Location: All Subwatersheds Healthy riparian corridors provide a critical role in pro- viding cool and clean water for salmon. Riparian vegeta- tion shades instream habitat and moderates water tem- peratures; reduces erosion by stabilizing streambanks; captures rainwater and filters sediment and stormwater pollutants; provides terrestrial nutrient and food inputs; and is a source of large wood, which is critical to habitat complexity. Restoring riparian corridors is essential to addressing high summertime water temperatures and building long-term resilience to predicted changes as- sociated with climate change. The Washington State De- partment of Ecology (Ecology) developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek in 2011 that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures. Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. Refer to the “Integrate Agricultur - al Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives” strategy for a discussion of riparian corridors within agricultural lands. Programs »Re-Green the Green Revegetation Program The 2016 Re-Green the Green Strategy prioritizes riverine, estuarine and marine areas for revegetation, establishes interim goals, and outlines strategies for securing necessary funding. Riparian revegetation priorities are based on the solar aspect shade maps developed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (2014). This effort identified and prioritized shorelines where shade is critically needed to reduce instream water tempera- tures that frequently exceed water quality standards. WRIA 9 should continue to run an annual grant pro- gram that supports program implementation across priority shoreline areas. As of 2020, approximately $500,000 of annual Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Funds provided by the King County Flood Con- trol District have been set aside to support Re-Green the Green project implementation by WRIA 9 partners. This funding is intended to provide a baseline level of revegetation funding that can be leveraged to access other sources of funding. Riparian revegetation proj- ects help improve water quality, lower water tempera- tures, stabilize shorelines, contribute insects (prey) for juvenile salmonids, increase stormwater infiltration, and improve aquatic habitat quality when trees fall into the river. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 54 acres revegetated *414 (17%) acres out of the 2,384 acre goal established in the 2016 Re-Green the Green Strategy. The goal reflects a proportion of the total riparian buer (developed and undeveloped) that has less than 50% tree cover. 15 watershed partners have revegetated 414* acres along 75,314 linear feet (14.3 miles) of shoreline in the Green/Duwamish watershed—that’s nearly 5 Foster Golf Courses or 235 Sounders soccer fields of new revegetated shoreline! SINCE 2015 17%83% acres left to revegetate Green Duwamish Revegetation2015-2020 PROGRESS REPORT Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re-Green the Green Strategy. »Implement coordinated and comprehensive approach to noxious/invasive weed removal along river and marine shorelines WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with the King County Noxious Weed Removal Program to prior- itize and sequence weed removal efforts through the watershed. Noxious weed control should be conducted in parallel with priority riparian reveg- etation efforts. Ongoing invasive removal on res- toration sites is critical until native plants become established (~ five years). Invasive plants spread quickly, impede growth and establishment of natives, and degrade riparian habitats by destabilizing riverbanks and reducing tree canopy needed to help maintain cool water temperatures. Priority species impacting the ripar- ian community in the Green/Duwamish include knotweed species (Class B), purple loosestrife (Class B), policeman’s helmet (Class B), English ivy (Class C), Himalayan blackberry (Class C), and reed canary-grass (Class C). »Long-term Restoration Site Stewardship and Maintenance WRIA 9 partners should explore potential funding sources for a professional stewardship/mainte- nance crew to provide long-term site maintenance of restoration sites across the watershed. Salmon recovery funding generally does not provide for site maintenance beyond several years, and main- tenance typically falls outside the scope of regular park maintenance operations. A shared mainte- nance crew would provide cost savings to jurisdic- tions for maintenance of the growing portfolio of restoration sites. Priority tasks for a crew would include invasive species removal, planting as needed, and litter cleanup. In addition to these basic functions, this crew could play an important role in helping to manage the growing challenge of encampments within the Green River corridor. This program would ensure a regular staff presence at restoration sites to assist with outreach and public safety in addition to enhancing long-term ecological outcomes. In AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 55 addition, a shared crew would address stewardship and maintenance needs at sites that are not suitable for citizen volunteers. Policies »Riparian Corridor (RC) 1: Protect and enhance ri- parian corridors to help achieve temperature water quality standards established to protect salmon mi- gration, spawning and rearing. Local governments should support implementation of the Green River and Newaukum Creek TMDLs by protecting and re-establishing mature riparian vegetation within established stream buffers. »RC2: Revisit levee vegetation guidelines to im- prove revegetation opportunities along flood facilities. Guidelines must balance the critical need for riparian shade (i.e., Ecology TMDL) with the need to inspect the structural integrity of facilities and maintain public safety. Remote sensing (i.e., ground-penetrating radar, drones, or boat inspec- tions) may provide a viable alternative to traditional visual inspections that require a clear zone. »RC3: Project sponsors who receive WRIA 9 fund- ing should request funding for up to three years post-construction maintenance funding for plant establishment, and should document the ability to maintain habitat restoration and protection projects to ensure long-term objectives are achieved. Main- tenance may include, but is not limited to, noxious weed and invasive plant control, revegetation, and deterrence of undesired uses such as dumping and occupancy that can damage habitat. »RC4: River corridor trails should be compatible with salmon recovery priorities. Trail design standards should balance the need for riparian tree canopy to maintain cooler water temperatures with needs for important recreational view corridors and sight- lines for user safety. Trail design/placement should also not preclude reconnection of critically needed floodplain habitats. Trails offer residents an oppor- tunity to connect with the river; interpretive signage should highlight the presence of salmon and the ecological importance of riparian and floodplain habitat. »RC5: Encourage regional efforts to develop a Bon- neville Power Authority (BPA) mitigation program for power transmission impacts across Puget Sound. The BPA has a significant footprint within the Upper Watershed and the Soos Creek Basin where vegetation management and tree removal under transmission lines precludes adequate ripari- an canopy cover. Although the BPA has established mitigation programs for Columbia basin operations, a comparable program does not exist within Puget Sound. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality Location: All Subwatersheds Clean, cold water is essential for salmon growth and survival. A growing body of evidence suggests clean- up of legacy industrial contamination and stormwater pollution control may improve early marine survival and increase Chinook productivity. Recent scientific literature suggests contaminant exposure pathways (e.g., legacy industrial contamination, stormwater run- off, municipal wastewater discharges, etc.) are having sublethal and lethal impacts on juvenile Chinook salmon. Although the acute toxicity of stormwater runoff to coho salmon in urban watersheds is well documented, potential sublethal impacts to juvenile Chinook salmon as a result of contaminate exposure pathways are not well understood. Programs Green/Duwamish Watershed Pollution Loading Assessment (PLA) Ecology should continue to lead development of a pollutant loading assessment (PLA) that will (1) include a watershed-based model to evaluate cumulative effects of pollution; (2) assess relative contribution of toxic pollutants from different sources/pathways in the watershed; and (3) help prioritize source control efforts. The PLA is essential to maximizing effectiveness of Lower Duwamish Waterway cleanup and avoiding subsequent recon- tamination. The PLA is an interim strategy for improving water quality – it is not a TMDL or another regulatory AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 56 instrument. It represents a foundational effort that will inform future actions to address source control issues. Following its completion, WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with Ecology to address priority pollutant sources within their jurisdictions. Implement Pollution Identification and Control (PIC) Programs The Vashon-Maury Pollution Identification and Con- trol (PIC) program provides incentives (technical support and financial) to replace or repair failing septic systems, and address other pollution sources (e.g., animal waste) contributing to water quality degradation in the marine nearshore. Failing or inappropriately sited septic systems have resulted in water quality concerns and closure of beach and shellfish harvest areas – especially within Quarter Master Harbor. While the direct impact on shellfish harvesting is a human health concern, the water quality pollution can negatively affect various parts of the nearshore ecosystem that supports Chinook salmon. Although the 2005 Salmon Plan focused on Quarter Master Harbor, PIC programs should be expanded to other nearshore areas as warranted to identify pollution sources, provide technical support, and offer financial incentives to remedy failing septic systems and other sources of pollution. Over the last decade, investments made by Public Health— Seattle & King County and other partners have resulted in improved water quality and reopening of 493 acres of shellfish harvest areas. Creosote Removal Program WRIA 9 organizations should partner with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Creosote Removal Program to identify and remove creosote-treated debris and derelict structures from marine and estuarine waters. Creosote structures leach chemicals and can create toxic conditions for organisms that live within beach and marine sediments, as well as disrupt the marine foodweb. Studies have found creosote exposure can contrib- ute to mortality of herring eggs and alter growth and immune function of juvenile salmonids. Dere- lict structures can also interrupt sediment transport and displace aquatic vegetation. Since adoption of the 2005 Plan, the program has removed over 21,000 tons of creosote debris and 8.0 acres of overwater structures from Puget Sound. However, thousands of derelict creosote pilings re- main within Puget Sound. WRIA 9 partners should continue efforts to inventory and prioritize focus areas based on concentration of creosote debris and potential impacts to forage fish and juvenile salmon rearing. Policies »Water Quality (WQ) 1: Promote Low-Impact Devel- opment (LID) and green infrastructure (natural and engineered systems) to address stormwater runoff. Given the magnitude of development constructed prior to existing stormwater controls, extensive stormwater retrofits are needed to address legacy sources of water pollution. LID techniques should mimic, where possible, pre-disturbance hydrologi- cal processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evap- oration and transportation. LID techniques include: • Vegetation conservation: native vegetation and small-scale treatment systems; • Site design: clustering of buildings and narrower and shorter roads; • Retention systems: bioretention, bio-swales, rain gardens, wetlands and vegetated roofs; • Porous or permeable paving materials: sidewalks, trails, residential driveways, streets, and parking lots; and • Rainwater catchment: rain barrels and cisterns. Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure is an approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle. Green infrastructure is effective, economical, and enhances community safety and quality of life. – American Rivers AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 57 Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park. Although stormwater toxicity is not lethal to Chinook salmon, potential sublethal impacts are not well understood. Photo: Matt Goehring. »WQ2: Support local and regional watershed-based stormwater management initiatives (e.g., Our Green Duwamish, STORM, etc.) that prioritize programs and projects that can effectively demonstrate large- scale, watershed-wide, water quantity and water quality improvements that benefit salmon recovery. Potential priorities include: • Collaborative source control strategies such as education and outreach, business inspections, pollution prevention, and programmatic mainte- nance; • Regional retrofit programs focused on restoring natural hydrology and the removal of toxics; and • Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) incentive programs that promote the voluntary use of GSI. »WQ3: Source control efforts across multiple sectors (commercial, industrial, and agricultural) should ensure that water and sediment quality support salmon growth and survival. Source control suffi- ciency is a critical milestone that must be achieved to initiate contaminated sediment cleanup. Ensur- ing implementation, maintenance, and enforce- ment, where necessary, of source control best management practices will help reduce pollutant loading into water bodies and ensure pollutants don’t undermine sediment cleanup efforts in the Duwamish. Incentives to promote effective source control include spill prevention and response, technical support, and hazardous waste vouchers to local businesses. »WQ4: Protect and enhance rural and urban for- ests, which provide diverse social, economic and ecological benefits. In Rural Areas of King County, at least 65 percent of each sub-basin should be preserved as natural forest cover and impervious coverage should not exceed 10 percent of a sub- basin. Where forest cover exceeds this threshold, the goal of no net loss in forest cover should be pursued. In Urban Growth Areas, local govern- ments should adopt goals to achieve 30-40 percent ecologically healthy urban tree canopy coverage and reduce impervious surfaces. Adopting goals specific to riparian canopy could help prioritize riparian restoration. Local education, outreach, and incentive programs should be supported to in- crease urban forestry programs and associated tree canopy coverage. »WQ5: Ensure cost-share agreements between the U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tacoma Water, and private landowners are maintained and that road mainte- nance and abandonment plans achieve sediment reduction goals. Support opportunities to abandon unnecessary forest roads as they are identified to reduce overall road density. »WQ6: Support regional and state legislative efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills in Puget Sound and ensure the state remains a leader in oil spill preven- tion and response. Over 20 billion gallons of oil are transported through Washington each year by ves- sel, pipeline and rail. A catastrophic spill could cost the region over $10 billion and impact over 150,000 jobs. It would also cause significant harm to aquatic ecosystems and disrupt maritime industry, recre- ation, and tourism. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 58 »WQ7: Local governments should adopt the Inter- agency Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines, as amended, for maintenance of existing infrastructure. Govern- ments should participate in the associated Regional Forum to support ongoing adaptive management to improve outcomes. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines Location: Marine Nearshore Marine nearshore habitats, including beaches, pocket estuaries, eelgrass beds, inlets, and deltas, provide important rearing and migration habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon and many other animals in Puget Sound. They are also critical spawning habitat for forage fish – a key prey species for Chinook salmon. Decades of alteration and armoring of the Puget Sound marine shoreline has reduced shoreline length and habitat complexity, disrupted sediment supply and transport, and eliminated forage fish spawning habitat. Restoring natural shorelines will increase nearshore productivity and salmon growth and survival in the marine environment. Figure 20. Before and after Phase II restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien. Construction was completed in 2014. Photos: Hugh Shipman. Programs »Develop/maintain a “Toolbox” of Shore Friendly Alternatives for Privately-Owned Shorelines (aka Do-it-yourself approach for residential shoreline improvement) WRIA 9 partners should develop a “shoreline toolbox” to provide shoreline owners guidelines for implementing shore friendly alternatives that clearly outline stewardship concepts and best manage- ment practices for private shorelines. It should not only outline the range of alternatives for different shoreline types (e.g., beach and bluffs), but also highlight important design, feasibility, maintenance, and permitting considerations when considering shoreline improvements. Topic areas should include native shoreline vegetation, erosion control, shore- line access, docks, and stormwater management. The toolbox should be designed to supplement shoreline workshops and technical assistance programs and could be made available online to provide guidance to property owners who may elect to take a “do-it-yourself approach” to shoreline management. It should be tailored to reach private landowners and contractors and connect them with available local and regional resources. The toolbox should draw from regional efforts such as WDFW’s Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines, the Shore Friendly King County collaborative, Green Shores for Homes, and Green Shorelines for Lake AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 59 Washington and Lake Sammamish, and highlight local examples of shore-friendly approaches within WRIA 9. »Expand Shore-Friendly Technical Assistance and Cost-Share Programs to Accelerate Armor Removal and Soft Shoreline Protection (aka Supported Approach for Residential Shoreline Improvement) Access to technical information about shoreline erosion and protection alternatives and the finan- cial costs associated with marine shoreline armor removal have been identified as key barriers to motivating shoreline landowners to consider soft shoreline protection. Soft shoreline protection is less preferred than outright removal, but prefera- ble to traditional hard armor in that it helps main- tain and enhance some natural marine shoreline functions (e.g., sediment transport and delivery). Bulkhead removal is expensive and site-specific erosion risk is not conducive to the use of standard models or templates for soft shore protection. In addition, many landowners and consultants are unfamiliar with how to design/implement success- ful soft shoreline protection projects. Technical assistance to help landowners better understand risk, to provide design and permitting support, and to assist with access to cost-share funding should help to overcome existing barriers to armor removal on private property and promote expansion of soft shoreline protection alternatives. The King Conservation District (KCD) has histori- cally provided technical assistance on environmen- tally friendly ways to manage shoreline properties, including shore-friendly alternatives to traditional bulkheads. The KCD also has a cost-share incentive program to encourage revegetation and removal of existing armor and/or soft shore protection designs where site-specific conditions allow. In 2020, KCD established a Shore Friendly King County collabo- rative between multiple partners. This program is seen as part of a local adaptation of the regional Shore Friendly approach to reducing marine shore- line armoring. Although this is an existing program, additional resources are needed to expand ca- pacity. Landowners are identified through parallel marine shoreline landowner workshops. Priority should be given to currently unarmored shorelines and armored properties where site-specific factors (e.g., structure location, fetch, bank/bluff geology, etc.) make armor removal and/or soft shoreline protection alternatives feasible. »Implement Acquisition Strategy to Protect and Restore Functioning Nearshore Habitats Acquisition of priority marine shorelines supports conservation and restoration of critical nearshore processes and rearing habitats used by multiple stocks of juvenile Chinook – including Green/Du- wamish Chinook. A number of planning efforts have identified and prioritized conservation of nearshore habitats within WRIA 9, including the Prioritiza- tion of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration (2006), Vashon-Maury Island Greenprint (2007), and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (2012). Although many of the highest priority sites have been specifically identified as unique projects within the Habitat Plan, WRIA 9 should support opportunistic acquisi- tion of other functioning nearshore habitats if they become available. Although the bulk of the acquisition opportu- nities for functioning habitats are located on Vashon-Maury Islands, additional opportunities exist on the mainland nearshore. Successful im- plementation of a nearshore acquisition strategy requires consistent outreach to landowners and operational flexibility to capitalize on acquisition opportunities before they are lost. The sale of prop- erties previously unavailable for decades frequently can represent a once in a generational opportunity to protect a priority stretch of marine shoreline. In- dividual acquisition opportunities should be evalu- ated based on ecological value/potential of near- shore habitat and risk of development. Available funding sources to support acquisition include King County Conservation Futures, King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Program and Coastal Erosion Program, Wash- ington Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, and various Washing- ton State Recreation and Conservation Office grant programs. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 60 Policies »Nearshore (NS) 1: Avoid shoreline infrastructure or stabilization except where demonstrated to be nec- essary to support or protect a legally-established primary structure, critical public infrastructure, or shoreline use in danger of loss or substantial damage. Support armor removal and alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization (e.g., setbacks and relocations) where feasible to reduce impacts to existing natural shoreline processes. Protection and restoration of important sediment sources (e.g., feeder bluffs) is needed to restore nearshore processes and sediment transport. Where the need for bank stabilization is supported by analysis of a geotechnical engineer, “soft” shoreline stabiliza- tion techniques (e.g., bioengineering techniques and vegetation enhancement) should be required where feasible. “Soft” stabilization measures should be designed to preserve or restore natural shoreline processes (e.g., sediment transport). “Hard” shore- line stabilization should only be allowed where softalternatives do not provide adequate protection. Refer to WDFW Marine Shoreline Design Guide- lines, Green Shores for Homes, Integrated Stream- bank Guidelines, and Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines for additional guidance. Primary Structure: Structural improvement that is essential to the primary use of the property. Structures that function as secondary or subordinate to the primary use of a property are considered an accessory use. »NS2: Encourage multiple family/neighborhood use of docks, boat ramps, and beach access stairs. Local jurisdictions should minimize impacts to the nearshore marine environment by encouraging consolidation/joint-use of structures that could serve multiple landowners. Opportunities to pursue joint-use should be evaluated during development and redevelopment. Boat docks, ramps and beach access stairs can shade aquatic vegetation, disrupt juvenile salmon migration and foraging, alter near- shore sediment transport and degrade nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass). Possible incentives include permit streamlining, fee reductions, and dimension- al incentives (e.g., increased length, width, etc.). »NS3: Jurisdictions should promote derelict vessel prevention and coordinate with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) on der- elict vessel removal. Derelict vessels can contribute to contamination of aquatic lands, degrade water quality, and damage sensitive aquatic habitats (e.g., eelgrass). Although the WADNR Derelict Vessel Removal Program has removed more than 580 ves- sels from marine waters, local efforts are critical to ensuring effective prevention and rapid response. »NS4: Support beach nourishment, where appropri- ate, to offset interruption of natural sediment supply and transport caused from extensive shoreline modifications (e.g., bulkheads, etc.). Beach nourish- ment has been used successfully to protect shore- lines, restore natural beach profiles, and enhance nearshore habitats. »NS5: Support regional efforts to identify and test actions to increase juvenile survival during outmi- gration through Puget Sound and increase local ef- forts to stabilize or improve foodweb function such as forage fish habitat protection and restoration. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat Location: Duwamish The Duwamish estuary provides critical rearing habi- tat for juvenile salmon as they make the physiological transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Industri- al development within the Duwamish valley drove extensive fill of tidal wetlands, armoring of shore- lines, and navigational dredging. The modifications AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 61 straightened the estuary and eliminated 98 percent of the historic wetlands. Despite the magnitude of loss of habitat, the Duwamish continues to play a critical role in supporting juvenile Chinook salmon. Both cleanup of legacy industrial contamination within the Lower Duwamish Superfund Site and restoration of shallow water rearing habitat are needed to increase juvenile salmon survival and overall productivity with- in the watershed. Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon. Photo: Mike Perfetti. Program »Implement and Adaptively Manage the Duwa- mish Blueprint The Duwamish Blueprint outlines strategic guid- ance for governments, businesses, non-profit or- ganizations and citizen groups working to improve the estuarine ecosystem and increase juvenile salmonid productivity. It identifies approximately 100 acres of shallow water habitat restoration po- tential within the Duwamish estuary transition zone (RM 1-10). Many of the habitat opportunities are conceptual and have not been prioritized. Periodic evaluation of conceptual opportunities is needed to elevate and refine project ideas as the Duwamish landscape changes (e.g., Superfund cleanup, Natu- ral Resource Damage Assessment [NRDA], and real estate availability). Restoration in the Duwamish is complex, expensive, and will require flexibility, innovation, and extensive coordination and collaboration to be successful. The former Duwamish Blueprint Working Group, which was convened to develop the Blueprint, would provide a framework to facilitate coordina- tion across key partners. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the Blueprint Working Group to identify opportunities to enhance partnerships to (1) pursue larger project footprints; and (2) overcome barriers to implementation. Given limited land availability, WRIA 9 should opportunistically evaluate potential acquisitions and consider elevating conceptual projects as part of adaptive management based on habitat benefit, acquisition feasibility, and readiness. Policies »Duwamish Estuary (DE) 1: Engage in the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) Superfund cleanup process to coordinate and sequence potential salmon habitat projects with Superfund activities to maximize benefits to salmon recovery. Strategic acquisition should be prioritized over habitat project construction prior to competition of the LDW clean- up to avoid potential contaminated sediments and minimize potential for re-contamination. »DE2: Engage with NRDA trustees and potentially liable parties to inform project development and design and maximize potential benefit to salmon re- covery. NRDA settlements within the Duwamish will result in large capital investments in habitat resto- ration that should provide a significant lift to salmon recovery. Coordination with the NRDA process will also support identification of potential synergistic opportunities, and help identify and resolve barriers to maximize restoration outcomes. For example, it may be possible to leverage NRDA settlements to expand existing and/or planned restoration projects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 62 Although NRDA has a broader scope than Chinook salmon recovery, priority NRDA habitats signifi- cantly overlap with salmon recovery needs in the Duwamish (e.g., estuarine marshes, intertidal mudflats, and riparian habitats). Tracking NRDA project implementation will be important to under- standing the status of habitat restoration efforts in the Duwamish. Given the existing uncertainty associated with juvenile Chinook survival in the Duwamish, WRIA 9 should engage with the trust- ees to share emerging research, exchange lessons learned in restoration, inform adaptive manage- ment of restored sites, and identify priority sites for restoration. »DE3: Encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Seattle to identify strategies for dredging that: (1) minimize impacts to salmon hab- itat and (2) improve salmon habitat through use of beneficial re-use where suitable. Soil contamination may limit opportunities for re-use. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Green River flows are regulated to support both flood control and water supply needs. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan requires maintenance of minimum instream flows during summer months. Although water capture and storage behind Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) support maintenance of mini- mum instream flows and periodic flow augmentations during summer and early fall, it can also reduce the frequency of high flow events that drive lateral chan- nel migration (i.e., habitat forming flows) and availa- bility of juvenile Chinook rearing habitat throughout spring. Low snowpack and drought conditions ex- acerbate already difficult tradeoffs in timing of water release designated for fish conservation purposes. Water temperatures also regularly exceed established water quality standards for Salmon Core Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat. Climate change forecasts predict the watershed will experience reduced snowpack, lower summer time flows, and elevated instream temperatures. These changes will impact the already difficult reservoir refill strategies at HHD, potentially putting greater stress on refilling earlier and having a bigger impact on juvenile Chinook habitat. Prolonged low flows can cutoff access to critical rearing habitats and exacerbate high instream temperatures. High water temperatures can delay adult migrations, contribute to increased susceptibility to disease, and even be lethal above 23°C. Protecting instream flows and cold water refugia is essential to strengthening watershed resilience to climate change. Cold-water refugia are characterized as being at least 2°C colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters. Programs »Develop Watershed Management Plan to Address Permit-Exempt Well Development WRIA 9 partners should coordinate on develop- ment of the Ecology’s Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to assess and offset potential consumptive impacts of new rural, domestic water use on stream flows in the Green/Duwamish water- shed. Maintaining legally established minimum in- stream flows has proven challenging during recent years with below average precipitation. Climate change models indicate that changes in precipita- tion patterns could exacerbate streamflow issues and further stress salmon. Implementation of the plan is required to not only offset permit exempt domestic water use, but also provide for a net ecological benefit. The legislature plans to direct $300 million in funding through 2035 to benefit fish and streamflows. WRIA 9 should position itself to leverage this funding source to support implementation of appropri- ate projects in this plan that meet the flow or net ecological benefit guidance and/or develop addi- tional project elements that do so. If instream flows remain problematic in the future, additional consid- eration should be given to integrating other cate- gories of water use into an expanded Watershed Management Plan and implementation program. »Develop a Strategy to Protect and Restore Habi- tat in the Upper Green River and its Tributaries Conduct a planning effort to develop a long-term, comprehensive approach to protecting and restor- ing ecosystem processes in the Upper Green River subwatershed. Current checkerboard ownership AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 63 20132013 Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. The project protected cool waters from a natural spring. complicates land management and a strategic approach is needed to leverage the relatively intact upper watershed to maximize benefits for salmon and steelhead recovery. Access to the upper water- shed has long been identified as critical to long- term salmon recovery. However, the delay of fish passage and the degraded condition of the lower watersheds have resulted in limited investments in the upper watershed. Projected shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns associated with climate change further emphasize the critical importance of this landscape to long-term salmon recovery. A number of assess- ments should be completed to inform a strategic approach to management of the upper watershed, including: • Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management As- sessments (VELMA): Quantify long-term effects of forest management and climate scenarios on salmon habitat (i.e., hydrological flow regimes and instream temperatures); • Model intrinsic habitat value of stream segments within the upper watershed to inform conserva- tion and restoration priorities; • Beaver Assessment: Assess current activity, mod- el potential benefits, and explore potential reintro- duction if warranted; and • Assess important wildlife migratory corridors and key landscape level linkages to inform acquisition priorities. The results of these assessments should be used to prioritize salmon recovery investments in the upper watershed with respect to potential land consolida- tion, land use management changes, and potential road abandonment. Policies »Stream Flows (SF)1: Support reevaluation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water storage sched- ule and Fish Conservation Guide Curve at HHD to increase benefits for salmonids while maintaining downstream flood control benefits. The current water capture period overlaps the juvenile Chinook rearing period and impacts accessibility and/or amount of important rearing habitats during outmigration. Utilize the existing Green River Flow Management Coordination Committee to assess fish habitat needs based on best-available science and basin-specific climate change projections. »SF2: Protect existing cold water refugia and en- hance water storage and hyporheic exchange by reconnecting historic floodplain habitats to instream habitats. These habitats facilitate heat dissipation and provide an influx of cooler waters to moderate seasonal fluctuations in stream tem- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 64 peratures and flows, providing physiological and ecological benefits for cold-water salmonids. »SF3: Support forest management and harvest rotation programs that increase hydrologic function and improve base flows to minimize impacts on sal- monid habitat, support climate change resiliency, and maintain viable silviculture. Additional research is necessary to quantify potential benefits. »SF4: Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water withdrawals to provide instream flows and water temperatures that support adult salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing. Local gov- ernments, water purveyors, and state and federal regulators should: • Protect groundwater resources and critical aqui- fer recharge areas; • Manage groundwater and surface water with- drawals seasonally to maximize the benefits to salmonid habitat; • Develop drought management plans to supply safe and reliable drinking water while minimizing impacts to salmonids during periods of drought; • Ensure rural domestic use does not adversely impact salmonid habitat; • Support water rights acquisition programs that can augment chronic low flows; and • Limit or preclude mining and other significant excavation activities that could adversely impact groundwater hydrology. »SF5: Support expansion of reclaimed/recycled wastewater to reduce demands on stream and ground withdrawals. Reclaimed wastewater can be used safely and effectively for non-drinking water purposes such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial pro- cessing. Reclaimed water is available year-round, even during dry summer months or when drought conditions can strain other water resources. See also policies SW4-6 above. Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education Location: All subwatersheds Education and outreach are fundamental to protect- ing and restoring salmon. It raises awareness, builds political support, and promotes positive behaviors that benefit salmon. Long-term salmon recovery will not be successful without public support. Broad- based community support provides political leverage to protect and expand local, state and federal invest- ments in habitat restoration. It is also helps promote positive behavior change and minimize behaviors that can negatively impact salmon or undermine recovery investments. For example, ecological gains associat- ed with marine shoreline restoration in WRIA 9 have been predominantly offset by new armor installations. General outreach is not sufficient to drive widespread and long-lasting behavior change. Targeted social marketing strategies must identify and overcome both real and perceived barriers to promote positive behaviors that contribute to salmon recovery. Programs »Implement a Comprehensive Communications Plan to Promote Behavior Change that Expedites Salmon Recovery in WRIA 9 Integrate lessons learned from the regional Shore Friendly programs into a locally adapted commu- nication plan designed to increase implementation of behaviors that support salmon recovery. Key outcomes include: • Increased public recognition of the urgency around salmon recovery and connection to southern resident orcas; • Improved public understanding and stewardship of riverine and nearshore ecosystem processes that support salmon and forage fish; • Technical assistance provided to interested shoreline residents; • Target audiences make informed decisions based on knowledge of Shore Friendly practices, climate resilience, and adaptation; • A suite of tools and incentives developed to address identified barriers to adoption of desired behaviors; AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 65 • Messaging and outreach tailored to contractors and realtors; • The value of riparian vegetation is communicat- ed to the public, including riverside landowners, elected officials, and trail/park users; and • Partners conducting outreach and education receive positive reinforcement and feedback from the salmon recovery community. Additional effort is needed to refine target audi- ences and develop associated social marketing approaches. The intent of the communication plan should be to build awareness, expand stewardship, and promote advocacy. A regional Social Marketing Strategy to Reduce Puget Sound Shoreline Armor- ing was developed for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2015. A Green/Duwamish River Revegetation Outreach and Engagement Plan was developed in 2019. These plans provide an ex- isting framework that can be expanded to integrate other priority salmon recovery issues. »Expand Volunteer Stewardship Increase citizen participation through new steward- ship programs and by expanding and supporting existing stewardship programs that engage vol- unteers in restoring, maintaining, and monitoring habitat protection and restoration projects. These projects not only benefit salmon recovery, but also improve stormwater retention, carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat and include important themes and messages for participants to change behavior at home. Local volunteer programs should: • Foster environmental stewardship and personal connection to salmon recovery; • Educate people about threats to salmon and the role of habitat in salmon recovery; • Leverage additional resources to implement recovery actions; and • Expand the constituency to advocate for salmon recovery. The Green/Duwamish Watershed has a number of volunteer stewardship programs that play an instru- mental role in invasive vegetation removal and na- tive revegetation. Many of these programs provide long-term stewardship of large capital restoration sites. Traditional salmon recovery funding is not available to fund long-term (beyond two to three years) stewardship and maintenance of restoration sites. As a result, local funding or creative partner- ships are essential to ensure restoration projects achieve desired outcomes into the future. »Expand Community Science Monitoring Develop and implement community science pro- grams to address data gaps and foster watershed stewardship among residents. Community science programs can provide capacity to collect important long-term monitoring data while serving as an out- reach tool to educate residents about local natural resource issues. They can also create opportunities to introduce students to scientific research and provide important data for resource managers. Since 2005, citizen science programs include: • Beach Nearshore Ecology Team (BeachNet): The Vashon Nature Center coordinates a forage fish monitoring program that collects data on forage fish presence/absence, spawning timing, beach substrate preferences, and intertidal and upland habitat conditions within the marine reserve. Data are shared with WDFW and is used to inform protection of spawning beaches. BeachNet also contributes to shoreline restoration monitoring in partnership with University of Washington, King County, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. • Miller-Walker Basin Community Salmon Investi- gation (CSI): The CSI program has conducted 10 years of salmonid spawning surveys to assess long-term trends in salmon abundance and the urban runoff mortality syndrome in coho salm- on. Data are shared with local jurisdictions and resource managers. A partnership with the UW Tacoma Center for Urban Waters has helped identify both the suite of toxic chemicals contrib- uting to coho mortality and priority areas within this watershed to focus future stormwater im- provements. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 66 Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation. The program has leveraged community support and a partnership with the University of Washington to advance our understanding of stormwater runoff impacts on local salmon. Photo: Miller/ Walker Stewardship Program. »Shoreline Workshops and Technical Assistance Implement workshops to educate target audiences (landowners, landscapers, contractors) about shoreline stewardship and common misconcep- tions about shoreline erosion. Promote alternative approaches to shoreline management that provide for the use and enjoyment of property in a manner that benefits fish and wildlife. Priority focus areas include: • Shoreline processes and salmon habitat; • Erosion control; • Noxious/invasive weed control; • Revegetation guidance; • Natural yard care; and • Stormwater management. Workshops should connect target audiences with local and regional resources (e.g., technical assis- tance) designed to overcome barriers to improving shoreline stewardship. Materials and messaging should be tailored to specific subwatersheds and groups of landowners to increase effectiveness. The Green Shores for Homes program developed in 2015 is an available tool to guide the design of improved shoreline conditions for Puget Sound properties. Policies »Education and Stewardship (ES)1: Support edu- cational programs that integrate watershed science and salmon into problem-based learning exercises for school children. These programs instill a sense of place, encourage appreciation of natural resourc- es, and promote environmental literacy among the next generation of future decision makers. »ES2: Support diverse outreach and education pro- grams that promote awareness of salmon recovery and positive behavior change. Programs should employ community-based social marketing to iden- tify and overcome barriers to targeted behaviors. Priority focus areas include shoreline stewardship, riparian revegetation, and stormwater manage- ment. Strategy: Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives Location: Lower and Middle Green Salmon recovery and the preservation of viable agriculture are two regional priorities that intersect in the Middle and Lower Green floodplain and along Newaukum Creek. King County designated over 16,295 acres of land within the Green River watershed for agriculture within three Agricultural Production Districts (APD). Some additional, but relatively small amounts of agricultural activities occur within the cities of Kent and Auburn. Over 5,763 acres of land within the APD have been enrolled within the Farm- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 67 land Preservation Program (FPP). Restrictive cove- nants on FPP properties are designed to permanently protect agricultural use and open space. The 2005 Plan acknowledged that salmon recovery and agricultural production operate within a shared landscape along the Green River valley. It prioritized sequencing of restoration projects over the first 10 years of plan implementation to focus first on existing public lands, then on lands within the rural and urban growth areas, and finally on lands within the APD, but not enrolled in the FPP. The plan acknowledged that projects that negatively impact tillable surface may need to be reconsidered at a later date. This Plan Update acknowledges that the implementa- tion of high-priority salmon projects critically needed to advance salmon recovery will result in localized loss of existing farmland. Research indicates that rearing habitat availability in the Lower and Middle Green River is the primary limiting factor for Chinook productivity within the watershed. Collaboration be- tween agricultural and salmon recovery interests will be necessary to identify and advance shared prior- ities and ensure salmon and agriculture can coexist productively within a shared landscape. Lessons learned from other watersheds should be reviewed for applicability within the Green River watershed. Programs »Farm Conservation Planning Farm conservation plans can help landowners protect natural resources while achieving their land use goals. They can also help access and leverage agricultural incentives to improve conservation practices on agricultural lands. Priorities include stream and wetland buffer revegetation and live- stock management. Agriculture is widespread throughout the Middle and Lower Green and farm- land preservation is a regional priority. Expanding riparian buffer revegetation on Green River valley farms has the potential to greatly benefit salmon recovery, especially where agricultural lands over- lap with high priority areas identified by the Muck- leshoot solar aspect shade maps (2014). Limiting livestock access to stream buffers can also greatly improve water quality and riparian conditions. Available incentive programs include: • King Conservation District rural services pro- grams (e.g., Land Owner Incentive Program, Farm Conservation Technical Assistance, and Agricul- tural Drainage Program) • King County Small Habitat Restoration Program • USDA Farm Service Agency Conservation Re- serve Enhancement Program • King County Livestock Program (i.e., BMP cost share) Landowner recruitment is essential to program success. Additional resources and strategies are needed to expand participation. Policies »AG1: Protect, enhance, and restore high quali- ty salmon habitat in the Agricultural Production Districts in a manner that strives to reduce loss of viable agricultural land and ensure the long-term viability of agriculture. Projects that displace tillable farmland should strive to provide benefits to adja- cent farm lands in attempt to offset impacts. Local governments, state and federal agencies, non-profits, and special purpose districts should work with agricultural landowners in the Agricultur- al Production Districts to: • Correct water quality problems resulting from agricultural practices; • Implement best management practices for live- stock and horticulture; • Prevent additional degradation or clearing of forested riparian buffers; • Encourage landowners to pursue voluntary sus- tainable actions for fish, farms, and soils; • Conduct compliance monitoring and regulatory enforcement where necessary to protect critical habitats; • Identify opportunities where salmon recovery projects can provide parallel benefits (e.g., flood risk reduction and drainage improvements) to adjacent agricultural lands; and • Limit the extent of actively farmed lands dis- placed by priority salmon restoration projects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 68 »AG2: Evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory flexibility given to agricultural landowners that obtain a farm plan from the KCD. If the flexibility leads to better habitat and water quality outcomes, other opportunities should be explored to provide additional flexibility. If the flexibility has not led to better outcomes, the County should evaluate if there are improvements to the regulatory structure (e.g. require some amount of the farm plan be im- plemented versus implementation being voluntary) that would improve the outcomes of the flexible approach. Strategy: Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning Location: All Subwatersheds Historical population growth and development within the watershed displaced habitat, altered natural hydrology, and polluted local waters. Local land use plans should provide a blueprint for future growth and development that is consistent with salmon recovery. Land use decisions should reinforce the importance of preservation of intact, functional hab- itats and provide a pathway for restoration of priority habitats. While the Salmon Habitat Plan is not a reg- ulatory document, integration of identified recovery strategies and habitat priorities within local land use plans, policy and decision-making can accelerate implementation and ultimately dictate success of recovery efforts within the Green/Duwamish. Programs »Incentivize Voluntary Restoration Practices Local governments and state agencies should pro- mote landowner adoption of voluntary conserva- tion and restoration actions through implementing associated incentive programs. Regulatory com- plexity, fees, access to technical assistance, and project costs have all been identified as barriers to expanding adoptions of voluntary best manage- ment practices on private property. Priority areas to address include invasive removal and native reveg- etation along shorelines, soft shoreline stabilization, and green stormwater infrastructure. Jurisdictions should review existing barriers and evaluate incen- tive opportunities, including: • Streamlined permitting process; • Reduced fees for restoration projects; • Free technical assistance (e.g., engineering, plant- ing plans, etc.); • Cost share/financing programs; and • Regulatory flexibility. Voluntary adoption of best management practices by private landowners has been sporadic. Addi- tional targeted investments are needed to expand implementation beyond early adopters. Improving coordination and consistency across regulatory jurisdictions (i.e., local, state and federal govern- ments) is also needed to improve consistency and reliability of the permitting process and increase adoption of best management practices. A coordi- nated effort across the watershed to identify target- ed practices and assess best practices related to available incentives could reduce costs and im- prove efficiency. Using the Green Shores for Homes or similar programs as an incentive-based program to increase the number of properties that voluntari- ly improve shoreline conditions on their property should be explored. »Regulatory Compliance Monitoring and Associ- ated Enforcement Jurisdictions should assess regulatory compli- ance with shoreline master programs, critical area protections, floodplain regulations, and agricultural regulations (e.g., Livestock Management Ordi- nance) to assess and improve protection of salmon habitats. Regulatory compliance is fundamental to achieving no net loss of ecological function along marine and freshwater shorelines and to ensuring that ongoing impacts to salmon habitat do not undermine salmon recovery investments. Periodic compliance monitoring should be used to assess the status of jurisdictions and the status of local regulatory implementation and to inform a strategic approach to address shortcomings. If a regulatory framework is not achieving intended outcomes, local jurisdictions should assess changes to staffing levels, outreach and education, technical training for staff, interagency coordination, and enforcement to improve compliance rates. A WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Com- pliance Project (2018) found that only 42 percent of shoreline modifications between 2013-2018 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 69 obtained local permits. Even fewer shoreline modifications obtained a WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval. Furthermore, more new shoreline armor (mostly unpermitted) was constructed than re- moved through restoration projects. These results indicate that unpermitted shoreline modifications are undermining salmon recovery investments and overall efforts to achieve “no net loss of ecosystem function” as required through the Shoreline Man- agement Act. Jurisdictions should take a program- matic approach to identify and address barriers (e.g., permit fees, regulatory uncertainty/confusion) to improve shoreline compliance rates and achieve outcomes that protect salmon habitat. Coordination and sharing of lessons learned across jurisdictions and the larger Puget Sound are recommended to improve efficiency. Policies »Land Use (LU)1: Ensure salmon recovery priorities are integrated into long-range planning efforts, including Shoreline Master Programs, Compre- hensive Plans, and Open Space and Parks Plans. Planning documents should be consistent with the Salmon Habitat Plan and support implementation of habitat protection and restoration priorities. WRIA 9 should provide technical assistance to pro- mote compatibility. »LU2: Land use development, annexation, and cap- ital improvement programs within the watershed should be consistent with the salmon recovery plan and promote progress towards achieving the necessary future conditions (and associated imple- mentation targets) for a viable salmon population. Development proposals should be evaluated with respect to impacts on key habitat indicators and identified habitat projects for the respective subwa- tershed. »LU3: Local governments should use compre- hensive plans and associated land use policies to direct growth and development within existing Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to protect ecologically important landscapes in rural areas. Specifically, avoid future expansions to existing UGAs that could result in additional land conversion and landscape degradation. »LU4: Strictly apply and improve compliance with critical area, shoreline, vegetation conservation, floodplain, and agricultural regulations designed to protect important ecological habitats. Avoid use of variances in priority areas identified for protection and restoration in the salmon habitat plan. »LU5: Local governments should support flexible development tools that encourage protection and/ or restoration of ecologically important salmon habitat. Possible tools include, but are not limited to, transferable development rights, mitigation banking/ reserve programs, incentive zoning, Green Shores for Homes, and Public Benefit Rating System tax programs. »LU6: WRIA 9 partners should incorporate sea level rise projections into long-range planning docu- ments, habitat project designs, and development standards to promote long-term ecosystem resil- iency. Nearshore habitats adjacent to armored shorelines could be lost as water levels rise (i.e., coastal squeeze) if shorelines remain fixed. Low- lying shoreline areas should be identified to support landward migration of nearshore habitat as sea levels rise where appropriate. »LU7: Encourage certified development standards (e.g., Built Green, Salmon-Safe Certification, and Green Shores for Homes) that minimize the impacts of urban development on the natural environment. Incentives could include reductions in flexible development standards, expedited permitting, and reduced or waived permit costs. »LU8: Incorporate Salmon-Safe Certification stan- dards into best management practices for park and grounds maintenance procedures. Certification is available for parks system, golf courses, and urban development. Salmon-Safe Certification is a peer-re- viewed certification and accreditation program that promotes practices that protect water quality, improve watershed health and restore habitat. »LU9: Local governments should evaluate shorelines and critical areas, open space (e.g., parks and golf courses), and public lands with respect to identified salmon habitat priorities and notify WRIA 9 staff prior to approving significant land use conversion, or pursuing sale/exchange of public lands. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 70 »LU10: Incorporate Green Shores for Homes Certifi- cation standards into best management practices for residential shoreline development. The WRIA should support municipal efforts to establish a Green Shores for Homes certification process during permit review to help expedite permitting. Green Shores for Homes is an EPA-funded certifica- tion and accreditation program that was developed by technical Shore Friendly design of shoreline properties. Plan Implementation and Funding Location: All Subwatersheds The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Interlocal Agreement provides a framework for managing and coordinating imple- mentation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. It recognizes that salmon recovery transcends political bound- aries and calls for strong collaboration between local, state, and federal partners. Success hinges on strong relationships, strategic coordination, and collective action. Working effectively across such a diverse landscape as the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound requires creative partnerships with non-traditional partners. Leveraging shared resources to implement multi-benefit projects will help overcome land availability constraints and high restoration costs. Programs »Basin Stewardship Support and expand existing basin stewardship programs across the Green/Duwamish subwater- sheds. Basin stewards are instrumental to imple- mentation of the salmon habitat plan. They advo- cate for salmon recovery, coordinate across diverse stakeholders, and build on-the-ground relationships that facilitate large capital restoration projects. Key tasks for basin stewardship include: • Coordinating and implementing restoration proj- ects; • Coordination and collaboration across jurisdic- tions; • Securing grant funding (including grant writing) for restoration and acquisition projects; • Promoting voluntary stewardship on private property; • Responding to citizen inquiries concerning water- shed issues; and • Expanding public education and outreach oppor- tunities Basin stewardship covers the Middle and Lower Green River sub-basins, Miller and Walker Creek basins, and Vashon Island. Priorities for expan- sion include mainland nearshore and Duwamish sub-basins. »Land Conservation Initiative (LCI) The LCI represents a coordinated effort to preserve river corridors, urban open space, trails, natural lands, farmland and forestlands. It is a regional collaboration between King County, cities, business people, farmers, environmental partners, and others to strategically preserve our last, most important places. The initiative sets forth the goal of conserv- ing and preserving 65,000 acres of high conser- vation value lands throughout King County within the next 30 years. The primary funding source is the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) fund, which is a property tax on all parcels in the county. The LCI is an important funding source for pursuing open space acquisitions throughout the Green/ Duwamish watershed. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the LCI to execute high-priority land acquisitions within the Green River Corridor to improve hydrological integrity, support salmon recovery, and expand recreational opportunity. Much of WRIA 9 is mapped as an “opportunity area” where households lack access to open space. Implementation of the LCI has the potential to align salmon recovery investments with needed invest- ments to address equitable access to open space throughout the watershed. »U.S. Army Corps Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) WRIA 9 partners should continue to engage U.S. Army Corps leadership to advocate for appropri- ation of funding to implement ERP projects. The original collaborative effort resulted in identification of 45 projects, 29 of which were carried forward in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. U.S. Congress autho- rized $113 million in 2000 to be cost shared be- tween the federal (65%) and local partners (35%). Since the 2005 Plan, 13 of the original projects have AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 71 been completed, with seven completed under the ERP authorization (e.g., North Winds Weir, Codiga Farms, Riverview Side Channel) and six completed by local sponsors (e.g., Porter Levee Setback, Fen- ster levee Setback, and Gale Creek). The Congressionally authorized ERP represents an important federal resource to support critically needed and underfunded salmon restoration work in the watershed. As of 2016, the ERP has only been allocated 8.25 percent of the authorized amount. A 2018 Green/Duwamish ERP Comprehensive Cost Update removed 12 projects based on the ratio of perceived habitat value to cost and the presence of hazardous materials. However, the recommend- ed “de-scoped” plan still includes a number of high-priority projects including NE Auburn Creek and the Hamakami, Turley, and Lones levee setback projects. The cost update for the modified ERP scope is $260 million and the congressionally au- thorized cost adjusted for inflation is $269 million. Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River. The project, sponsored by the City of Kent, was constructed in 2012 in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Photo: City of Kent. Policies »Implementation (I)1: The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Inter- local Agreement outlines the governance, funding, and decision-making structure for coordination and implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. »I2: Process-based habitat restoration – where feasible – is preferable to other approaches that rely on more intensive human intervention. However, the magnitude of alteration within portions of the watershed render true restoration of degraded pro- cesses infeasible in some locations. Rehabilitation and substitution projects require additional moni- toring and maintenance to ensure desired functions are achieved. WRIA 9 should support periodic investments in adaptive management of completed projects to ensure maximize long-term ecological benefits. »I3: Support use of mitigation funds to implement priority salmon habitat enhancement projects. Off- site mitigation programs (e.g., in-lieu fee and mitiga- tion banking) can help improve ecological function in critical locations (e.g., Chinook Wind in the Duwamish Transition Zone) as a means of offsetting unavoidable impacts in less sensitive areas of the watershed. Development of mitigation opportuni- ties should be coordinated with the WRIA to ensure proposals are consistent with and do not preclude identified salmon recovery priorities. The WRIA should explore the potential for innovative partner- ships that could combine mitigation and restoration funding to expand the overall ecosystem benefit of habitat projects. However, habitat improvements AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 72 associated with mitigation funds must be tracked as separate and discrete from those achieved with restoration-based grant funding. »I4: Salmon recovery planning and habitat project development should integrate social justice and equity considerations. Public access and recre- ational improvements should be considered where demonstrated need exists and when compatible with salmon recovery goals. WRIA 9 should seek multiple benefit solutions that consider displace- ment and social justice issues. »I5: Coordinate Salmon Habitat Plan implementation with other watershed-wide and regional initiatives to identify synergies, leverage available funding, avoid conflicts, and improve salmon recovery out- comes. Existing watershed-wide and regional initia- tives include the King County Flood Hazard Man- agement Plan, King County Flood Control District Lower Green River Corridor Plan, Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Cleanup, Puget Sound Action Agenda, Our Green Duwamish, WRIA 9 Watershed Restoration Enhancement Committee, and the Puget Sound South Central Action Area Local Inte- grating Organization. »I6: Support examining new funding sources and fi- nancing strategies for implementing priority habitat projects and programs throughout Puget Sound. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum will seek representa- tion on regional committees tasked with the exam- ination of public and private funding strategies at the local and regional level. »I7: Salmon recovery funding should support adaptive management of previously constructed projects where monitoring data shows design changes are necessary to improve habitat function. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 73 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 7: Capital Projects Salmon recovery capital projects preserve, enhance, create or restore the habitats and physical processes that support salmon. Projects include acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement approaches. Although significant progress has been made im- plementing projects identified in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, many projects remain unfunded and under-resourced. Since 2005, 165 projects have been completed or are in progress, totalling over $160 million of investments. While many of the remain- ing projects identified within the 2005 Plan are still viable, other opportunities have been lost to develop- ment and/or a change in ownership. This update provides a current, comprehensive list of potential capital projects that align with established goals for Chinook salmon recovery in WRIA 9. A couple of plan amendments added new projects to the 2005 Plan, including: a 2007 plan amendment; and the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint. As part of the 2020 update, all projects described in the plan (and its amendments) or the appendices of the plan were evaluated for inclusion in updated project list. WRIA 9 staff developed an updated list of capital projects in partnership with ILA member jurisdic- tions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. Partners were asked to submit projects and provide specific project infor- mation including a project sponsor, location, scope, goals, alignment with recovery strategies, and pro- jected habitat gains. In some cases, an identified project did not have a clear sponsor, but was includ- ed due to the perceived importance of the project. The request for projects primarily targeted Chinook salmon-focused projects, but several coho salmon projects were accepted. A few additional project guidelines were developed in refining the project list: •Policies and Programs – Project submittals were not required for actions that fell within the scope of larger programmatic actions (e.g., fish barrier removal). •Discrete footprint – Projects were required to articulate a specific project footprint to support evaluation of feasibility and magnitude of ecologi- cal benefit. •Implementable within 10–15 years – Project spon- sors were directed to submit projects that could be implemented within a 10–15-year timeframe, provid- ed adequate funding and landowner willingness. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 74 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Project Prioritization A team of subject matter experts was recruited to review, evaluate and tier projects for inclusion in the Plan. This four-person prioritization team brought expertise in restoration ecology, fish biology, and habitat project management, and over 50 years of knowledge from working in the Green/Duwamish River and Central Puget Sound. A balance of inter- ests was represented to eliminate bias for specific projects. The review process evaluated all concep- tual projects based on their full potential to provide habitat lift. Future constraints identified during design and feasibility could impact overall project scope and associated benefits. Project prioritization was based on subject matter expert evaluation of: • Habitat Quality (lift): the relative importance and value of a specific proposed habitat; and • Habitat Quantity (size): the potential amount (acreage and shoreline length) of habitat created or enhanced based on the entire project footprint. The scoring process was weighted so that habitat quality comprised 75 percent of the score and habitat quantity comprised 25 percent of the score. The tier- ing process assumes habitat benefits are positively correlated with size. Larger projects not only provide more habitat, they allow increased habitat heteroge- neity. Smaller, more homogeneous habitats, are less resilient to perturbations, and site constraints can be problematic for optimizing habitat. A small modifier was added to allow consideration of high-value geo- graphic locations (e.g., proximity to existing restora- tion sites, feeder bluff, etc.). Potential lift reflects the projected immediate and long-term habitat benefits to addressing limiting factors for Chinook salmon re- covery. Processed-based restoration was considered to provide more certainty of long-term benefits. A total of 118 projects were submitted and ranked as part of the project solicitation process. Projects were ranked within a specific subwatershed – not across subwatersheds. Given the large number of projects, projects were tiered based on overall benefit and to provide an indication of priority for financial support from the WRIA. Tiers were defined as follows: • Tier 1 - high potential; substantially contribute to recovery goals in each subwatershed. • Tier 2 - moderate potential; clear alignment with Chinook salmon recovery goals. • Tier 3 - limited potential; associated with Chinook recovery (or not primary species impacted); com- pliments broader recovery efforts in the subwater- shed. A simplified scoring methodology based on habitat quantity and quality provides a foundation for long- term planning by setting high-level implementation priorities within each subwatershed. Tiers were as- signed to projects by identifying natural breakpoints in the full list of projects within a subwatershed. These established breakpoints serve as a scoring baseline for projects received through future biennial calls for projects. Future proposed projects will be scored under the same criteria and assigned a tier. The proposed project will be added to the tiered list for future funding, with near-term funding priority giv- en to those projects previously identified as in need of funding. The final list of projects was approved unanimously by the Implementation Technical Committee and Wa- tershed Ecosystem Forum in 2019 and will serve as the comprehensive list of recovery actions that help achieve recovery goals, and ultimately toward the delisting of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. 19Duwamish(DUW) Middle Green (MG) Lower Green (LG) 1 Upper Green (UG) Number of WRIA 9 Projects by Subwatershed 39 Nearshore (NS) 14 45 Figure 25. Number of projects by subwatershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 75 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Capital Project Information by Subwatershed containing: • Subwatershed project location maps • Subwatershed project listings with tier rankings • Project fact sheets with site maps Marine Nearshore Subwatershed ................................p. 76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed .............................p. 102 Lower Green River Subwatershed ..............................p. 116 Middle Green River Subwatershed ............................p. 146 Upper Green River Subwatershed ............................p. 160 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Marine Nearshore Subwatershed 39 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 17 projects Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 8 projects NS-2 ...........Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow Water Habitat NS-16 .........Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration and Water Quality Improvements NS-22 ........Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation NS-35 ........Lower Shinglemill Creek habitat restoration NS-39 ........Walker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition NS-40 .......Salmon Creek Fish Barrier Removal NS-42 ........Miller Creek Regional Detention Facility NS-54 ........West Galer Street/32nd St. Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration NS-58 ........Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration Project NS-59 ........Mileta Armor removal and shoreline restoration NS-68........Longfellow Creek Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration NS-70 ........Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage NS-72 ........Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration Project/Perkins Lane Utility Access Road NS-73 ........Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Project Tier 3 (Score <7) 14 projects PAGE 76 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-7 ...........Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-8 ..........Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries NS-11 ..........Beaconsfield on the Sound NS-15 .........McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff restoration NS-21 .........Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-23 ........Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions NS-24 ........Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-28 ........Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration NS-29 ........Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation NS-43 ........Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration NS-45 ........Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration NS-49 ........Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal NS-53 ........Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration NS-61 .........Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration NS-62 ........Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-63 ........Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration NS-66........Camp Kilworth Protection NS-13 .........Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project NS-14 .........Raab’s Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration NS-25 ........Judd Creek Pocket Estuary NS-27 ........Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration NS-31 .........Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration NS-44........Portage Salt Marsh Restoration NS-60 .......Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration NS-67 ........Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 77 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 509 518 99 99 99 5 5 5 Miller Cr Puget Sound Elliott Bay NS-28 NS-27NS-61NS-62 NS-43 NS-24 NS-63 NS-21 NS-8NS-7 NS-2 NS-68 NS-72 NS-70 NS-45 NS-73 NS-35 NS-29 NS-60 NS-59 NS-58 NS-66 NS-16 NS-67 NS-13 NS-42 NS-40 NS-49 NS-54 NS-53 NS-31 NS-22 NS-11 NS-25 NS-15 NS-14 NS-39 NS-23 NS-44 NS-23 SEATTLE SEATTLE Vashon Island Maury Island SEATAC FEDERAL WAY BURIEN DES MOINES DES MOINES NORMANDY PARK NORMANDY PARK River mile Project location and name Project location and name River/creek Major road King County boundary Maine Nearshore Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks Incorporated area Open water 1 NS-1 NS-1 0 1 2 3 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map issubject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_NS.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-7 Agren ParkWestside Hwy SWMcIntyre Rd SWSW Cove Rd Puget Sound Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Nearshore Pocket Estuary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect and improve riparian vegetation, improve tributary access, remove armoring and fill, increase vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats, protect and enhance pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths. Tier 1 Project: NS-7 Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI – 13-28; KI - 11-7) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 78 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-8 HitchingsProperty86th Pl SW87th Ave SW90th Ave SWSW Dilworth Rd 91st Ave SWSW Soper Rd SW Gorsu c h R d Puget Sound Vashon Island K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties at the mouth of Dillworth and Gorsuch Creeks to restore stream delta and pocket estuary habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-8 Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 12 - 4) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY PAGE 79 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-11 Marine ViewParkMar ine V iew D r SW Puget Sound NORMANDY PARK K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park Incorp. Area Boundary RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect and restore 1085 ft. of active feeder blu along mainland marine nearshore. Tier 1 Project: NS-11 Beaconsfield on the Sound PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Normandy Park (KI-7-3) Banksidejurisdiction: Normandy Park Project sponsor: Normandy Park Budget: $600,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT NS-15 Saltwater State ParkMa r in e V i ew D r S Puget Sound DES MOINES K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Incorp. Area Boundary Restoration Acquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Monitoring &Assessment Enhancement/Planting Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore historic pocket estuary, protect feeder blus, remove marine shoreline armoring and enhance low-impact recreational activities. Tier 1 Project: NS-15McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Des Moines (KI - 8 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Federal Way Project sponsor: Des Moines Budget: $20,838,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 80 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-15 Saltwater State ParkMa r in e V i ew D r S Puget Sound DES MOINES K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Incorp. Area Boundary Restoration Acquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Monitoring &Assessment Enhancement/Planting Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore historic pocket estuary, protect feeder blus, remove marine shoreline armoring and enhance low-impact recreational activities. Tier 1 Project: NS-15McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Des Moines (KI - 8 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Des Moines Project sponsor: King County/ State Parks Budget: $20,838,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 81 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Burma Rd S W NS-21 Puget Sound Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Project Area RestorationAcquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore nearshore habitat by removing shoreline debris, hard armor, and derelict docks. Tier 1 Project: NS-21 Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 11-2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 82 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-23NS-23 Vashon Commons Point HeyerNatural Area Ellisport Wildlands OberPark 87th Ave SWSW Cemetery Rd Monument Rd SWDockton R d SW SW Cove Rd Beall Rd SWSW Bank Rd SW 204th St SW Elli s port Rd Geor ge Ed wards RdVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound 0 3,000 Feet Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NPublic Lands Park Project Area 0 2,000 ft. RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to protect and restore beach feeding processes and salt marsh at spit. Tier 1 Project: NS-23 Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $10,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: PAGE 83 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 84 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-28 Frog Holler Forest Trails Frog HollerForest LostLake SpringBeachSpringBeach Neill PointNatural Area Spring BeachNatural AreaSpring BeachNatural Area Lost LakeNatural Area Inspiration Pt.Natural Area Forest Glen Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Wax Orchard Rd SWVashon Hwy SWVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound Puget Sound Maury Island Vashon Island K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 2,000 ft.Public Lands Park Trail RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore about 209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with approximately 4615 feet of blu-backed beach shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-28 Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 13-20) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-24 147th Ave SW147th Ave SWRaymond Rd SWRaymond Rd SWSW Reddings Beach RdSW Reddings Beach RdSW ReddingsBeach Rd SW ReddingsBeach Rd SW Cross Landing Rd 145 th P l SW 145 th P l SW UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Vashon IslandPuget Sound K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 200 400 ft.Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire beach feeding parcels, remove fill, restore salt marsh, remove road, and reroute road drainage. Tier 1 Project: NS-24 Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI – 13 – 23) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 85 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-28 Frog Holler Forest Trails Frog HollerForest LostLake SpringBeachSpringBeach Neill PointNatural Area Spring BeachNatural AreaSpring BeachNatural Area Lost LakeNatural Area Inspiration Pt.Natural Area Forest Glen Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Wax Orchard Rd SWVashon Hwy SWVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound Puget Sound Maury Island Vashon Island K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 2,000 ft.Public Lands Park Trail RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore about 209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with approximately 4615 feet of blu-backed beach shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-28 Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 13-20) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 86 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-43 Dockton Forest,Dockton Natural Area andMaury Is. Natural Area Trails Maury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Dockton Natural Area DocktonPark 99th Ave SWDockton Rd SWSW D o c k S t Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N05001,000 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. Tier 1 Project: NS-43 Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 8) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Park Trail Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY NS-29UFOErraticFeeder LineMI N A TMINATDockton Forest Trails M I N A T (M aury Island N atu ra l A r e a T r a ils )MINA T Gravel GrinderMaury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Park TrailSW 275th Sandy Shores Dr SWK ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Restoration Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove invasive species, add topsoil, and revegetate about a mile of marine shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-29 Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 14 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,050,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Green River Trail - Kent Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 87 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-43 Dockton Forest,Dockton Natural Area andMaury Is. Natural Area Trails Maury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Dockton Natural Area DocktonPark 99th Ave SWDockton Rd SWSW D o c k S t Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N05001,000 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. Tier 1 Project: NS-43 Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 8) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Park Trail Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 88 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-45 Point Defiance- Tahlequah Ferry Loading DockVashon Hwy SWSW P o h l R d SW T a h l e q u a h R d 131st Ave SWPuget Sound Tahlequah Cr.Tahlequah Cr.Slai g h t e r ’ s C r . PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, restore creek meander and fish passage, remove bulkhead, and restore nearshore, estuary and marsh habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-45 Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI - 13 - 21, KI - 13 - 22) Jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: Vashon/Maury Budget: $7,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY NS-49 Arroyos Natural Area Arroyo Heights Park Arroyo Heights Park SW 106th St SW 108th St M arin e Vie w Dr S WPuget Sound Seattle Park PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Park Restoration Nearshore Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 700 feet of rip rap and timber bulkhead along the shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-49 Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI -5 - 1) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 89 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-49 Arroyos Natural Area Arroyo Heights Park Arroyo Heights Park SW 106th St SW 108th St M arin e Vie w Dr S WPuget Sound Seattle Park PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Park Restoration Nearshore Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 700 feet of rip rap and timber bulkhead along the shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-49 Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI -5 - 1) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-53 MagnoliaPark Magnolia Tidelands Park MagnoliaPlayfieldParkmontPlaceCarletonCenter EastmontPlace Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park Mag n o l i a B l v d W W McGraw St Viewmont Way WMontavistaPl WWest Vi ewm ont Way W 34th Ave WW Lynn St 34th A v e W Puget Sound Seattle 0 200 400 PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Tier 1 Project: NS-53 Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI - 3 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 90 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-28NS-61 Lost Lake Lost Lake Natural Area Northilla Beach Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Natural Area Hake Rd SW101st Ave SWSW Nor t h i l l a R d SW 268th St 101st Ave SWSW 280th St Ma n z a n i t a B e a c h R d SW Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park 0 1,000 ft.500 RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Tier 1 Project: NS-61 Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PAGE 91 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Spring Beach Spring BeachNatural Area SW Spring Beach Rd139th Ave SW141st Ave SW143rd Ave SWSW P o h l R d Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park 0 800 ft.400 RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore shoreline and forage fish habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-62 Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-62 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PAGE 92 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update SW 207th Ln SW 208th St SW 216th St SW Mad rona Rd141st Ave SW135th Ave SWS W M a d r o n a R d SW Madrona RdPuget Sound Green Valley Cr. PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire undeveloped lots along the Green Valley Creek, restore creek mouth, and remove hard shoreline armor. Tier 1 Project: NS-63 Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 26) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $4,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-63 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 93 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update SW 207th Ln SW 208th St SW 216th St SW Mad rona Rd141st Ave SW135th Ave SWS W M a d r o n a R d SW Madrona RdPuget Sound Green Valley Cr. PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire undeveloped lots along the Green Valley Creek, restore creek mouth, and remove hard shoreline armor. Tier 1 Project: NS-63 Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 26) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $4,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-63 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 94 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-66 Palisades Park Dumas BayPark SR 509 SR 509 Puget Sound FEDERAL WAY PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands Park Acquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect 900 feet of active feeder blus that occurs in the first third of the drift cell. Tier 1 Project: NS-66 Camp Kilworth Protection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Federal Wa y (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Federal Way Project sponsor: Forterra and Kilworth Environmental Education Preserve (KEEP) Budget: $3,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Inc. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 95 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Riparian SouthMarinaPark Overlook Park I Marine View Dr SS 223rd St 7th Ave SS 227th St Puget Sound DESMOINES 509 516NS-13 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-13Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire and restore the stream, create fish passage, remove the jetty and rock from the south bank, and create a pocket estuary. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: $3,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-13.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Riparian RaabsLagoonNaturalArea Dockton Rd SW80th Ave SWSW 234th St 75th Ave SWKingsbury Rd SWQuartermaster Harbor UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYMAURY ISLAND NS-14 Tier 2 Project: NS-14Raab's Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire vacant lots, restore riparian forest habitat and connectivity by removing the weir and bulkhead. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 9 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-14.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 96 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Judd C r e ek Marjorie R. StanleyNatural Area SW 232nd St SW Quartermaster DrVashon Hwy SWUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND Quartermaster Harbor NS-25 Tier 2 Project: NS-25Judd Creek Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore habitat with wood placement, removal of derelict barge, and additional vegetation near mouth of Judd Creek. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 0 - 1 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-25.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands/Easements N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian PinerPointNaturalAreaNorthillaBeachNaturalArea99th Ave SWSW Nort h i l l a R d Point Piner Rd SWSW Summerhurst Rd 101st Ave SWSW 280th St Puget Sound UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT NS-27 NS-27 Tier 2 Project: NS-27Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder blus. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 8 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-27.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands/Easements N05001,000 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 97 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Nearshore Feeder Blu NS-31 DiscoveryPark CarletonHighlandsMagnoliaTidelandsPark Magnolia Blvd WW Dravus St Magnolia Blvd WW Dravus St W Emerson StW Emerson St Puget Sound SEATTLE NS-31 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-31Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder blus. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: TBD Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-31.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Tramp HarborDock Dockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWSW Quartermaster DrSW Quartermaster Dr PortageWay SWPuget Sound Quartermaster harbor NS-44 UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYMAURY ISLAND IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-44Portage Salt Marsh Restoration Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Install bridge or box culverts, restore fish access, and restore habitat to salt marsh. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 6 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-44.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Riparian Ellis CreekNatural Area Tramp Harbor Dock 8 7 t h A v e SW Dockton Rd SW 8 7 t h A v e SW Dockton Rd SW SW Ellisport RdSW Ellisport Rd Puget SoundEl l i sport CreekUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND NS-60 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-60Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire and restore habitat at Ellisport Creek stream mouth, and allow for fish passage. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 4; KI - 13 - 5 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-60.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/ Design Riparian NS-67 Des Moines Creek TrailDes Moines Creek TrailDes MoinesBeach Park Des MoinesCreek Park South Marina Park OverlookPark I OverlookPark II S 223rd St S 222nd St S 223rd St S 222nd St 7th Ave SS 227th St S 216th St Des MoinesMemorial Dr SS 216th StS 216th St DES MOINES NORMANDYPARK 509 Puget Sound NS-67 Des Moines CreekIMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-67Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Remove approximately 500 feet of hard shoreline armor and pull back fill material to create a more natural shoreline and stream transition. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: TBD Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-67.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Nearshore Pocket Estuary Project No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment NS-2 Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow Water Habitat • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Remove shoreline armor and restore natural beach adjacent to a previously created pocket beach. Seattle Parks and Recreation Nearshore KI - 4 - 1 - NAD Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-16 Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration and Water Quality Improvements • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Project will remove armoring to restore estuary and re-align creek to more sinuous route. Improve water quality in park through parking lot improvements, reduce erosion associated with stormwater runoff, creosote-treated pedestrian bridge replacement, and wetland enhancement. Washington State Parks & Recreation Nearshore KI - MA - 014 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Federal Way LG- Off-channel habitat NS-22 Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation Planning/Design Remove some level of shoreline armor and plant native vegetation along a stretch of barren riprap. The riprap leads to a protected sandy pocket beach that exists at all tidal elevations. There may be additional opportunity for nearshore restoration on adjacent Port property. The Port also has a marine habitat restoration pilot site adjacent to this project. Seattle Parks and Recreation Nearshore KI - 3 -2/3 - 3 - NAD, KI - 3 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-35 Lower Shinglemill Creek Habitat Restoration Restoration Add LWD into stream reach west of Cedarhurst Road.King County Nearshore KI - 11 - 4 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline conservation Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects (continued on next page) PAGE 98 PAGE 99 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-39 Walker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Restoration & Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance The project plan is to seek partnership or acquisition opportunities with the property owners within the project area, with the goal of acquiring and restoring additional contiguous areas beyond the current city-owned wetland parcels within the project site. City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Burien Shoreline conservation NS-40 Salmon Creek Fish Barrier Removal • Planning/Design • Restoration The project plan is to seek a partnership or acquisition opportunities with the property owners within the project area, with the goals of removing the fish-barrier weir at the mouth of the creek, and removing and replacing a culvert with a modern fish passable one. City of Burien Nearshore KI - 5 - 1 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Burien • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-42 Miller Creek Regional Detention Facility Planning/Design The project plan is to identify one or more large commercial properties in Burien that have no existing stormwater treatment or flow control, and partner with them to construct regional stormwater facilities on their site(s). City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance sediment and water quality City of Burien Shoreline conservation NS-54 West Galer Street/32nd St. Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Remove/reduce shoreline armoring, remove fill, relocate an SPU-owned pump station if feasible, and re-vegetate shoreline. Potential acquisition of adjacent properties. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle Shoreline armor NS-58 Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration Project Restoration & Acquisition Restore fish passage and salt marsh habitat at mouth of creek. King County Nearshore KI - 13 - 15 / KI - 13 - 14 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-59 Mileta Armor Removal and shoreline restoration Restoration Remove shoreline armoring, evaluate and improve fish passage. King County Nearshore KI - 13 - 10 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-68 Longfellow Creek Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Restoration & Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance This project will evaluate restoration opportunities at five sites along a 1.7-mile section of Longfellow Creek. Future restoration may include: floodplain reconnection, fish passage improvements (culvert replacements or daylighting), stream channel realignment, stream channel and riparian restoration, wetland creation and/or enhancement. Seattle Public Utilities RM 0 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance riparian corridors City of Seattle DUW - Riparian forest NS-70 Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Restoration & Acquisition Replace two aging fish passage barrier culverts with new culverts that meet fish passage standards. Includes partial daylighting and stream channel restoration. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore / KI - 5 - 1 Restore and improve fish passage City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-72 Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration Project/Perkins Lane Utility Access Road • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Assess feasibility of modifying the utility service road and sewer access points in order to remove shoreline armor and restore to a natural beach. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-73 Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Project Restoration Replace current surface water extraction system with a fish friendly system to allow for the return of salmon and other salmonids Water District 19 2923039086/Water District 19 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Water District 19 • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation Project No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects, continued PAGE 100 PAGE 101 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 9 projects DUW-18 ....Codiga Off-channel Habitat Expansion DUW-22 ...Cecil Moses DUW-24 ...Carrossino Restoration DUW-26 ...S 104th St. Bank Stabilization/Restoration DUW-3 ......Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback DUW-60 ...Herring’s House Park Fish Access Improvement DUW-61 ....George Long DUW-63 ...S. 115th St. Road Setback Tier 3 (Score <7) 2 projects DUW-14 ....Duwamish Waterway Park DUW-19 ....Southgate Creek Restoration Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed 19 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 8 projects DUW-2 ......Rendering Plant DUW-7 ......Chinook Wind DUW-7a ....Chinook Wind - Extension DUW-25 ...Desimone Oxbow Restoration DUW-29 ...Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek DUW-32 ...Duwamish River People’s Park & Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) DUW-64 ...U-Haul River Project DUW-66 ...Terminal 25 South PAGE 102 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-67.......Codiga to TCC Corridor AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-3 DUW-2 DUW-7 DUW-7a DUW-18 DUW-64 DUW-63 DUW-66 DUW-61 DUW-60 DUW-29 DUW-26 DUW-25 DUW-24DUW-22 DUW-19 DUW-18 DUW-14 DUW-32 2 1 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 12 10 11 Lake Washington Duwamish R iver Miller CreekGreen R iver Black River 405 900 599 518 509 99 99 99 5 Spokane St. Viaduct Lake Washington Puget Sound Elliott Bay Lake Burien SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY TUKWILA SEATAC RENTON MERCER ISLAND Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_DUW.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area Line Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Open water Public lands Incorporated Area Figure __ Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects 1 N 0 1/2 Mile October 2020 1/4 West Seattle Bridge DUW-1 PAGE 103 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Figure 27. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-2 RM 10 Gr e e n R i v e r T r a i l - T u k w i l a Gre en R. T r a i l - Lower Foster Golf Links Foster Golf Links 57th Ave. SMini Park Int e r u r b a n A v e S 68th Ave S 900 5 D uw a m i s h River TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY RENTON DUW-2 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N0 200 400 600 ft Backwater Side Channel Floodplain Riparian Edge Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore seven + acres with side channel and backwater habitat enhancements and reforestation. Tier 1 Project: DUW-2 Rendering Plant PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 10.1 - 9.7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,730,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 104 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 6Green R iver Tra i l - Lowe r G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tukw i l a Site 1 Duwamish Cecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S99 99 599 D u w a m i s h R iver TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SDUW-7DUW-64 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public landsPark N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance low velocity, shallow water rearing rearing habitat (shallow subtidal and intertidal) in the Duwamish transition zone. Tier 1 Project: DUW-7 Chinook Wind PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: King County Budget: $14,900,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 105 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 6Green R iver Tra i l - Lowe r G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tuk w i l a Site 1 DuwamishCecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S 99 99 599 D u w a m i s h River TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SDUW-64 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public LandsPark N0200400600 ftInc. Area Boundary Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance the land between Chinook Wind Mitigation and Duwamish Gardens to create a unified park and rest. Tier 1 Project: DUW-7a Chinook Wind Extension PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.8/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $1,418,000 Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Edge Planning/ Design PAGE 106 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-25 6 RM 6 Duwamish River Green R iver Tra il - Lower Site 1 Duwamish Cecil Moses Memorial Park Turning Basin Number 3 East Ma rg ina l Way SEast Ma rg ina l Way S E a s t M a rg ina l Wa y S E a s t M a rg ina l Wa y STukwila Intl BlvdTukwila Intl BlvdS Boeing Access RdS Boeing Access Rd Airpo r t Wa y S Interurban Interurban Av e . S . Av e . S . 99 TUKWILA SEATTLE BURIEN K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public LandsPark N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 45.4-acre site located on the western shore of the Duwamish River between river miles 5 and 6 resulting in 23.6 acres of marsh created, 10.8 acres of vegetation, and 34.4 acres refuge habitat created. Tier 1 Project: DUW-25 Desimone Oxbow Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 5.3/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: Unknown Budget: $84,193,945 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Side ChannelRiparianEdge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat PAGE 107 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 5 DUW-29Duwamish River G r e e n R i v e r T r a i l - L o w e r Port of Seattle Tr ails Hamm CreekNatural Area Turning BasinNumber 3 D e s M o i n e s M em o r i a l D r S 99 TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N0200400600 ft Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create o channel habitat and shallow water esturarine habitat in the area north of the existing Duwamish 230 kV - 26 kV substation. Tier 1 Project: DUW-29 Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 5.0 - 4.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle City Light Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Nearshore Pocket Estuary Restoration Tributary PAGE 108 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 4 DUW-32 Duwamish Ri verGreen River Trail - LowerDuwamish Trail King County International Airport Boeing Field 14th Ave S16th Ave SEast M ar g inal W ay S S Cloverdale St S R 99 99 TUKWIL A SEATTLE SEATTLE UNINCORPORATED KING COUNT Y K ING C O U N T Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 Primary strategy Protect , restore, and enhance channel complexit y and edge habitat . Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivit y • Recreation oppor tunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tier 1 Project: DUW-32Duwamish River People’s Park &Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish 4.5 - 4.1 / left bank Jurisdiction: Por t of Seattle Project sponsor: Por t of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Restore approximately 13.5 acres and 2,050 linear feet of upland and aquatic habitats. The project will expand o-channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring, and add large wood. PAGE 109 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 110 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-64 RM 6Green River Trail - Lower G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tuk w i l a Site 1 Duwamish Cecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S 99 99 599 D u w a m i s h River TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SK ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Incorp. Area BoundaryPublic LandsPark N0200400600 ft Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 4.4-acre parcel by creating o-channel mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat. Tier 1 Project: DUW-64 U-Haul River Project PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 6.3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $11,770,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Edge Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 111 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-66 Duwamish River Duwamish RiverDuwamish River Elliott Bay TrailWest Seattle Bridge Trail Harbor MarinaCorporate Centerat Terminal 102 SW Spokane St E Marginal Way SS Spokane St West Seattle Brg E Marginal Way SWest Seattle Bridge Seattle Harbor Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY 99 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftPark Backwater Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore critically needed estuarine in the East Waterway. Project will expand o-channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring & creosote pile, and add large wood. Tier 1 Project: DUW-66 Terminal 25 South PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish 0.4 / right bank Jurisdiction: Port of Seattle Project sponsor: Port of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 Project: DUW-3 Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback the revetment, create shallow water edge habitat with backwater refuge for salmonids, and improve shoreline conditions in this freight district in Tukwila. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 9.7- 10.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,230,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: FloodplainEdge Enhancement/Planting Planning/ Design Acquisition $ Restoration Scoping/Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Riparian 5 6 t h P l S 5 1 s t P l S S 1 3 0 t h P l S 125th St 56th Ave S49th Ave SGa t e w a y D r 50th Ave SB e a c o n C o a l M i n e R d S S 124th St 57th Ave SS Pamela D r Private RdS 122nd Ln S 122nd St 48th Ave SS L a n g s t o n R d S 1 3 3 r d S t48th Ave S56th Ave S57th Ave SGateway Dr57th Ave S51 s t P l S 5 1 s t P l S S 1 3 0 t h P l S 124th St 57th Ave S5 1 s t P l SS 130 th P l DUW-3 Duw am is h River Gre e n River Trail - T ukwila Foster Golf Links Codiga Park Green River Trail Site S 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Int e r u r b a n A v e S TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary DUW-3 RM 9 5 599 900 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-3.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd9RM 9Gree n RiverTrai l - T ukw ila Int e r u r b a n A v e SS 133rd StS 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Duwamish R i verTUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Codiga Park Foster Golf Links TukwilaComm.Center DUW-18 5 900 599 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Tier 2 Project: DUW-18 Codiga Off-channel Habitat Expansion PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand Codiga Park habitat restoration project by turning the backwater area into a side channel to increase rearing and refuge for salmon during higher flows. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8.6/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $642,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_ DUW-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdRiparian Side Channel Floodplain Duwamish Marsh Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Mudflat PAGE 112 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 Project: DUW-22 Cecil Moses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhance access to and expand existing o-channel habitat to increase quality and quantity of available rearing habitat in the transition zone by expanding existing inlet/outlet, removal of tire revetment, and potential acquisition and restoration of adjacent downstream creek parcel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 6.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $5,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Duwamish Marsh Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish Mudflat Green River Trai l - Lower Green River Trail - Tukwila Cecil Moses Memorial Park S 112th StTukwila Intl BlvdDuwami s h River TUKWILA BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY DUW-22 99 N0300600 ft150 RM 6 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-22.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary PAGE 113 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-24.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdUNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Tier 2 Project: DUW-24 Carrossino Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties and create shallow mudflat, marsh, and backwater habitats. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 6 - 6.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $16,304,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Riparian Edge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Green R iver Trail - Lower Green River Trail - Tukwila Cecil Moses Memorial Park S 112th St Tukwila Intl BlvdDuwami s h River TUKWILA BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY DUW-24 99 N0300600 ft150 RM 6 Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 114 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-26 99 RM 6 East Ma rg ina l Way SEas t Ma rg ina l Wa y SAi rpo r t Way STukwila Intl BlvdTUKWILA SEATTLE S 102nd St S 102nd StS 104t h S t D u wamish RiverTier 2 Project: DUW-26 S. 104th St. Bank Stabilization/Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, abandon and remove the road, and create shallow water edge and backwater habitat in the transition zone. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 5.6 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,930,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:Green River Tra il - Lower Backwater Riparian Edge Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-26.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdTier 2 Project: DUW-60 Herring's House Park Fish Access Improvement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adaptively manage an older restoration project to increase fish use by expanding channel opening width, removing shoreline armor and considering a bridge over the channel for recreational access. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 1.1 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $1,250,000 KEYHABITAT: Side Channel Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian PROJECTTYPE: Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish TrailDuwamish Tra i l Puget Park West Duwamish Greenbelt Pigeon Point Park Herrings House Park (Tualtwx) Terminal 108 Park Terminal 107 Park Kellogg IslandWest Duwamish GS: Puget Park SW Da ws o n St West Marg ina l Way SW DUW-60 RM 1 Duwamish R iver SEATTLE N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-60.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 115 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 Project: DUW-61 George Long PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create backwater refuge and riparian habitat at the uppermost limit of the transition zone. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 10.4 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Edge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Riparian IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT DUW-61 Green RiverDuwam ish R iverGreen River Tr a i l - L o w e r G r e e n R i v e r T r a i l - T u k w i l a Foster Golf Links Macadam Winter Garden Fort Dent Park S 144th St 58th Ave SIn te ru r ban A v e S SR 9 0 0 Green River TUKWILA UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY RM 10 DUW-61 N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary In t e r u r b a n A v e S KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-61.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdTier 2 Project: DUW-63 S. 115th St. Road Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate local road and create shallow water edge, backwater mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat as part of the Duwamish Hill Preserve Master Plan. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 7 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Side ChannelEdge Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat DuwamishHill Preserve S 115th St 42nd Ave SS 112th St S 115th St 42nd Ave SS 112th St East Marg ina l Way S Inte r u r b a n A v e SEast Marg ina l Way S Inte r u r b a n A v e STukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way STUKWILA RM 7 599 5 Green River Trail - Tukwila DUW-63 D u w a m i s h R iver N0300600 ft150 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-63.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Table 4 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects PAGE 116 PAGE 117 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Proj#Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal Alignment DUW-14 Duwamish Waterway Park • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Acquire adjacent properties, pull back bank armoring, revegetate. incorporate recreational uses. Seattle Parks and Recreation RM 3.6/left bank Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines; City of Seattle Marine riparian vegetation Shoreline armor Shoreline conservation DUW-19 Southgate Creek Restoration • Other • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance This project would improve fish passage, water quality and flooplain/flood- control in Southgate Creek, which is piped and channelized through most of its lower reach; the confuence of the Green would be improved for off-channel, tributary Chinook use. Studies are required. City of Tukwila RM 7.90/left bank Protect, restore and enhance instream flows and cold water refugia City of Tukwila DUW - Riparian forest DUW - Shallow water habitat 9RM 9Gree n RiverTrai l - T ukw ila Int e r u r b a n A v e SS 133rd StS 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Duwamish R i verTUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Codiga Park Foster Golf Links TukwilaComm.Center DUW-67 5 900 599 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Tier 2 Project: DUW-67 Codiga to TCC Corridor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to create a public greenbelt and shallow water and riparian habitat extending from Codiga Park to the Tukwila Community Center. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8.1-8.3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $12,525,000 PROJECT TYPE:KEY HABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_ DUW-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdBackwater Duwamish Marsh Riparian EdgeAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Recon. Duwamish Mudflat Education & Outreach Enhancement/ Planting AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 118 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 19 projects LG-1 .........Reddington Habitat Creation LG-5 ........Northeast Auburn Creek Restoration LG-7 .........Mullen Slough LG-10 ......Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation LG-12 .......Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat LG-17 .......Fort Dent Revetment Setback LG-18 .......Black River Marsh LG-19 .......Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation LG-23 ......8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off-Channel Habitat LG-26......Valentine Revetment Setback Tier 3 (Score <7) 13 projects LG-2 ........Olson Creek Restoration LG-15.......Nelsen Side Channel LG-16 ......Gilliam Creek Fish Passage and Riparian Rehabilitation LG-20 .....Riverview Plaza Off-channel Habitat Creation LG-21 .......Best Western Revetment Setback LG-38 .....Fenster Slough Wetland Connection LG-43 .....Panther Creek at East Valley Road Improvement Project LG-27 ......8th Street Acquisitions LG-30 .....Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration LG-31.......South of Veteran’s Drive Floodplain Reconnection LG-32 ......Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection LG-37 ......Strander Boulevard Off-channel Habitat Creation LG-46 .....Mill Creek Protection and restoration near Emerald Downs LG-49 .....Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements LG-51 ......Milwaukee 2 Improvements LG-55 .....Frager Road Levee Setback LG-52......Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage Improvement LG-53 .....Signature Pointe Levee Improvements LG-54 .....SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee LG-56 .....Kent Airport Levee Setback LG-57 ......Barnaby Truong Off-Channel Habitat Creation LG-58 .....Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements Lower Green River Subwatershed 45 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 13 projects LG-3 ........Horsehead Restoration Project LG-6 ........Wrecking Yards Restoration Project LG-8 ........Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration LG-22 ......Wetland Floodplain Off-Channel Habitat Reconnection LG-28......North Green River Park LG-29......North of Veteran’s Drive Floodplain Reconnection LG-33 .....Midway Creek Wetland Complex LG-34 .....Johnson Creek Floodplain Project LG-35 .....P-17 Stormwater Pond Connection LG-39 .....Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection LG-40 .....Downey Side Channel Restoration LG-42 .....Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A LG-45 .....Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration AGENDA ITEM #6. e) FEDERALWAY LG-8 LG-7 LG-6 LG-5 LG-3 LG-1 LG-2 LG-57 LG-55 LG-54 LG-53 LG-56 LG-51 LG-49 LG-46 LG-45 LG-43 LG-52 LG-38 LG-27 LG-26 LG-23 LG-39 LG-22 LG-28 LG-30 LG-32 LG-33 LG-31 LG-29 LG-34 LG-35 LG-37LG-20 LG-21 LG-19LG-17 LG-16LG-15 LG-42 LG-10 LG-40 LG-58 LG-12 M i l l C r .Springbook Cr.S. Mil l C r . Black River Green Ri ve r 405 167 18 5 AngleLake Star Lake Panther Lake Lake Geneva KENT KENT KENT AUBURN RENTON TUKWILA ALGONA River mile Project location River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line Lower Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Open water Public lands Incorporated area Figure __ Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects 0 1/2 1 2 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_LGR.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 1 PAGE 119 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Figure 28. Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 26 RM 27Green River Trail - KentGr e e n R i v e r Mill Creek North Green River Park Horsehead Bend Natural Area Horsehead Bend Natural Area UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT S 259th St S262nd St S 266th St 9 4 t h P l S Green River Rd LG-3 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Urban Growth Area Line 0 300 ft150Reiten RdPublic Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N Backwater Floodplain RiparianEdge Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create approximately 13 acres of backwater habitat and revegetate 3,000 feet of river bank. Tier 1 Project: LG-3 Horsehead Restoration Project Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo VC file: 2010_10202L_W9SHRPfact_HORSEHEAD.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 25.7 - 26.5 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $11,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: PAGE 120 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-6 RM 24 Green River RMRM Interurban Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGreen River Trail - Kent Foster Park Green River Trail Site Interurban Trail Site - KentSR 167S 259th StS 259th St 72nd Ave S72nd Ave S1st Ave S1st Ave S79th Ave S79th Ave S3rd Ave S3rd Ave S74th Ave S74th Ave SS 266th StS 266th St S 262nd St 80th Ave S80th Ave SS 261st StS 261st St KENT KENT KENT K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. EdgeBackwater Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire, remediate and restore wrecking yards with side channels and backwater features. Tier 1 Project: LG-6 Wrecking Yards Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.1 - 24.9 / left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $37,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Side channel WetlandRiparian KEY HABITAT: PAGE 121 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Mill CreekS 277th St West Valley Hwy N68th Ave S167 AUBURN KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY LG-8 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ftInc. Area BoundaryParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. Edge Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve aquatic habitat by remeandering the tributary channel, revegetating, and adding large wood to the creek channel. Tier 1 Project: LG-8 Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.7/left bank (Mill Creek 0.3-2.3) Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $23,900,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 122 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 123 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 277th St C o r r id o r T r a ilLG-22 RM 27 Gre e n R i v e r Mill Cr. North Green River Park Mill Creek Earthworks Park Riversands Park G r e e n R i v e r R d SE 267th StWoodland Way SS 277th St KENT KENT AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ftInc. Area BoundaryParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. Edge Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration TributarySide channel Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore approximately 30 acres of floodplain wetlands and provide access to 2,000 feet of non-natal tributary rearing habitat. Project would address an existing fish barrier at the mouth of the creek and setback 1,800 feet of Green River Road. Project design will need to consider future location of the Green River Trail. Tier 1 Project: LG-22 Wetland Floodplain Off-channel Habitat Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 27.2 - 27.6 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,165,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-28 RM 27 Mill Cr. Gr e e n R i v e r Tr a i l - K e n t North Green River Park Horsehead Bend Natural Area Mill Creek Earthworks Park Green River RdWoodland Way SGree n R i v e r R d S Gr e e n R i v e r KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Urban Growth Area Line Bndy. Inc. Area Boundary EdgeBackwater Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Side channel Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Bank armor • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore floodplain habitat by removing revetments, restoring reconnecting floodplain wetland, creating side channels and backwater features, and integrating stream channel from the adjacent project (LG-22). Project design will need to preserve or relocate important regional recreational amenities (i.e., soccer fields and Green River access). Tier 1 Project: LG-28 North Green River Park PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 26.5 - 27.3 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $17,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: LG-22 Frager Rd TrailLG-29 RM 19 Gr e e n R i v e rGreen River Trail - KentKent Puget Power Trail Green River Trail - KentGrandview Park Green River Trail Site - Kent Green RiverNaturalResources Area Van DorensLanding Park Rive rv iew B lvd S Veterans Dr KENT KENT SEATAC K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration WetlandRiparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect floodplain wetland to river, improve wetland area, while preserving Frager Road Trail's connection to the Green River. Tier 1 Project: LG-29 North of Veterans Drive Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 18.9 - 19.2/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design PAGE 124 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Frager Rd TrailLG-29 RM 19 Gr e e n R i v e rGreen River Trail - KentKent Puget Power Trail Green River Trail - KentGrandview Park Green River Trail Site - Kent Green RiverNaturalResources Area Van DorensLanding Park Rive rv iew B lvd S Veterans Dr KENT KENT SEATAC K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration WetlandRiparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect floodplain wetland to river, improve wetland area, while preserving Frager Road Trail's connection to the Green River. Tier 1 Project: LG-29 North of Veterans Drive Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 18.9 - 19.2/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design PAGE 125 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 21 RM 20 LG-33 Green River Trail - Kent Frager Rd Trail RiverbendGolf Course RiverbendGolf Course Green RiverTrail Site - Kent CottonwoodGrove Park 53rd Pl S516 KENT UNINCOR PORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Wetland Riparian Acquisition $ Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Side channel Scoping/ Reconnaissance Backwater Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore Midway Creek and floodplain wetland complex by removing wetland fill and improving fish passage to enhance connectivity between the Midway Creek and the Green River. Project design should maintain/enhance regional trail connectivity. Tier 1 Project: LG-33 Midway Creek Wetland Complex PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 19.6 - 21.1/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Gre e n R i v er LG-34 Valley Floor Community ParkValley Floor Community Park 42nd Ave SRiverview Blvd SS 212th StOrillia Rd SKENT KENT TUKWILA SEATAC UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Education & Outreach Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback road and trail, reconnect floodplain, and create o-channel habitat to improve water quality and increase fish access. Tier 1 Project: LG-34 Johnson Creek Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.2 - 17.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 126 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-34 Valley Floor Community ParkValley Floor Community Park 42nd Ave SRiverview Blvd SS 212th StOrillia Rd SKENT KENT TUKWILA SEATAC UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Education & Outreach Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback road and trail, reconnect floodplain, and create o-channel habitat to improve water quality and increase fish access. Tier 1 Project: LG-34 Johnson Creek Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.2 - 17.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 127 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 14 LG-35 G reen River Interurban Trail - TukwilaGreen River Trail - TukwilaInterurbanTrail Site - Tukwila InterurbanTrail Site - Tukwila Minkler Blvd Andover Park E181TUKWILA RENTON K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Incorp. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Side channel Scoping/ Reconnaissance Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate the City of Tukwila's stormwater pond; clean and connect the existing pond to the river, setback the levee to create up to 7 acres of o channel habitat. Tier 1 Project: LG-35 P-17 Pond Connection Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 13.7- 13.9/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $37,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: P-17Pond PAGE 128 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 28 LG-39 Gr e e n R i v e r Green River Trail - Auburn 277th St Cor r i d o r T r a i l North Green River ParkNorth Green River Park Mary Olson Farm Mary Olson Farm Riversands ParkRiversands Park Green River Trail SiteGreen River Trail Site G r e e n R i v e r R d AUBURN KENT UNINCOR PORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public LandsPark Floodplain Restoration Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect the Port of Seattle's existing wetland mitigation site with the 100-year floodplain. Within the ~78 acres of reconnected floodplain, approximately 11 acres would be available as regularly inundated o-channel rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. The Port also owns an adjacent 34 acre site to the west which could support restoration of additional wetland habitat and further enhance floodplain connectivity. Project Design will need to address future Green River Trail alignment around this project area. Tier 1 Project: LG-39 Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 27.9 - 28.2 / left bank Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: Port of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: WetlandBackwater PAGE 129 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) G re e n River Trail - K e ntFrager Rd T r a i l RM 22 LG-40Green Ri v e r Riverbend Golf Course Lake Fenwick Park Hogan ParkRussel l Rd W Meeker St KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create network of side channels to provide rearing habitat and increase flood storage capacity, add large wood to create habitat complexity, cover and refuge, and lower peak flood elevations during 100-year flood events. Tier 1 Project: LG-40 Downey Side Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 21.5 - 22/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: $6,800,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Monitoring & Assessment 516 Gr e e n R i v e r PAGE 130 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 131 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdateFrager Rd TrailRussell RdRussell Rd SRM 18 LG-42 Green RiverGreen River Natural Reso u r c e s A rea TrailsGreen River Trail - K e n t Green River Natural Resources Area Valley Floor Community Park Van Dorens Landing Park Green RiverTrail Site - Kent S 216th StRiverview Blvd SS 212th St KENT K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Trail Floodplain Restoration Edge Side channel Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create o-channel habitat by grading and reshaping the bank, widening the channel, restoring channel complexity and meanders, excavating low benches, installing large wood, and planting native vegetation. Tier 1 Project: LG-42 Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.9 - 18.3/ right bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PROJECT TYPE: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 132 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Fr a g e r R d T r a i l LG-45 Green River Green River Trail - Ke n t Riverbend Golf Course RussellRoad Park Green River TrailSite - Kent CottonwoodGrove Park Russel l Rd53rd Pl SLakesi d e B l v d W W James St W Meeker St KENT KENT RM 20 RM 21 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Floodplain Restoration Wetland Riparian Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Side channel Backwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 36 acres by creating side channel and backwater habitat on a largely undeveloped shoreline in City of Kent. Tier 1 Project: LG-45 Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 20 - 20.8 / left bank Jurisdiction: Kent Project sponsor: King County Flood Control District Budget: $12,525,000 - $33,975,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Tributary Upland AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 133 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 Project: LG-1 Reddington Habitat Creation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The previous Reddington Levee Setback project was done with a focus on flood risk reduction benefits and left two areas waterward of the levee that have room for side channel and/or backwater type habitats. This project would design and create additional habitat integrated with the existing habitat features on site. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 28.6 - 28.2 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Side Channel Floodplain Edge Restoration LG-1 Green River Trail - AuburnTrailsBrannan Park BrannanPark MaryOlsonFarm Issac EvansPark NorthGreen RiverPark RiverpointPark Green River Rd SEGreen River RdAUBURN Green RiverRM 29 LG-1 N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-1.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplain Wetland EdgeRestoration TributaryRiparian LG-49 Green River Trail - KentHorsehead BendNatural Area S 266th St Maple LnEast Valley Hwy SCentral Ave S86th Ave S KENT Green RiverUNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-5.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-5 Tier 2 Project: LG-5 Northeast Auburn Creek Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhance floodplain and stream habitat by creating o channel rearing and high flow refuge habitat for juvenile salmon. Project will improve fish passage, which is currently partially obstructed by a flapgate at the mouth of the creek. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 25.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,500,00 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 134 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainEdge Acquisition $ Restoration TributaryRiparian LG-7 Mi l l C r e e k LakeFenwickPark Private Rd 5 2 n d A v e S KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTYMullen SloughKCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-7.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-7 Mullen Slough PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project would remeander and revegetate the tributary, increasing quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 21.5 / left bank (Mullen Slough 1 - 2) Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $9,600,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: LG-7 Park Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/ Planting Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Frager Rd TrailFr a g e r R d S KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-10.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-10 Green Riv e r Green River Trail Site - Kent Trails Valley FloorCommunity Park ThreeFriendsFishingHole 59th Pl SSouthcenter PkwyRussell RdS 200th St KENT TUKWILA RM 17 Green River T r a i l -KentN0300600 ft150 LG-10 Tier 2 Project: LG-10 Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Balance future habitat, flood protection and recreation on the site. Explore opportunities to add alcove habitat, excavate low benches and alcoves, install large wood, and plant native riparian vegetation, while maintaining/enhancing the recreational trail user experience. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 17 - 17.8 / right bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 135 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/ Planting Restoration Riparian LG-12 BriscoePark 62nd Ave SSouthcenter PkwyS 190th St S 1 8 4 t h P l TUKWILA KENT SEATAC G r e e n R iver Trail -Kent G re e n R i v e r RM 16 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-12.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 LG-12 Tier 2 Project: LG-12 Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create o-channel habitat at Briscoe Park by removing bank armor, excavating perched floodplain, installing large wood, and planting riparian vegetation. Project design needs to address potential impacts to recreational amenities at Briscoe Park. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 15.6 - 16.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: 5 Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Backwater Floodplain Edge Riparian Fort DentPark TukwilaPark65th Ave S62nd Ave SS 151st St In te ru rban Ave S South c e n t e r Blvd TUKWILA RENTON G reen R iv e r G r e e n Ri ver Trail - TukwilaI nt er urban TrailTukwilaRM 12 181405 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-17.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 LG-17 Tier 2 Project: LG-17 Fort Dent Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback portions of the Fort Dent revetment to create shallow water habitat, riparian forest, and o-channel habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 - 11.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 136 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Backwater Edge Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-18 Black Riv e rLake to Sound TrailGreen River Trail - L o we r G r e e n R i v e r Trail - TukwilaFort DentPark BlackRiverPumpStation FosterGolf Links BlackRiverForest In te ru rban A ve SMo n s t e r R d SW68th Ave S TUKWILA RENTON G r e e n Ri verDuwamish River RM 11 LG-18 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-18 Black River Marsh PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create an island at the confluence of the Black, Green, and Duwamish Rivers, and increase edge habitat, flood storage, and o-channel refuge. Revegetate the shoreline along the Black River up to the Black River Pump Station. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 - 11.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Wetland Monitoring & Assessment Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Tributary Edge Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-19.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-19Springbook CreekBlack River SpringbrookTrailBlack River Forest Waterworks Gardens SW 16th St SW 7th St SW Grad y W a y Oakesdale Ave SW RENTON TUKWILA LG-19 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT 405 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-19 Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Improve the aquatic and riparian habitat for Lower Springbrook Creek with riparian plantings, large woody debris, pool construction, channel branch excavation, and potential two-stage channel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Renton Project sponsor: City of Renton Budget: $20,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 137 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Side Channel FloodplainEnhancement/ PlantingAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-23.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-27 104th Avenue SE Park Scootie Brown ParkM St NER St NE14th St NE Ri ver vi ew Dr NE104th Ave SE8th St NE Lea Hill Rd SEGreen River AUBURN RM 31 LG-23 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-23 8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off-Channel Habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire private properties and restore o-channel and riparian habitat, including up to 0.25 miles of potential side channel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 30.4 - 31.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands FloodplainEnhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Tributary Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-26.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdGreen R ive r T ra i l - Aubu rn Issac Evans Park Green River Trail Site Dykstra Park State Park Auburn Narrows 104th Avenue SE Park Green R i v e r R d S E 22nd St NE Rive rv iew D r NE104th Ave SELea Hill Rd S ESE 304th WayG re en River AUBURN RM 30 LG-26 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-26 Valentine Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback the existing revetment and relocate Green River Road to the north, away from the river. Realign the unnamed fish stream into the historic channel and install a fish friendly culvert. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 30.1 - 29.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 138 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-27.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdState Park Auburn Narrows Scootie Brown Park Lea Hill Tennis Courts R St NE105 th P l SE107th Pl SE8th St NE 104th Ave SELea Hill Rd SEE Main St SE 320th St R St SEGreen R i v e r AUBURN RM 31 LG-27 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-27 8th Street Acquisitions PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire properties and restore o-channel and riparian habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 31.1 - 31.4 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft Floodplain EdgeAcquisition $ Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-30.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFrager R d T r a i l Mill CreekInterurban Trail - KentGreen River T r a i l Kent WillisStreetGreenbelt Kiwanis Park #4 74th Ave SS 259th St68th Ave SWashingtonAve SG re e n River KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY 167 181 518 RM 23 RM 24 LG-30 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-30 Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire left bank properties from Mill Creek (Auburn) to Washington Ave. S. bridge and install native plantings. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.2- 23.7 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 139 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainEnhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-31.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFrager Rd TrailKent Puget Power Trail Riverview Blvd SVeterans Dr S 22 8 t h S t SR 5 16 Frager Rd SKENT KENT RM 19 Green River T r a i l - KentG reen River LG-31 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-31 South of Veterans Drive Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create o-channel habitat in small triangle of flat land behind Frager Road. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 19.4 - 19.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Floodplain Edge Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-32.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-51 LG-30 Mill CreekInterurban Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGr een River Trail - KentFoster Park 3rd Ave SS 259th St74th Ave S79th Ave S72nd Ave SS 262nd St68th Ave SKENT UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY Gre e n River RM 24 LG-32 167 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-32 Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore o-channel habitat within the park, while balancing flood protection and recreation. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.9 - 24 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 140 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Backwater Floodplain Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Wetland Riparian LG-37Interurban Trail - TukwilaBicentennial ParkAndover Park EStrander Blvd SW 27th St TUKWILA RENTON Green RiverRM 13 181 LG-37 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-37 Strander Boulevard Off-Channel Habitat Creation PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This project would connect an isolated wetland area in between two railroad tracks with the river creating floodplain connection and use for salmonid rearing and refugia. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 13.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $10,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-37.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Tributary Wetland Riparian Mill CreekInterurban Trail - AuburnM St NW29th St NW Ron Crockett Dr NWWest Valley Hwy NAUBURN 167 LG-46 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-46 Mill Creek Protection and Restoration Near Emerald Downs PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire property and restore creek meander of the existing channel, revegetate the riparian zone and associated wetland habitat, and increase channel capacity to reduce existing flood risks. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.7 / left bank (Mill Creek RM 3.0 - 4.4) Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands N0300600 ft150 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-46.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 141 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/Planting Acquisition $ Planning/Design Restoration Upland Riparian Interurban Trail - KentGreen River T rail - KentFoster ParkSR 167SR 167S 259th St 1st Ave S3rd Ave S74th Ave S79th Ave S72nd Ave SS 262nd St G re e n R i v e r RM 24 KENT UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY LG-51 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-51Milwaukee 2 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Excavate a backwater channel, remove all invasive vegetation and hardscape, and replace with native plants and trees. Place large wood within the project area. The project increases rearing and refuge habitat for salmon. The project must balance flood protection and recreation goals, including regional trail improvements. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.0 - 24.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE:KEY HABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-51.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary RM 25 RM 26 Horsehead Bend NaturalArea Green River Trail Site Interurban Trail Site - Kent S 259th St S 266th St Maple Ln79th Ave S1st Ave S3rd Ave S80th Ave SS 262nd StS 261st StCentral Ave SEast Valley Hwy SGreen RiverInterurban TrailGreen River Trail Green River TrailLG-49 Tier 2 Project: LG-49Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback levee segments, and install large wood structures along the riverbank to provide salmon habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.25 - 26.25 / right bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-49.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY KENT N0400 ft Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/Planting Planning/Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 142 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update EdgeRestoration Riparian IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNATFrager Rd TrailLG-55 Green River Trail - KentGreen River Natural Resources Area Valley Floor Community Park Van Dorens Landing Park S 216th St Riverview Blvd SS 212th St S 216th St Frager Rd SGreen RiverKENT RM 18 LG-55 Tier 2 Project: LG-55Frager Road Levee Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Reconstruct the toe, slope and levee crest to a stable configuration with a fully bioengineered solution, including a vegetated bench. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.25 - 18.75 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-55.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 143 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 144 PAGE 145 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Table 5Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj#Project Name Project Type Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/ Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal Alignment LG-2 Olson Creek Restoration Restoration Improve quality of aquatic habitat through setting back the banks, adding large wood to channel, and expanding riparian vegetation along the creek. Increase amount and quality of flood refuge habitat by reconnecting southern grassy area at lower flows and restoring as a wetland. This project will build off of a KCDOT project to fix the fish passage barrier at the mouth in 2020. King County RM 28.4 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance instream flows and cold water refugia City of Auburn LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-15 Nelsen Side Channel • Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This project reconnects a segment of the former river channel that was discon- nected with construction of I-405 and rerouting of the river. City of Tukwila RM 12.5 /right bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-16 Gilliam Creek Fish Passage and Riparian Rehabilitation • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This project will replace a large flapgate that inhibits salmonid usage of the Gilliam Creek tributary, and restore nearly 300 lineal feet of the lowest stretch of Gilliam Creek. City of Tukwila RM 12.5 / left bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Tukwila LG - Off-channel habitat LG-20 Riverview Plaza Off-channel Habitat Creation • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This City-owned parcel once had a modest picnic area for viewing, but those have since been removed. There are several, large cottonwood trees in this low bank area with opportunities to create shallow water habitat while preserving most or all of the trees. It is waterward of the levee and Green River Trail. City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-21 Best Western Revetment Setback • Acquisition • Restoration This project would setback this revetment to the extent possible. There is a hotel 80’ landward; setting it back somewhat could create some edge habitat. Should look for opportunities in the event of property redevelopment. City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Tukwila 1. Off-channel habitat 2. Riparian 3. Large Woody Debris Forest LG-38 Fenster Slough Wetland Connection • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration Reconnect approximately 1/2 acre of wetland area to the Green River that is currently cut off by the Fenster II Levee. The area has the potential to provide backwater/off-channel and riparian habitat functions. City of Auburn RM 40 / left bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Auburn LG - Off-channel habitat LG-43 Panther Creek at East Valley Road Improvement Project • Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration The project is intended to provide daylighting and habitat improvements of Pan- ther Creek from river mile 0.5 to 0.0 and the adjacent East Valley wetlands. This includes improving hydrologic and hydraulic function through repairing and/or replacing the existing culverts at East Valley Road and Lind Ave SW. City of Renton RM 1 1 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off-channel habitat LG-52 Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage Improvement • Acquisition • Other • Planning/Design The project intends to provide fish passage and improved conveyance through a culvert replacement along Panther Creek at the Talbot Road South culvert. City of Renton Surface Water Utility RM 11 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off-channel habitat LG-53 Signature Pointe Levee Improvements • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition Setback levee segments and slope. Install large wood and native riparian plants. Address potential for recreational impacts of moving the trail further from the river and closer to residential units. City of Kent RM 23.15 - 21.75 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Bank Armor LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG-54 SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee • Planning • Scoping/ • Reconnaissance Balance habitat, flood protection, and recreation. Set back existing levee to allow for more flood storage and habitat improvements. These potential improvements include flatter riverbank side slopes, log jams along the river, and increased riparian plantings. City of Kent RM 21.75 - 19.2 5/ left bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Kent LG - Bank Armor LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-56 Kent Airport Levee Setback • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition Setback the levee, incorporate current stormwater pond into riparian buffer, and install native plants. City of Kent RM 24.1 - 23. 8/ left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Riparian Forest LG-58 Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration Re-grade side slopes that are overly steep, remove non-native invasive plant species, and plant new native vegetation in areas that have not already been improved. The project also includes installation of large wood structures along the river’s edge throughout the length of the levee reach where feasible. City of Kent RM 17.0 - 16.1 / right bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Off-Channel Habitat AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 146 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 5 projects Middle Green River Subwatershed 14 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 8 projects MG-3 .......Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection MG-9 ......Lones Levee Restoration MG-11 ......Turley Levee Setback MG-13 .....Hamakami Levee Setback MG-19 .....Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration MG-21 .....Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration MG-24 ....Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback MG-26 ....Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition and Restoration Tier 3 (Score <7) 1 project MG-6 ......Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement MG-10 .....Burns Creek Restoration MG-16 .....Ray Creek Restoration MG-20 ....Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration MG-22 ....Kanaskat Reach Restoration MG-25 ....Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 147 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-3MG-3MG-9MG-9 MG-6MG-6 MG-26MG-26 MG-24MG-24MG-13MG-13 MG-19MG-19 MG-23MG-23 MG-21MG-21 MG-10MG-10 MG-11MG-11 MG-20MG-20 MG-16MG-16 MG-25 Green RiverBig Soos Cr .Big Soos Cr . Coal C r . Coal C r .Jenkins Cr.Jenkins Cr.Deep Cr.Deep Cr. Bear Cr.Bear Cr. Ravensdale Cr. Big S o o s Cr.Big S o o s Cr.Newauku m Cr. Newauku m Cr. 18 Lake Sawyer Lake Meridian ENUMCLAWENUMCLAW COVINGTONCOVINGTON AUBURNAUBURN KENTKENT KENTKENT KENTKENT MAPLE VALLEY MAPLE VALLEY BLACK DIAMOND BLACK DIAMOND Tacoma HeadworksDiversion Dam Lake Youngs River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line Middle Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Incorporated area Open water 1 MG-1 Figure __ Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects 0 1 2 4 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_MGR.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT Figure 29 Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 148 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 43 MG-3 Flaming Geyser Park Flaming Geyser State Park Black DiamondOpen Space SE Green Valley Rd Green Riv e r BLACK DIAMOND UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, place large wood in river channel and associated wetland, and extensively the revegetate riparian zone throughout state park. Tier 1 Project: MG-3 Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 42-44/both banks Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Planning/ Design Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 149 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-9 G reen R i v e r N a t u ra lA r e a T r a i l s Green River Natural Area SE Green Valley Rd. Green Rive r K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Restoration Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing levee, install setback feature to protect agricultural land, place large wood in river channel and remnant river channel, and reintroduce gravel from remnant levee into river channel. Tier 1 Project: MG-9 Lones Levee Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 38/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 37 MG-11 Green River Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove existing levee, setback new revetment away from river channel, and increase complexity with large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-11 Turley Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 37 / left and right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary PAGE 150 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-13 Green RiverGreen RiverNatural Area SE Green Valley Rd AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, construct revetment away from river, and place large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-13 Hamakami Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 35/right bank Bankside Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 151 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-13 Green RiverGreen RiverNatural Area SE Green Valley Rd AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, construct revetment away from river, and place large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-13 Hamakami Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 35/right bank Bankside Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 152 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-19 Hatchery Natural Area Porter Levee Natural AreaSE Auburn Black Diamond RdSR 1818 Green RiverState Salmon Hatchery Big Soos Cr G re e n R i v e r AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and increased water quality with placement of large trees in streams and associated wetlands, and plant native trees and shrubs along riparian edge. Tier 1 Project: MG-19 Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33.3/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 153 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 41 MG-21 Green River Newaukum C r . Green RiverNatural Area WhitneyBridge Park Lower NewaukumCreek Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d 21 2 t h A v e S E 21 2 t h A v e S E212th Way SE K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Park Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire approximately 40 acres, and install several hundred pieces are large wood on ~3,500 lineal feet of river. Tier 1 Project: MG-21 Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 41 / left and right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 154 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 41 MG-24 Green River Newaukum C r . Green RiverNatural Area WhitneyBridge Park Lower NewaukumCreek Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d 21 2 t h A v e S E 2 1 2 t h A v e S E212th Way SE K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0 200 400 ft.Park Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, construct set-back structure away from the River, add wood to floodway, and revegetate with native plants. Tier 1 Project: MG-24 Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 40.5 - 41.5 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: MG-26 Newaukum Cr. Foothills Trail Site 284thAveSEVeazie-CumberlandRdSEK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0 200 400 ft. Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and improve water quality with placement of large wood in the stream channel and associated wetlands, revegetating the riparian area. Tier 1 Project: MG-26 Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40.4/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 155 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-26 Newaukum Cr. Foothills Trail Site 284th Ave SEVeazie-Cumberland Rd SEK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and improve water quality with placement of large wood in the stream channel and associated wetlands, revegetating the riparian area. Tier 1 Project: MG-26 Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40.4/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Acquisition $ Restoration Side Channel Wetland Tributary Riparian Newau k u m CreekSE 400th St226th Ave SESE 392nd St 224th Ave SEMG-6 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-6 Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Place large wood in the stream channel between RM 6 - 10 and remove hardened streambanks. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-6.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 FloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration WetlandTributary Riparian MG-10 Green River Natural AreaSE Green Valley RdGreen R ive rBurns CreekMG-10 Tier 2 Project: MG-10Burns Creek Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore lower two miles of Burns Creek by acquiring several parcels or portions of parcels, place large trees with rootwads attached in streams and associated wetlands, plant native trees and shrubs to significantly improve fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, and water quality in an area which is very important for over-wintering salmon. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-10.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 PAGE 156 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 157 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration WetlandTributary Riparian MG-16 Neely Bridge Natural Area SE Green Valley R dGr e e n R i v e r RM 35AUBURN UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY MG-16 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-16Ray Creek Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire several conservation easements of at least 100’ buers, place large wood in stream, and plant native trees and shrubs in riparian buer. Build fencing for livestock exclusion to immediately improve of fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, water quality in a degraded area. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-16.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration Wetland Riparian Gre e n R i v e r Auburn Narrows Natural Area State Park Auburn Narrows SE Auburn Black Diamond Rd SE Green Valley R d 18 MG-20 RM 33 AUBURN AUBURN UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-20Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Remove gravel road in floodway, expand notch of previously-constructed side channel, add large wood, and plant native vegetation. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $350,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-20.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 158 PAGE 159 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Kanaskat Natural Area SE H u d s o n R d Pipeline Rd SE Green Rive r H e a d w o r k s R d 346th Ave SELa k e U m e k R d S E UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY MG-22 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-22Kanaskat Reach Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire about 3.5 acres, remove large house/garage/ septic, convert 3,300 lineal foot gravel road to backcountry trail, and extensively revegetate site. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 59 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $600,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Riparian KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-22.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Table 6 Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj. No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment MG-25 Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood • Education and outreach • Planning/design • Restoration • Scoping/reconnaissance Little Soos Creek at stream mile 1 runs through City of Covington owned open space through the Coho Creek development. The stream historically has been armored, disconnected from its floodplain and a paved trail adjacent to the creek is often flooded in the winter. There is an opportunity to restore in stream and floodplain habitat in the stream through reconnecting the creek to its floodplain, restoring side channels, removing artificial armoring, adding large wood, and revegetating the riparian zone. Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group RM 33.3/right bank Protect, restore, and enhance riparian corridors; City of Covington • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Riparian forest AGENDA ITEM #6. e) UG-4 77 78 64 65 79 80 81 82 86 66 87 67 83 84 71 88 68 72 89 69 85 93 73 90 70 94 74 91 95 75 92 76 Smay Cr.Sunday Cr.Sn o w C r .Sawmill Cr. N. F o r k G r e e n R i v e r Twin Ca m p C r.Charley Cr.Champion Cr.Tacom a Cr. Gale C r . Howard Hansen Reservoir Green R i v e r 0 1 2 4 Miles N River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line King County boundary Figure __ Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.asp x. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_UGR.ai LPRE GIS File: Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 1 Upper Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks Incorporated area Open water UG-1 Upper Green River Subwatershed 1 project Tier 1 (Score 18+) 1 project UG-4 .......Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage Figure 30 Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects PAGE 160 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 64 UG-4 Howard Hanson Reservoir Green R i v e r K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Edge Riparian Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Tributary Upland Primary strategy Restore and improve fish passage. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • UG - Bank armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Creation of downstream fish passage at the Howard Hanson dam is the highest priority project within the Green/Duwamish watershed as it would have an immediate and dramatic impact on all Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters of Chinook and steelhead. Tier 1 Project: UG-4 Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Upper Green (UG) River mile: King County (RM 64) Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County/Army Corps of Engineers Budget: Unknown PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel PAGE 161 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 162 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 163 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy There are three major funding sources that sup- port implementation of the projects and programs prioritized within the Salmon Habitat Plan – Salm- on Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR), and King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) grants. The WRIA also supports project sponsors in seeking funding from various other local, state and federal sources. Annual Funding Package WRIA 9 develops an annual funding package of pro- jects based on anticipated allocations. The proposed funding package is reviewed and approved by the WRIA 9 Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) and Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF). This funding package serves as the WRIA 9 Lead Entity’s habitat project list, as defined in RCW 77.85.050. Several factors are considered when building the annual project list for funding. Primarily, the WRIA supports projects from the list that demonstrate readiness to proceed and have a high likelihood of success, and where WRIA funding is critical to mov- ing the project forward. Project tiering (Chapter VII) will assist the ITC and WEF in making tough fund- ing choices when there are more projects in need than funding available. Project planning efforts with partners have allowed the WRIA to project out-year project funding needs which provides time to antic- ipate funding shortfalls and seek outside support. This long-term planning effort also allows sponsors to align salmon projects with other jurisdictional priorities, like those within their jurisdiction’s Capital Improvement Plans and Transportation Improvement Plans, as well as realistically phase large projects that span multiple years. Yearly, project sponsors assess the status of their projects and funding needs and notify the WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator of their intent to apply for WRIA funding, and for how much. Projects undergo a technical review by WRIA staff and the ITC. For those projects competing for SRFB funding, projects undergo an additional rigorous technical review by the SRFB review panel. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 164 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Salmon Recovery Funding Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) funding is administered through the Recreation and Conser- vation Office (RCO). It is a fund source of combined state salmon funds and federal Pacific Coast Salm- on Recovery Funding (PCSRF). This annual fund is allocated by a SRFB approved interim allocation formula based in NOAA’s Chinook delisting criteria. For several years, the Green/Duwamish watershed has received $295,895 annually to support implemen- tation of the Plan. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR) is co-managed by the Puget Sound Partner- ship and the RCO. This is a Puget Sound specific fund source appropriated through the State budget pro- cess, within RCO’s budget request. In 2007, Governor Christine Gregoire formed PSAR in direct response to the growing need to restore habitat for salmon and other wildlife within Puget Sound. The Green/Duwa- mish has received just over $1.1 million biennially to support implementation of the Plan. RCO serves as the fiduciary for both PSAR and SRFB funding, so all projects funded through SRFB and PSAR are re- viewed and approved through the SRFB process. King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management Funds (CWM) are provid- ed by the King County Flood Control district (KCFCD). The KCFCD is a special purpose government creat- ed to provide funding and policy oversight for flood protection projects and programs in King County. Funding for CWM is a small portion of the tax assess- ment to support salmon recovery projects within the four WRIAs in King County. In 2020, CWM funding was doubled, and WRIA 9 now receives $3.63 million annually to support high priority projects and pro- grams. The FCD approves project lists annually. Other Local, State and Federal Funding Sources – In addition to these funding programs, sponsors are encouraged to compete for other local, state and fed- eral funds. It typically takes multiple funding sources to implement projects due to project complexity and cost. Many projects are initiated with and sustained by local funding provided by the sponsoring juris- diction. Other state and regional grant programs that support salmon recovery include, but are not limited to, the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP), Floodplains by Design (FbD), Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board (FBRB), Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), and Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Addition- ally, many of the projects within King County are supported through the County’s Conservation Futures Tax (CFT), a program passed by the Washington State Legislature in the 1970s to ensure citizens have are afforded the right to a healthy and pleasant environ- ment. This fund specifically protects urban parks and greenways, watersheds, working forests, and salmon habitat as well as critical links connecting regional trails and urban greenbelts. WRIA 9 CWM Funding Allocation High-Priority Capital Projects – CWM funding (> 65%) and all SRFB/PSAR capital funding. The WRIA invests the majority of annual funding on high priority capital projects that protect and restore critical hab- itats. These projects are identified through planning efforts like the Duwamish Blueprint, Middle Green Blueprint, and the Lower Green River Corridor plan- ning process. More recently, projects incorporated in this Plan Update were solicited from partner organi- zations. Regreen the Green small grant program - Up to $500,000 of CWM funding. This grant program orig- inated in 2016 after the completion of the “Re-Green the Green Revegetation Strategy” to support imple- mentation of the priority sites identified in the plan. It has served as a primary source of funding to those focusing on revegetation efforts along critical areas in the Green/Duwamish. Additionally, this program has supported successful coalition building, landowner outreach campaigns, and network development that helps achieve broader Plan engagement goals. Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management – Up to 10% of CWM funding. This funding is essential to informing adaptive management and maximizing return on investment with respect to salmon recovery. This funding allocation also supports the Green River smolt trap managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Stewardship, Engagement and Learning – Up to 5% of CWM funding. This funding supports Stew- ardship, Engagement and Outreach efforts designed to increase awareness around salmon recovery and promote positive behavior change. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 165 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Outyear Project Planning (6-year HCPIP) WRIA 9 maintains a Habitat Capital Project Imple- mentation Plan (HCPIP) that identifies all projects with expected funding needs for three biennium (6 years). While these numbers are estimates they pro- vide a sense of the magnitude of funding needed per year. This implementation plan supports staff in work- ing with partners to properly sequence and support projects throughout the project life cycle, and to seek out additional funding to compliment WRIA directed funds. In many cases, WRIA directed funding sources are inadequate to support the full scope of a project but enable project sponsors to leverage other local, state and federal funds. The HCPIP will be updated annually based on evolving project needs, and will be published beinnially along with a call for projects. To ensure projects acquire, restore, rehabilitate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they was described in the original project description for the 2020 Salmon Habitat Plan capital project solicitation (or subsequent calls for projects), project sponsors will be required present to the ITC or project work- group (below) for at least one of the significant mile- stones of the project design process. This team will support ranking and tiering of any new proposed large capital restoration projects and pro- vide input on design for WRIA funded projects. Performance Management Projects receiving funding through grants directed by WRIA 9 are often subject to various pressures from other local, state, and regional funders, stakeholders, and interested parties during project development. In order to make sure projects acquire, restore, rehabil- itate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they described in the projects original description for the Salmon Habitat Plan, project sponsors will be required to present to the ITC or project workgroup (below) for at least one of the significant milestones of the project design process. For very large projects that will likely seek PSAR Large Capital funding, or large-scale complex projects with multiple objectives, the WRIA may request sponsor design teams include a WRIA technical representative to support WRIA 9 salmon recovery project priorities. An ad hoc project workgroup will be established to support elements of project development, made up of three to five members of the ITC. This team will rank and tier newly proposed large capital restoration projects and provide input on design for WRIA-fund- ed projects. The goal of this workgroup would be to provide feedback that will maximize salmon benefits, incorporate lessons learned from previous projects, ensure projects meet the highest possible outcomes for salmon, and help reduce project costs by address- ing issues early in design. It is anticipated that project sponsors will work with the Habitat Project Coordinator to present to the project workgroup or the ITC as follows, or if major changes/updates were made to the design: 1. Alternatives analysis - Project Workgroup 2. 30% design - Full ITC 3. 90% design - Full ITC Project sponsors are expected to maintain fidelity to the original habitat deliverables. Naturally projects will evolve as more is learned about project design and feasibility. The project sponsor is responsible for alerting the WRIA if substantive modifications to the original scope are required. Modifications to the scope of the project may invoke a full project team review to affirm the project tier and may require subsequent approval from the ITC or WEF. Failure to notify the WRIA of these changes, or use of funding outside of the approved scope, could result in the withholding of future funding or constitute a breach of contract. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 166 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 167 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Adaptive Management Framework The 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan outlined a sci- ence-based blueprint for prioritizing Chinook salmon recovery efforts in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. This Plan Update reflects an ongoing commitment to adaptive management to ensure prioritization and sequencing of investments reflect best available science and maximize benefits to Chinook salmon, in terms of established viable salmon population criteria. WRIA 9 convenes a regu- lar Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) to oversee monitoring and adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The ITC informs monitoring pri- orities, evaluates plan implementation and recovery progress, and makes formal policy and funding rec- ommendations to the Watershed Ecosystem Forum. In 2020, WRIA 9 developed a Monitoring and Adap- tive Management Plan (Appendix F) that outlines a framework to: • Prioritize research and monitoring investments to address important data and knowledge gaps; • Support status and trends monitoring to assess es- tablished habitat-related recovery goals and viable salmon population metrics; • Promote collaboration among partners engaged in research and monitoring within the watershed; and • Guide adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines three categories of monitoring intended to help evaluate and inform strategic adaptation of recovery efforts (Figure 31). Each category of monitoring is intended to answer under- lying questions related to implementation progress, effectiveness of actions, and overall impact on Chinook recovery. • Implementation Monitoring: Is the plan being implemented as intended? Are we on track to meet established habitat targets? • Effectiveness Monitoring: Are habitat projects functioning as expected? Are habitat status and trends improving throughout the watershed? • Validation Monitoring: Are salmon recovery efforts benefiting the Green River Chinook salmon population (i.e., VSP criteria)? Are the underlying scientific assumptions of the plan accurate? AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary. Periodic assessment of these questions allows wa- tershed partners to reassess plan implementation, underlying recovery strategies, and/or reallocate resources to maximize outcomes. Implementation Monitoring The Plan Update outlines numeric targets for key habitats (Table 2, Chapter IV) linked to Chinook salmon productivity and recovery. The targets are intended to inform tracking and assessment of plan implementation (i.e., projects constructed, specific habitat gains, funding secured) in relation to estab- lished long-term goals. Regular evaluation of imple- mentation progress feeds into an adaptive manage- ment decision framework (Figure 32). This framework connects decision makers (i.e., Watershed Ecosystem Forum) with important monitoring and research find- ings, informing corrective actions to recovery strate- gies when necessary. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is designed to assess if hab- itat restoration projects are functioning as intended and achieving physical and biological performance standards. It includes both project-level and cumula- tive habitat conditions. Capital habitat project imple- mentation can take over a decade from conceptual design to construction and costs millions of dollars. Effectiveness monitoring is essential to ensure large capital investments maximize benefits to salmon and help identify potential design improvements and cost efficiencies that can be adapted into future projects. FUNDING PROJECTS PROGRAMS PROJECT Routine – Physical – Biological Enhanced CUMULATIVE HABITAT CONDITIONS GREEN POPULATION ONGOING RESEARCH & DATA GAPS IMPEMENTATIONMONITORING EFFECTIVENESSMONITORING VALIDATIONMONITORING COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 168 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework. Routine Monitoring Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether restored habitat is functioning the way it was intended 3-10 years after the project is built. Project specific monitoring plans should be designed to assess project-specific goals and objectives. Project sponsors are encouraged to begin development of a monitoring plan at the project’s 30 percent design milestone to allow for pre-project monitoring that can be essential for verifying if future changes are due to the project’s actions or natural variability. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 2) outlines routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations based on project type and subtype. The highlighted indicators and metrics are designed to be relatively affordable and consistent with regulatory permit monitoring requirements. Project sponsors are generally expect- ed to undertake routine monitoring for WRIA-funded projects and report monitoring results to the ITC. Enhanced Fish Monitoring Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish use a restoration project type. Unlike routine project monitoring, which asks whether a certain type of habitat was created and sustained, enhanced monitoring is meant to evaluate how fish utilize the habitat, and which restoration techniques convey the most benefit. Projects should be evaluated with a combination of Before-After Control-Impact or reference/control sites research designs. Enhanced fish monitoring is outside the scope of monitoring for many project sponsors, nor is it frequently required by regulatory agencies. Due to the costs associated with enhanced monitoring, WRIA 9 intends to contin- ue to financially support enhanced fish monitoring of select projects. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 3) also outlines a prioritization framework (certainty of bene- fit, process-based vs. engineered design, project type frequency, and project cost) for WRIA-directed invest- Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 WRIA 9 Adaptive Management Decision Framework YES NO YES NO DON’TKNOW YES NO YES NO FACTORS LIMITING IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS · regulations· enforcement · incentives HABITAT LOSSES OFFSET GAINS · increase funding FUNDING INSUFFICIENT · education/outreach · incentives· acquisition LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES OR WILLINGNESS · permitting· stang · funding strategy INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES OR CAPACITY · new metric· funding for monitoring · Monitoring Plan adjustment INFORMATION GAPS 2010_10102L_w9_AM_flowchart.ai Was the target achieved? Is the work complete ? Does Strategic Assessment information change the understanding of current context? · fish use/habitat · climate change · water quality Does the metric need to be revisited to evaluate 2030 target? Implement towards 2030 target Protect restored habitat Why? No further changes to recommendations PAGE 169 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 170 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update ments to support enhanced monitoring. Monitoring results should be reported to the ITC and inform necessary maintenance and/or design modifications. Cumulative Habitat Conditions The Salmon Habitat Plan outlines a suite of projects, programs, and policies intended to improve cumula- tive habitat conditions across the watershed. Monitor- ing status and trends in cumulative habitat conditions allows us to assess the overall effectiveness of plan implementation. It provides data on the net change (improving, no change, degrading) in specific habitat conditions over time that supports evaluation of hab- itat restoration in relation to ongoing impacts to, and loss of, habitat. This information will help identity any gaps in the watershed’s approach to salmon recov- ery and help (re)direct partner resources to potential areas of concern. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 4) outlines priority habitat metrics recommended for inclusion as part of a periodic cumulative habitat as- sessment that are consistent with the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report 2005-2011 (ITC 2012). The WRIA 9 ITC should complete a cumulative habitat conditions every five years. Validation Monitoring Viable Salmon Population Criteria The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) developed the viable salmon population (VSP) concept as a tool to assess the conservation status of a population. NOAA defines a viable sal- monid population as “an independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental varia- tion, and genetic diversity changes over a 100- year time frame” (McElhany, et al. 2000). Four parameters are used to assess population status: abundance, productivity; spatial structure, and diversity. These measures of population status indicate whether the cumulative recovery actions in our watershed are improving the population’s overall viability and long- term resilience. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 5) outlines recom- mended metrics to evaluate VSP criteria that should be monitored to assess the population status of the Green River Chinook salmon population. Additional NOAA-approved VSP targets are presented in Chap- ter IV, Table 1. Although VSP parameters are not a direct measurement of habitat conditions, habitat availability, distribution and quality are inherently reflected in VSP criteria. Tracking trends in the rec- ommended VSP parameters allows resource man- agers to evaluate how the population is responding overtime to the net impact of conservation actions and ongoing land use development activity in the watershed. Over a long enough timeframe, results can also inform recalibration of recovery strategies if the conservation status of the population does not improve or continues to decline. The VSP concept – and conservation status of Green River Chinook salmon – is influenced by a variety of factors outside the scope of this plan (i.e., habitat). The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan emphasiz- es that the conservation status of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit is ultimately linked to the “Four H’s” – habitat, hydro- power, hatcheries and harvest. “Each of these factors independently affects the (Shared Strategy Develop- ment Committee 2007) status of salmon populations, but they also have cumulative and synergistic effects throughout the salmon life cycle. The achievement of viability at the population and ESU level depends on the concerted effort of all three factors working together, not canceling each other out, and adjusting over time as population conditions change” (Shared Strategy Development Committee 2007). Research and Data Gaps The Salmon Habitat Plan Update reflects an update to the scientific framework (i.e., Strategic Assessment) of the original 2005 Plan. New scientific data improved our understanding of the functional linkages between environmental stressors, habitat, and population productivity, abundance, diversity and spatial distri- bution. This information is reflected in updates to the WRIA 9 recovery strategies and embedded projects, policies, and programs. Best avilable science is used to recalibrate the magnitude and sequencing of our strategic investments, maximizing the effectiveness of our investments. Numerous data gaps and uncertainties remain. Ongoing investments in research and monitoring will be essential to informing adaptive management of recovery strategies and ensuring that plan imple- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 171 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update mentation and associated funding decisions remain science driven. Additional information on research priorities and data gaps can be found in the Habitat Use and Productivity, Temperature, Climate Change, and Contaminant white papers in Appendices A-D. These papers build on the existing 2004 WRIA 9 Chi- nook Salmon Research Framework which utilized a conceptual life-cycle model to organize and prioritize research efforts to inform recovery planning. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 172 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 173 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 10: References Anderson, J.H., and P.C. Topping. 2018. “Juvenile Life History Diversity and Freshwater Productivity of Chinook Salmon in the Green River, Washington.” American Fisheries Society 38 (1): 180-193. B.E. Feist, E.R. Buhle, D.H. Baldwin, J.A. Spromberg, S.E. Damm, J.W. Davis, N.L. Scholz. 2017. “Roads to ruin: conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradient.” Ecol. Appl. 27: 2382-2396. Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non-natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. LaConner, WA: Skagit River System Cooperative. Campbell, L., A. Claiborne, N. Overman, and J. Anderson. 2019. Investigating juvenile life history of adult Green River fall Chinook salmon using otolith chemistry. Final Report (Draft), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Campbell, L.A., and A.M. Claiborne. 2017. Successful juvenile life history strategies in returning adult Chinook from five Puget Sound populations. Salish Sea Marine Survival Project - 2017 Annual Report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Colton, J. 2018. An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook salmon in the Green -Duwamish Watershed. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. DeGasperi, C.L. 2017. Green-Duwamish River 2015 temperature data compilation and analysis. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and and H.D. Berry. 2016. “Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175: 106-117. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 174 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Dunagan, C. 2019. “Third Biennial Science symposium - Summary.” University of Washington. Eaton, J.G., R.M. Scheller. 1996. “Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States.” Limnol Oceanogr 41: 109-1115. Engel, J., K. Higgin, and E. Ostergaard. 2017. WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts. WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. EPA. 2008. Aquatic life criteria for contamnants of emerging concern: General challenges and recommendations. Draft White Paper, Prepared by the OW/ORD Emerging Contaminants Workgroup . Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Seattle, WA: Long Live the Kings. Henning, J. 2004. An evaluation of fish and amphibian use of restored and natural floodplain wetlands. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Higgins, Kollin. 2017. “A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon producitvity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004-2016).” J.P. Meador, A. Yeh, E.P. Gallagher. 2018. “Adverse metabolic effects in fish exposed to contaminants of emerging concern in the field and laboratory.” Environ Pollut. 236: 850-861. Jeffres, C.A., J.J. Opperman, and P.B. Moyle. 2008. “Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California River.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 83: 449-458. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, J.L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F. Anulacion, and T.K. Collier, 2007. 2007. “Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of the United States.” Environ. Monit. Assess 124: 167-194. K.T. Peter, Z. Tian, C. Wu, P. Lin, S. White, B. Du, J.K. McIntyre, N.L. Scholz, E.P. Kolodziej. 2018. “Using High-Reso- lution Mass Spectrometry to Identify Organic Contaminants Linked to Urban Stormwater Mortality Syndrome in Coho Salmon.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (18): 10317-10327. King County. 2014. Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources Inventory Area 9: Compre- hensive needs assessment and extrapolation to Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Jim Simmonds and Olivia Wright, Water and Land Resources Division. King County. 2010. Green River external advisory panel report. . Seattle, WA: Prepared by Tetra Tech. King County. 2019. Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River. Seattle, Washington: Prepared by Chris Gregersen, Water and Land Division. King County. 2006. The 2006 Annual Growth Report. King County, Washington. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project Phase 2 Final Report. Prepared by Kollin Higgins, Water and Land Resources Division. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 marine shoreline monitoring and compliance project phase 2 final report. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Kollin HIggins, King County Water and Land Resources Dvision, Science and Technical Support Section. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 175 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Konrad, C., H. Berge, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen, and J. Guyenet. 2011. “Channel dynamicsin the MIddle Green River, Washington, from 1936-2002.” Northwest Science 85: 1-14. Kubo, J. 2017. Green River temperature and salmon. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. Lestelle, L.C., W.E. McConnaha, G. Blair, and B. Watson. 2005. Chinook slamon use of floodplain, secondary chan- nel, and non-natal tributaries in rivers of western North America. Report prepared for the Mid-Wilamette Valley Council of Governments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Widlife. Lundin, J.I., J.A. Spromberg, J.C. Jorgensen, J.M. Myers, P.M., Zabel, R.W. Chittaro, and et al. 2019. “Legacy habitat contamination as a limiting factor for Chinook salmon recovery in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, USA.” PLoS ONE 14 (3): e0214399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214399. Mauger, G.S, J.H. Casola, H.A Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, T.M.B. Isaksen, L.W. Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of knowledge: Climate change in Puget Sound, Report prepared for the Puget Sound PArtner- ship and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration. Seattle: University of Washington. Mauger, G.S. 2016. “Climate Change and Salmon Habitat – Building Resiliency.” Presentation to the WRIA 9 Imple- mentation Technical Committee. McElhany, P, M.H. Rucklelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. and Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Pop- ulations and the Recovery of Evolutionary Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle: NOAA, NMFS. Meador, J. 2014. “Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon?” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71 (1): 162-180. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2016. “Fine scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish communi- ty: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 557: 1-15. N.L. Scholz, M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, J.S. Labenia, J.K. McIntyre, G.M. Ylitalo, L.D. Rhodes, C.A. Laetz, C.M. Stehr, B.L. French, B. McMillan, D. Wilson, L. Reed, K.D. Lynch, S. Damm, J.W. Davis, T.K. Collier. 2011. “Recurrent die-offs of adult coho salmon returning to spawn in Puget Sound lowland urban streams.” PLoS One 6: e29013. Nelson, T., H. Berge, G. Ruggerone, and J. Cordell. 2013. DRAFT Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliott Bay nearshore. Seattle: King County Water and Land Resources Division. NOAA. 2019. Biological Opinion on Howard Hanson Dam, Operations, and Maintenance, Green River (HUC 17110013) King County, Washington. Portland, OR: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. O’Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife. O’Neil, S.M., A.J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West. 2015. Toxic contami- nants in juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. “The ecology of urban streams.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 176 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update R2 Resource Consultants. 2013. “Juvenile salmonid use of lateral habitats in the MIddle Green River, Washington”. A draft data report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.” R2 Resource Consultants. 2014. “Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River, Washington 2011/12 monitoring results.” Reinelt, L. 2014. “Green River System-Wide Improvement Framework, Green River, Washington.” King County Water and Land Resources, October 23. Rice, C.A. 2006. “shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus).” Estuaries and Coasts 29 (1): 63-71. Scholz, Julann A. Spromberg David H. Baldwin Steven E. Damm Jenifer K. McIntyre Michael Huff Catherine A. Sloan Bernadita F. Anulacion Jay W. Davis Nathaniel L. 2016. “Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts.” Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 398-407. Scholz, N. 2019. “A cross-species evaluation of the Pacific salmon urban stream mortality syndrome.” WA Storm- water Center 2019 Annual Research Review. Scrivener, J.C., T.G. Brown, and B.C. Andersen. 1994. “Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) utilization of Hawks Creek, a small and nonnatal tributary of the upper Fraser River.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (5): 1139-1146. Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrel, W Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. “FLoodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival.” Canadian Journal of FIsheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 325-333. Tabor, R.A., and Z.J. Moore. 2018. Restoration monitoring of Mapes and Taylor Creeks, two nonnatal Lake Washington tributaries for juvenile Chinook salmon. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns, and M.M. Charles. 2011. “Use of nonnatal tributaries for lake-rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington basin, Washington.” Northwest Science 85 (3): 476-491. Toft, J.D., A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R. Cordell, and E.E. Flemer. 2013. “Ecological responses and physical sta- bility of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline.” Ecological Engineering 57: 97-108. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A., Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. “Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound.” North American Journal of FIsheries Management 27: 465-480. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: King County, Washington. July 1. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingcountywashington,US. Varanasi, U., C Edmundo, T.H. Arkoosh, D.A Misitano, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, T.K. Collier, B.B. McCain, and J.E. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyn- chus tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-8, NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service. WA Dept. of Commerce. 2017. Puget Sound Mapping Project. Olympia, 11 01. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serv- ing-communities/growth-management/puget-sound-mapping-project/. WRIA 9 . 2012. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Watershed Eco- system Forum. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Published by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING City of Algona City of Auburn City of Black Diamond City of Burien City of Covington City of Des Moines City of Enumclaw City of Federal Way City of Kent King County City of Maple Valley City of Normandy Park City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Tacoma City of Tukwila Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 KCIT-DCE file: 2102_10102L_W9SHP-REPORT.indd ROGER TABOR AGENDA ITEM #6. e) MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update Appendices GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE A-ii Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE A-ii Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update List of Appendices Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Use in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix G: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE A-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green- Duwamish Watershed AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed January 2018 Alternate Formats Available AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Prepared for: Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Submitted by: Jenée Colton King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section i January 2018 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Kollin Higgins for contributing references on juvenile Chinook ecology and providing feedback on report drafts. Elissa Ostergaard provided early feedback on the report outline and partial draft. Matt Goehring reviewed two full drafts of the report and Deborah Lester, Debra Williston, and Jeff Stern provided valuable comments on the draft final report. Many thanks to the WRIA 9 ITC members for contributing helpful feedback throughout paper development. Citation King County. 2018. An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by Jenée Colton, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green‐Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section ii January 2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1  2.0 Contaminant Pathways ........................................................................................................................... 3  2.1 Transport Pathways ............................................................................................................................ 3  2.2 Exposure Pathways .............................................................................................................................. 4  3.0 Contaminant Information ...................................................................................................................... 9  3.1 Background on Health Effects of Chemical Contaminants to Fish ................................... 9  3.2 Chemical Contaminants in Water ................................................................................................ 12  3.3 Chemical Contaminants in Sediments........................................................................................ 21  3.4 Benthic Community Health Assessment ................................................................................... 29  3.5 Chemical contaminants in Chinook Salmon and their Diet .............................................. 30  3.6 Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on Chinook ........................................................... 33  4.0 Current and Future Actions ................................................................................................................. 36  5.0 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................................. 40  5.1 Data Quantity ........................................................................................................................................ 40  5.2 Chinook Effects Assessment Methods ........................................................................................ 41  6.0 Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 44  7.0 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 48  8.0 References ................................................................................................................................................... 50  Figures Figure 1. Conceptual transport pathways to Green‐Duwamish River ........................................ 4  Figure 2. Invertebrate prey categories of juvenile Chinook salmon (n=321) from seven Duwamish Estuary locations (Nelson et al. 2013) .............................................. 6  Figure 3. Contaminant exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon. .................................. 7  Figure 4. Juvenile Chinook salmon residence times in the Green‐Duwamish River ............. 8  Figure 5. Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2017a) except for East Waterway Supplemental RI stations. ................................................................................... 14  Figure 6. King County sampling stations in the Lower and Middle Green River (King County 2014a)................................................................................................................................ 19  Figure 7. King County sampling stations in the Middle and Upper Green River (King County 2014b) ............................................................................................................................... 20  AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green‐Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section iii January 2018 Figure 8. Surface sediment stations (collected 1991‐2013) with benthic exceedances along the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways before EAA remediation actions. .................................................................................................................... 23  Figure 9. Total PCB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments (King County 2014b). .................................................................................................................. 24  Figure 10. Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non‐ remediated areas .......................................................................................................................... 28  Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model and Pathways for Juvenile Chinook from LDW Baseline Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... 34  Figure 12. Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 2014) ........... 37  Tables  Common sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants and their adverse effects on freshwater fish. ................................................................... 10   Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled from King County (2017a) ........................................................................................................ 14   Summary of metals concentrations (mg/L) and WQS exceedances (bolded) in the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Green River (From Table 3‐43 of King County 2017a) ..................................................................................................................... 16   Total PCB concentrations (µg/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative to English Sole in the East Waterway and LDW (King County 2017a). ................. 31   Summary of Information available on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook. .. 45  AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section iv January 2018 Acronyms µg/Kg micrograms per kilogram µg/g micrograms per gram CEC contaminants of emerging concern cfs cubic feet per second CS0s combined sewer overflows CSL cleanup screening level cy cubic yard Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ENR enhanced natural recovery EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EW East Waterway FS feasibility study HPAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon LDW Lower Duwamish Waterway ng/g nanogram/gram PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PBDE polybrominated diphenyl ethers PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PPCP pharmaceuticals and personal care products RI remedial investigation RM river mile ROD record of decision SCO sediment cleanup objective SQS sediment quality standard TBT tributyltin USGS United States Geological Survey WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WQS water quality standards WRIA water resource inventory area AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section v January 2018 Executive Summary The 2005 Green-Duwamish Salmon Habitat Plan identified protection and improvement of sediment quality as a Tier 3 conservation hypothesis for salmon recovery. Although sediment clean-up was hypothesized to benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon productivity. Other habitat quality and quantity issues were more well-defined and identified as higher priority needs in the watershed. WRIA 9 commissioned this paper in 2017 – along with several other white papers – to address priority data gaps identified during the scoping of the 10-year update to the Salmon Plan. This paper summarizes research completed since the 2005 Plan was adopted on the potential impacts of chemical contaminants on Chinook salmon productivity in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The information is intended to inform identification and prioritization of recovery needs as WRIA 9 watershed partners update the 2005 Salmon Plan. Contaminants are carried from sources to surface waters as well as within surface waters, by transport pathways. Contaminants can be carried to the Green-Duwamish receiving waters by point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and combined sewer overflows [CSOs] discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmospheric deposition, as well as by spills/leaks and bank erosion. Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated food. The importance of an exposure pathway to a fish is dependent on several variables primarily related to the chemical properties of the contaminant (e.g., hydrophilic, hydrophobic) and the ecology of the species of interest (e.g., diet, benthic or pelagic habits). Generally, water exposure and food consumption are the greatest exposure pathways to Chinook. Because juvenile Chinook spend a longer amount of time in the Green-Duwamish watershed than adult Chinook, their exposure to chemicals and risk of health impact are greater. In addition, juvenile Chinook are feeding during this period and consuming prey that are potentially contaminated. Metals such as aluminum and selenium, have low toxicity under typical environmental conditions. Several other metals, such as copper, chromium, and lead, share similar acute symptoms resulting from disturbance of homeostasis. However, chronic exposure symptoms range widely from neurological and reproductive to sensory system and immune system impacts. Common classes of organic contaminants include pesticides, pharmaceuticals, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Three commonly detected organic chemical contaminants in the Puget Sound Region are PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs. There is a wide variety of possible health effects in fish from organic chemical exposure. The available ambient water, sediment, and Chinook salmon tissue chemistry and sediment bioassay data collected in the Green-Duwamish watershed and the ecological assessments that use these data are reviewed in this report. Key information found from this review includes: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section vi January 2018 Observations of potential impacts of contaminants • Chinook salmon return rates are substantially lower in contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, compared to uncontaminated estuaries. Tissue chemistry/biomarkers • Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and East Waterway (EW) risk assessments did not identify risk of impaired growth or survival for juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the LDW risk assessment noted reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile Chinook migrating through the LDW. • Subsequent studies, using more conservative assumptions, concluded PCBs may be causing health impacts in Chinook salmon. • The risks of impacts to Chinook salmon from Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) are unknown although these chemicals are likely present in wastewater discharges, and to a lesser degree stormwater discharges to the Green/Duwamish watershed. • Relatively little juvenile Chinook tissue data have been collected or evaluated in the Duwamish Estuary in the last 10 years, and less data are available for the Green River. Tissue chemistry data indicate juvenile Chinook salmon are bioaccumulating contaminants while in the Duwamish Estuary. Tissue assessments suggest that PCB exposure may be causing sublethal adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon. Sediment • In the most contaminated areas of the LDW and EW, contaminated sediments are potentially impacting benthic invertebrates which could reduce the quantity or quality of food for juvenile salmon. • Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals, and phthalates. • In the Duwamish Estuary, PCBs are the most widespread sediment contaminant. Sediment contaminants in the Green River need more characterization. Based on existing data, sediment contamination is highest in Mill (in Kent) and Springbrook creeks and may be a concern to benthic invertebrates. Mill Creek (in Auburn) is less contaminated, and Jenkins, Newaukum, Covington, or Big Soos creeks are of little concern. Arsenic and BEHP concentrations most frequently exceeded the no-effects benthic sediment cleanup level (SCO) in Green River tributaries. • Superfund cleanup of contaminated sediments will be an important step in reducing the exposure of aquatic life including Chinook salmon to contaminants, particularly PCBs. Sediment recontamination will remain a risk from dredging activities during cleanup of the LDW and EW. Water chemistry • Several water quality assessments have not identified any chemicals that are presenting notable risk to aquatic life. Of the chemicals investigated, mercury in water may be a chronic exposure risk for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Green River. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section vii January 2018 While tracking the LDW cleanup schedule, it is recommended that further direct work on Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon be supported by the WRIA 9 group. Work completed before cleanup begins on the LDW and EW will provide a foundation for comparison with future data to measure how juvenile Chinook health and contaminant impacts change over time. This work will be most efficiently directed at Chinook diet and tissue chemistry, biomarkers and sublethal effect measurement and improvement of Chinook-specific effect thresholds. In addition to ongoing support for cleaning up contaminants in sediments and limiting future contaminant transport to surface waters, specific recommendations for future work include: • Conduct studies that measure contaminants in juvenile Chinook tissues and stomach contents at different life stages or residence times; e.g., in rearing habitat for Chinook, in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation. • Focus new studies on contaminants known to be elevated in the Duwamish Estuary and for which substantial effects data are published for some salmonids (PCBs, PAHs) and opportunistically explore CECs, such as pharmaceuticals, in water and Chinook salmon to build a chemistry database. CEC analysis is costly, effects analysis tools are lacking, and substantial new data are necessary to begin risk evaluation for Chinook. Therefore, prioritizing known contaminants first will optimize resources. • Establish one or more new tissue effect thresholds for PCBs that are Chinook-specific. Effects thresholds are a tool that allow chemistry results to be placed into the context of toxicity. PCBs are the most widespread contaminant in the Duwamish Estuary. Outside of Superfund risk assessments, there is only one published PCB effect threshold that has been developed to assess Chinook in this region. Given the highly variable assumptions made in defining an effects threshold, developing one (or more) new PCB thresholds would provide a more stable foundation for evaluating how PCBs are affecting Chinook survival. • Support studies that examine other effects evidence (e.g., juvenile Chinook bioassays with Duwamish sediments, biomarkers) by providing in-kind or financial assistance. In addition to the types of evidence recently collected for Chinook salmon (tissue and stomach content chemistry concentrations), work on other lines of evidence that can demonstrate occurrence of contaminant effects. For example, encourage National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct laboratory exposure of salmon for PCB, PBDE, PAH effect endpoints using Duwamish sediments. • Tease out cause(s) of lower smolt-to-adult return (SAR) by collecting juvenile salmon when they leave the Duwamish Estuary and measure body mass, nutrition and stomach contents and compare to mass of Chinook salmon at release from hatcheries. This would test if food quality (e.g., benthic invertebrates) between hatcheries and Duwamish Estuary mouth may be reducing juvenile health and decreasing SAR. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section viii January 2018 This page intentionally left blank. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 1 January 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Green-Duwamish Salmon Habitat Plan identified protection and improvement of sediment quality as a Tier 3 conservation hypothesis for salmon recovery. Although sediment clean-up was hypothesized to benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon productivity. Other habitat quality and quantity issues were more well-defined and identified as higher priority needs in the watershed. WRIA 9 commissioned this paper in 2017 – along with several other white papers (Engel et al., 2017, Higgins 2017, Kubo 2017) – to address priority data gaps identified during the scoping of the 10-year update to the Salmon Plan. It summarizes research completed since the 2005 Plan was adopted on the potential impacts of chemical contaminants on Chinook salmon productivity in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The information is intended to inform identification and prioritization of recovery needs as WRIA 9 watershed partners update the 2005 Salmon Plan. This report does not critique individual studies for the strength of their study design or sampling or analytical methods. This report does review the type and quantity of information available from published sources with the intent of summarizing any available evidence that Chinook salmon may be adversely affected by toxic contaminants as well as describing where the largest knowledge uncertainty lies. The concepts of contaminant transport and exposure pathways are defined to provide context and general information on the potential health effects of specific metals and some common organic chemical contaminants in fish is included. Then, summaries are provided of available chemical contaminant and biomarker data measured in Green-Duwamish watershed water, sediment, and aquatic biota including evaluations of their impacts to Chinook salmon and/or their prey. Recent and thorough data compilations have been completed for water and sediment data and are used for efficiency. Relevant findings for Chinook salmon from Superfund ecological risk assessments are also included. There are several ongoing Green-Duwamish watershed policy programs and initiatives which have potential to influence or spawn new actions that influence contaminant sources or cleanup. These programs/initiatives are briefly described. The majority of available contaminant information for the Green-Duwamish watershed comes from the Duwamish Estuary 1 because of investigations completed in the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) Superfund Site and the West Waterway and East Waterway portions of the Harbor Island Superfund Site. The LDW Remedial Investigation (RI) was initiated in 2001 and completed in 2010 (Windward 2010) and the Feasibility Study (FS) was completed in 2012 (AECOM 2012). EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) in 2014 (EPA 2014). Concurrently over this period, cleanup actions occurred in three of five Early Action Areas containing the highest levels of contamination. The LDW site is currently in pre-design phase before the remaining cleanup begins. A No Action Decision for the West 1 The Duwamish Estuary includes the Lower Duwamish, East, and West Waterways. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 2 January 2018 Waterway unit of the Harbor Island Superfund Site (West Waterway) was issued by EPA in 2003 which did not require remediation for this site (EPA 2003). A supplemental RI was completed for the East Waterway unit in 2014 (Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). The draft East Waterway FS was completed in 2016 (Anchor and QEA 2016) and will be finalized in 2018 (pers. comm. Williston 2017). Relatively little information is available across the entire Green-Duwamish watershed regarding how chemical contamination impacts Chinook salmon. Therefore, information is also presented as it relates to salmon or fish in general to provide context regarding the overall level of contamination in the watershed. There are studies that characterize chemical concentrations in water and sediment but these have not been tied directly to salmon impacts. Potential benthic community effects have been assessed with sediment chemistry and bioassay data. Most of the available data are for sediments in the Duwamish Estuary because sediments are considered the key medium of contamination driving human health and ecological risk in the respective Superfund sites. Studies that have measured contaminants in juvenile Chinook salmon are limited. In addition, data from a small number of studies are available that have investigated potential adverse health effects of contaminants in the Duwamish Estuary on salmon. Contaminant information from these studies is summarized within this report. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 3 January 2018 2.0 CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS Contaminants are carried from sources to surface waters and also within surface waters, by transport pathways. Understanding which chemical transport pathways are most important assists in prioritization of sources. Once present in fish habitat, fish may be exposed to contaminants in various ways, some of which depend on their diet and behavior. The level of impact that contaminants have on Chinook salmon or other organisms is dependent on how the fish is exposed (i.e., the exposure pathway), contaminant quantity (i.e., dose) and the duration of exposure. The conceptual transport and exposure pathways for fish in the Green-Duwamish River are summarized below; these concepts are used throughout the document to discuss how chemical contaminants may affect salmon in the Green-Duwamish watershed. 2.1 Transport Pathways Contaminants can be carried to the Green-Duwamish receiving waters by point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and combined sewer overflows [CSOs] discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmospheric deposition (Figure 1) as well as spills/leaks and bank erosion. Once in the Green-Duwamish River watershed, contaminants can be transported geographically or within the food web by different mechanisms such as tidal currents, sediment resuspension by vessel traffic, and trophic transfer (i.e., through the food web). Transport pathways are not sources themselves, but routes by which contaminants are moved from sources to receiving waters or between different geographic areas of receiving waters. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 4 January 2018 Figure 1. Conceptual transport pathways to Green-Duwamish River 2.2 Exposure Pathways Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated food. The importance of an exposure pathway to a fish is dependent on several variables primarily related to the chemical properties of the contaminant (e.g., hydrophilic, hydrophobic) and the ecology of the species of interest (e.g., diet, benthic or pelagic habits). For example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of chemicals that do not readily dissolve in water and tend to bind to solids due to their chemical properties. Therefore, PCBs tend to associate with sediments and accumulate in fish species that have close contact with the river bottom and/or consume benthic prey. These species experience higher exposure than those that reside in the water column and consume plankton or plants. These hydrophobic properties of PCBs result in their affinity for fatty tissue and their propensity to bioaccumulate. Therefore, fish that are piscivorous (i.e., consume other fish) tend to accumulate more PCBs than planktivorous or insectivorous fish. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 5 January 2018 Chinook salmon are not a demersal species (i.e., one living on bottom sediments) like English sole. Thus, direct contact with contaminated sediments is likely a relatively minor pathway. In general, water ingestion through feeding or respiration and food ingestion are primary exposure pathways for any life stage of Chinook salmon. Incidental sediment ingestion through feeding may be an important pathway for juvenile Chinook depending on their feeding strategy. Studies throughout Puget Sound indicate that juvenile Chinook are opportunistic feeders in estuarine and marine waters, appearing to feed on a wide variety of prey as opposed to showing clear preferences for a specific category of prey (e.g., plankton) like other juvenile salmon species (Fresh 2006; Nelson et al. 2013; Figure 2). Stomach contents of juvenile Chinook from the Duwamish Estuary sometimes contain mainly terrestrial insects (Morley et al. 2012) or annelid worms, midges and bivalve siphons (David et al. 2015, Cordell et al. 2006). Directly targeting benthic instead of pelagic food would increase contaminant exposure of Chinook salmon from incidental ingestion of sediment. Juvenile Chinook may shift their diet as different prey become available which would also shift significance of their food and sediment exposure pathways. The importance of the sediment ingestion pathway to juvenile Chinook is uncertain in the Green-Duwamish watershed and likely variable in space and time. Risk assessments for juvenile Chinook may conservatively assume their prey is 100% benthic invertebrates because this results in higher contaminant exposure from food ingestion than from assuming a plankton diet. Potential exposure pathways of juvenile Chinook in streams and rivers are illustrated in Figure 3. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 6 January 2018 Figure 2. Invertebrate prey categories of juvenile Chinook salmon (n=321) from seven Duwamish Estuary locations (Nelson et al. 2013) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 7 January 2018 Figure 3. Contaminant exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon. Arrow thickness denotes relative importance. Life stage is a key factor that determines which exposure pathways are most important for salmon. The different life stages of Chinook salmon have varied feeding strategies and residence times. Adult Chinook salmon in the Green-Duwamish watershed are returning to spawn, no longer feeding and cumulatively spend relatively little time (i.e., 3–5 months) in the watershed (Engel et al. 2017). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend months to 1+ years in the Green River and days to months in the Duwamish Estuary (Figure 4). Also, juvenile Chinook consume a diet of benthic invertebrates and some zooplankton and terrestrial insects (Cordell et al. 2006), giving them greater dietary exposure, as well as residence time, than adult Chinook in the Green-Duwamish watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 8 January 2018 Figure 4. Juvenile Chinook salmon residence times in the Green-Duwamish River (modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 9 January 2018 3.0 CONTAMINANT INFORMATION This section provides a summary of contaminant concentrations measured in watershed media and evaluations of their risks to Chinook salmon through direct and indirect exposure pathways. 3.1 Background on Health Effects of Chemical Contaminants to Fish Chemical contaminants can cause a variety of adverse effects in fish. Metals and organic chemicals are discussed separately in this section due to differences in their behavior and chemical properties, and, therefore, toxic effects. The following information applies to fish in general unless a particular species is mentioned. Mechanisms of acute toxicity and adverse effects of chronic exposure described here are primarily taken from a comprehensive review by Wood et al. (2012a and b) for metals and several local studies for organic chemicals. The mechanisms of metals toxicity in Chinook salmon and other marine/anadromous fish are not well understood (Wood 2012) but are informed by research on freshwater fish. Chinook salmon and other salmonids may be more or less sensitive to contaminants than freshwater species. Information specific to Chinook salmon are provided in this section, where available, particularly from local studies. However, an extensive literature search was not conducted on this topic. Therefore, this summary is not comprehensive and additional specific studies on adverse effects may be available for Chinook salmon. This information is intended to provide a general guide on health effects to fish. Metals commonly measured as potential environmental contaminants from human sources include aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. All metals are naturally occurring but also have human sources. Some metals are essential, meaning they are necessary for biological life in small amounts; some are non-essential. Both types can be toxic to fish, but non-essential metals are more toxic (e.g., cause effects at lower levels). Metals in aquatic ecosystems can be in free, dissolved form (most bioavailable) or bound to solids (least bioavailable). Table 1 outlines some common sources and adverse effects of different metals on freshwater fish. Metals such as aluminum and selenium, have low toxicity under typical environmental conditions. Several other metals, such as copper, chromium, and lead, share similar acute symptoms resulting from disturbance of homeostasis but range widely in their chronic symptoms from neurological and reproductive to sensory system and immune system impacts. Organic chemicals are those that contain carbon. The number of possible environmentally present organic contaminants outnumbers the possible metals contaminants by orders of magnitude. Common classes of organic contaminants include pesticides, pharmaceuticals, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Three commonly detected organic chemical contaminants in the Puget Sound Region are PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs. There is a wide variety of possible health effects in fish from organic chemicals. See Table 1 for examples of AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 10 January 2018 adverse effects caused by exposure to these compounds. Ionic imbalance refers to problems with osmoregulation with the surrounding waters, usually due to interruptions of ion pumps located in the gill. Common sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants and their adverse effects on freshwater fish. Contaminant Naturally Occurring? Common Non- natural Sources Symptoms with Acute Mortality Primary Chronic Exposure Effects Aluminum Yes Mining, aerospace, many consumer products (Wood et al. 2012b). Only in extreme pH: ionic imbalance, respiratory disturbance (Wood et al. 2012b). Same as acute (Wood et al. 2012b). Arsenic Yes Mining, smelter emissions (e.g. Asarco), treated wood, roofing materials (Wood et al. 2012b, Norton et al. 2011). Acute mechanism not well understood in fish (Wood et al. 2012b). Decreased growth rate, possible reproductive effects (Wood et al. 2012b). Cadmium Yes Mining, smelting, roofing materials (Wood et al. 2012b, Norton et al. 2011). Ionic imbalance, respiratory disturbance (Wood et al. 2012b). Ionic imbalance, oxidative stress, possible reproductive impairment (Wood et al. 2012b). Chromium Yes Pulp processing, electroplating, and products (e.g., stainless steel, spray paint) (WDOH 2017). Mucus overproduction, ionic imbalance, respiratory disturbance (Wood et al. 2012a). Spinal deformities, anemia, neurological damage and possible growth reduction (Wood et al. 2012a). Copper Yes Mining, pesticides, fertilizers, brake pads, boat paint, roofing materials (Wood et al. 2012a, Norton et al. 2011). Ionic imbalance, sensory impairment, reduced swimming speed (Wood et al. 2012a). Reproductive impairment, general health decline from detoxification (elimination of toxins from body), oxidative stress (reactive oxygen damage repair), sensory impairment (smell and lateral line), immune suppression (documented in Chinook salmon) (Wood et al. 2012a). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 11 January 2018 Contaminant Naturally Occurring? Common Non- natural Sources Symptoms with Acute Mortality Primary Chronic Exposure Effects Lead Yes Ammunition, lead shot, wheel weights, fishing sinkers, aviation fuel combustion (Norton et al. 2011). Hypocalcemia and ionic imbalance (Wood et al. 2012b). Reproductive impairment, general health decline from detoxification (elimination of toxins from body), oxidative stress (reactive oxygen damage repair), sensory (smell and lateral line) impairment, immune suppression, and mortality (Wood et al. 2012b). Mercury Yes Thermostat and fluorescent lamp disposal, mining, smelters, industrial/commercial emissions, petroleum refineries (Wood et al. 2012b, Norton et al. 2011). Breakdown of neural functions, and other physiological issues (Wood et al. 2012b). Gonad growth impairment, spawning inhibition, reduced growth, gill damage, ionic imbalance, impaired digestion, nerve/brain damage, organ tissue damage (Wood et al. 2012b). Nickel Yes Stainless steel, batteries, many consumer products, building materials, inks/dyes, electroplating, medical equipment (Wood et al. 2012a). Loss of magnesium balance in kidneys, mortality (Wood et al. 2012a). Reduced egg hatchability, organ tissue damage, respiratory distress (Wood et al. 2012a). Selenium Yes Metals mining, fossil fuel refinement and use (EPA 2016). Not seen in environment due to low acute toxicity (Wood et al. 2012a). Developmental deformities (Wood et al. 2012a). Zinc Yes Mining, galvanized steel and other metal products, roofing materials, tire wear (Wood et al. 2012a, Norton et al. 2011). Calcium imbalance and mortality (Wood et al. 2012a). Calcium imbalance, reduced growth, possible reproductive impairment (Wood et al. 2012a). PCBs No Transformers, light ballasts, recyclers, paint, caulk, pigments (Ecology 2015). Can’t accurately assess due to low solubility (Stalling and Mayer 1972. Immune suppression (Arkoosh et al. 2001), reduced reproductive success, mortality (Eisler and Belisle 1996). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 12 January 2018 Contaminant Naturally Occurring? Common Non- natural Sources Symptoms with Acute Mortality Primary Chronic Exposure Effects PAHs Yes Wood smoke, creosote-treated wood, vehicle emissions (Norton et al. 2011). Not fully understood; cardiotoxicity of embryos (Incardona and Scholz 2005). English sole: liver cancer and other liver disease, gonad development failure, inhibited ovarian development, reduced spawning success, disorientation, and mortality. Juvenile Chinook: reduced growth, embryo developmental abnormalities, cardiovascular problems, and immune suppression (Johnson et al. 2008). PBDEs No Flame retardants on plastics, upholstery and foam (Ecology 2006). Not applicable. PBDEs are not an acute contaminant. Endocrine disruption, disease susceptibility (Arkoosh et al. 2010). 3.2 Chemical Contaminants in Water Several studies have measured water chemistry in the Green River and Duwamish Estuary. Some of these studies have compared concentrations to Washington State water quality standards (WQS) for aquatic life. However, while the WQS are generally protective of 95% of aquatic species, and utilize salmonid data when available, they are not specific to Chinook salmon. Thus, WQS may be more or less protective of Chinook salmon. Therefore, these comparisons are general indications of water contamination. The results summarized below indicate which chemicals may potentially impact Chinook salmon in the Green-Duwamish watershed. 3.2.1 Duwamish Estuary From 2009 to 2011, Ecology measured pesticides (weekly from March to September) in several Western WA streams including one in the Green-Duwamish watershed: Longfellow Creek (Ecology 2013). Few pesticides were detected in Longfellow Creek, but herbicides were most common (dichlobenil, trichlopyr, 2,4-D). Concentrations were compared to WQS, pesticide registrations toxicity criteria, and EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2006) for aquatic life. Only methiocarb (insecticide) concentrations in some samples showed the potential to be sublethally toxic to invertebrates. The study concluded toxic impacts to invertebrates could have population-level effects and reduce food availability for juvenile salmon. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 13 January 2018 3.2.2 Duwamish Estuary and Middle Green River King County reviewed available water concentration data in the Green River and Duwamish Estuary published between 2000 and 2013 (King County 2017a). Locations for these water data are in Figure 5, except for 5 stations sampled in the East Waterway (EW) in 2008/2009 (Windward 2009). See Windward (2009) or Appendix C of King County (2017) for the mapped locations of these EW stations. Some of these datasets go as far back as the 1970s (Table 2). All samples were collected by King County, Ecology, or the East Waterway Group. More than 150 samples were analyzed for metals and other chemicals. The Lower Duwamish, East, and West Waterway data were compared to marine acute and chronic criteria due to their estuarine salinity; the Green River data were compared to freshwater acute and chronic criteria. Five samples exceeded freshwater chronic aquatic life standard for one metal (total mercury) in the Green River (GR 11.1, GR 40.6, GR 63.1) (Figure 5; Table 3). One East Waterway sample also exceeded the chronic aquatic life standard for total mercury (at EW-SW-1). One East Waterway sample exceeded the chronic aquatic life standard for tributyltin (TBT) (at EW-SW-2). No other metals exceeded aquatic life criteria. Detected organic chemicals included triclopyr (pesticide), estrone, 4 nonylphenol, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (endocrine disruptors), PAHs, PCB congeners, one dichlorobenzene, aniline, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, caffeine, phenol, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. However, all of these chemicals were infrequently detected except for PAHs and PCBs. It should be noted that when analyzed by the most sensitive method, PCBs are usually detected at some level in ambient waters because they are a ubiquitous contaminant. For organic chemicals with aquatic life criteria, none were exceeded. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 14 January 2018 Figure 5. Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2017a) except for East Waterway Supplemental RI stations. Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled from King County (2017a) Site ID Station Locator Agency Description River Milea Depths Sampled Years Sampled – EW -SW -1 EWG East Waterway – Between Terminal 102 and 104 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -1 Flood tide EWG East Waterway – Between Terminal 102 and 104 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -2 EWG East Waterway – Off Terminal 25 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -2 Flood Tide EWG East Waterway – Off Terminal 25 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -3 EWG East Waterway – Slip 27 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -4 EWG Lower East Waterway – east side of channel; moved to EW-SW-5 after Round 1 – Above and below 1 m 2008 – EW -SW -5 EWG East Waterway – Slip 36; replaced EW-SW -4 – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -6 EWG Lower East Waterway – middle of channel – Above and below 1 m 2008-2009 – EW -SW -6 Flood tide EWG Lower East Waterway – middle of channel – Above 1 m 2008-2009 WW-a lower LTKE03 King County West Waterway – Upstream of the Spokane Street Bridge, middle of the channel – Below 1 m 2005–2013 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 15 January 2018 Site ID Station Locator Agency Description River Milea Depths Sampled Years Sampled WW-a upper LTKE03 King County West Waterway – Upstream of the Spokane Street Bridge, middle of the channel – Above 1 m 2005–2013 WW-b lower 0305 King County West Waterway – Upstream of the Spokane Street Bridge, on west side of channel – Below 1 m 1970–2004 WW-b upper 0305 King County West Waterway – Upstream of the Spokane Street Bridge, on west side of channel – Above 1 m 1970–2004 LDW -0.1 LTLF04 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway – At the south end of Harbor Island 0.1 Above 1 m 2003–2004 LDW -3.0 LTTL02 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway – Duwamish Waterway Park 3 Above 1 m 2007–2010 LDW-3.3 lower 0307, LTUM03 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway – 16th Ave. S Bridge 3.3 Below 1 m 1970–2013 LDW-3.3 upper 0307, LTUM03 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway – 16th Ave. S Bridge 3.3 Above 1 m 1970–2013 LDW -4.8 LTXQ01 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway – Upstream side of Boeing pedestrian bridge, mid span 4.8 Above 1 m 2009–2013 DR-6.3 0309 King County Duwamish River – East Marginal Way Bridge at S 115th Street 6.3 Above 1 m 1970–2008 DR-9.8 FL319 King County Duwamish River – Foster Links Golf Course, downstream of confluence with Black River 9.8 Above 1 m 2011–2012 GR-11.1 3106, A310 King County Lower Green River – Bridge at Fort Dent Park upstream of Black River 11.1 Above 1 m 1970–2013 GR-11.6 0311, 09A080 King County, Ecology Lower Green River – Renton Junction Bridge on West Valley Road at Highway 1 11.6 Above 1 m 1970–2013 GR-32.8 A319 King County Lower-Middle Green River – Bridge on SE Auburn-Black Diamond Road, upstream of Soos Creek 32.8 Above 1 m 1972–2012 GR-40.6 B319 King County Lower-Middle Green River – Bridge on 212th Ave SE, upstream of Newaukum Creek 40.6 Above 1 m 1993–2013 GR-42.0 FG319 King County Lower-Middle Green River– Bridge at SE Flaming Geyser Road in Flaming Geyser State Park 42 Above 1 m 2011–2012 GR-56.9 09A190 Ecology Upper-Middle Green River– Bridge on Cumberland-Palmer Road at Kanaskat 56.9 Above 1 m 1977–2012 GR-63.1 E319 King County Upper-Middle Green River – Below Howard A. Hanson Dam, at USGS gage 12105900 63.1 Above 1 m 2001–2003 a River miles conform to the convention used in the RI/FS for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site. The starting point of RM 0 is at the southern tip of Harbor Island (Windward 2010). EWG – East Waterway Group AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 16 January 2018 Summary of metals concentrations (mg/L) and WQS exceedances (bolded) in the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Green River (From Table 3-43 of King County 2017a) Analyte FOD Mean Maximum Detected Max MDL Antimony 53/187 0.117 0.153 0.5 Arsenic 176/230 1.19 1.41 0.5 Cadmium 57/230 0.071 1.45 0.1 Chromium, total 153/238 0.85 10.8 0.79 Copper 172/233 1.44 2.94 0.4 Lead 26/230 0.0702 0.45 2.3 Mercury 49/195 0.00069 0.0058 0.2 Mercury, total 113/232 0.00501 0.0835** 0.2 Nickel 116/230 0.425 7.79 0.34 Selenium 56/189 0.188 0.38 1.5 Silver 4/226 0.0198 0.022 0.2 Zinc 161/240 6.16 16.9 0.5 Notes: Metals concentrations are in dissolved form unless noted. ** Exceeds freshwater (0.012) and marine (0.025) chronic aquatic life criteria FOD – frequency of detection (# samples detected/ total collected) MDL – method detection limit 3.2.3 Lower Green River The United States Geological Survey (USGS) sampled (Conn et al. 2015) whole and filtered water at Foster Links Golf Course RM 8 (same as station FL319 in Figure 6) during baseflow, storm flow and significant dam releases between November 2013 and March 2015. Composite samples were collected over 28 events and analyzed for metals, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, butyltins, volatiles and semivolatiles, and pesticides. Pesticides, butyltins, volatile and semivolatile chemicals were not detected except for methylene chloride and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (ubiquitous contaminants). Nine metals were frequently detected (>75% of samples). PAHs were infrequently detected and at low concentrations. PCBs and dioxins/furans were detected in most if not all samples. Concentrations were not compared to water quality standards. Chemical concentrations detected during storm events were consistently higher than at baseflow. Where detected, metals concentrations were higher during significant (>2000 cfs) Howard Hansen Dam releases compared to storm events. These dam releases send large water volumes from the Upper Green River downstream. Metals concentrations in unfiltered water samples generally increased with suspended sediment concentrations and were similar in filtered water samples across storms, significant dam releases, and baseline periods. These observations suggest that sediment-bound metals are more important than the dissolved fraction. The frequent detection of metals is not unusual given their natural occurrence. The most noteworthy findings of this study are the consistently higher chemical concentrations in storm events relative to baseflow and higher estimated chemical loads during significant dam releases relative to storm samples. The storm versus baseflow results align with similar studies in other areas of Puget Sound (King County 2013, Ecology and King County 2011) and suggest that stormwater contributes substantially greater contaminant loads AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 17 January 2018 than baseflow. Higher metals loads during significant dam releases relative to stormflow indicate that dam flow regulation plays an important role in controlling loading and exposure of juvenile Chinook salmon to metals. The higher sediment bound fraction indicates metals are being stored in sediments behind Howard Hansen Dam and these solids are occasionally released with large dam openings. 3.2.4 Lower and Middle Green River and Tributaries King County (2014a) evaluated water quality in the Lower and Middle Green River and 4 tributaries (Mill Creek in Auburn, Soos Creek, Black River and Newaukum Creek) (Figure 6). Significantly higher dissolved arsenic concentrations were measured in Mill Creek than in the mainstem at Flaming Geyser or Foster Links, or in Newaukum Creek during storm events. Concentrations of total PCBs and PAHs increased with distance downstream during storm events. Significantly higher total high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (HPAH) concentrations were detected in the Black River during storm events compared to the mainstem at Flaming Geyser or in Newaukum and Soos Creeks. Total PCB concentrations were highest in the Black River (at the Pump Station) compared to Mill, Newaukum and Soos Creeks and the two mainstem locations although differences were not statistically significant. All measured total PCB and arsenic concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS. 3.2.5 Middle and Upper Green River King County conducted a 2013 study of Middle and Upper Green River water quality (King County 2015) sampling between Kanaskat-Palmer and 20 miles upstream of the dam (Figure 7). Results showed water concentrations of arsenic increase with distance downstream during storm events. All measured arsenic concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS. Concentrations of total PCBs and PAHs increased during storm events with distance downstream. All measured total PCB concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS (there were no applicable aquatic life standards for PAHs at the time of the report). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 19 January 2018 Figure 6. King County sampling stations in the Lower and Middle Green River (King County 2014a) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 20 January 2018 Figure 7. King County sampling stations in the Middle and Upper Green River (King County 2014b) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 21 January 2018 3.2.6 Duwamish-Green Sub-basins King County (2005) conducted an aquatic life screening risk assessment for the Green River in 2005 using existing metals and organic contaminant data collected by King County and USGS from 1999 through 2003. These data included a mix of grab and composite water samples collected from 67 stations during baseflow and storm flow spanning all sub-basins from the Duwamish Estuary to just below Howard Hansen Dam in the Upper Green (see Figure 3-1 http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/KCR1883.pdf). Chemical data were available for nutrients, metals and several organic chemicals (phenols, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and other volatile and semivolatile chemicals). Quartiles and 5th and 95th percentiles of resulting concentrations were compared to (in hierarchical order): Washington State WQS (WAC 173- 201A 2003 version), EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2002), an EPA toxicity database (AQUIRE) or other thresholds from the scientific literature. Of the 187 chemicals targeted, 127 were never detected in any water samples. For 10 chemicals, at least one sample exceeded the selected risk threshold, but most had low exceedances (percentile concentration/threshold ratios <2). It was concluded that metals and organic chemicals posed minimal risk to aquatic life. 3.3 Chemical Contaminants in Sediments Some contaminants in sediments have been demonstrated to cause toxic effects in fish. For example, Puget Sound sediments contaminated with PAHs have been linked to toxic effects in English sole, a benthic species (Johnson 2000). For salmon and other non-benthic species that occupy the water column, their direct sediment exposure is lower than a benthic species, but to what degree is uncertain. However, juvenile salmon sometimes consume benthic invertebrates which can increase their chemical exposure relative to planktonic prey. In addition, a decline in benthic populations due to contamination may theoretically decrease the food quantity or quality for juvenile salmon. Therefore, sediment contamination may directly or indirectly impact Chinook salmon. King County conducted a sediment chemistry study of the Green River (King County 2014b) and completed a review of all available watershed sediment chemistry data (King County 2017a). Sediment chemistry data were compared to Washington State Marine Sediment Management Standards (WAC 173-204-320), more specifically known as the Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) and the Cleanup Screening Level (CSL) (WAC 173-204-562). The SQS is a “no benthic effects” level while the CSL is a “minor benthic effects” level. The SQS is equivalent to a benthic sediment cleanup objective (SCO) used to develop a sediment quality goal for Washington State sediment cleanup sites. While there are no established freshwater sediment standards in Washington State, freshwater benthic cleanup levels, also referred to as SCO and CSL (WAC 173-204-563) have been developed. These standards and benthic cleanup levels were developed based on chemical concentrations that cause adverse effects to benthic invertebrates. Results of the King County (2017a) review do not reflect removal of contaminated sediments that has occurred from early action cleanups in the LDW. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 22 January 2018 3.3.1 Duwamish Estuary King County (2017) summarized existing sediment data collected between 1991 and 2013, comparing sediment chemistry results for Duwamish Estuary (King County 2017a) to benthic sediment standards described above (SQS and CSL). Figure 8 shows where any chemical exceeded the SMS; the metals and key organic chemical exceedances are summarized below. • All eight metals with benthic sediment standards exceeded the CSL in the East Waterway and LDW: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc. • The majority of the SMS exceedances were north of RM 1.3 in the LDW. • Several metals exceeded the CSL at two additional locations in the LDW, the west inlet at RM 2.2 and south of the Jorgensen Forge cleanup area between RM 3.7 and RM 3.9. • Cadmium exceeded the CSL approximately 50 m southwest of the Duwamish/Diagonal cleanup area and in the west inlet located at RM 2.2 in the LDW. • Mercury was widely dispersed and exceeded the CSL throughout the East Waterway, in the LDW between RM 0.0 and RM 1.3 (exceedances detected between RM 0.2 and RM 0.6 and RM 0.9 and RM 1.2), throughout the west inlet of the LDW at RM 2.2, south of the Jorgensen Forge cleanup area (RM 3.7 to RM 3.9), and in the LDW near the head of Slip 6. • The frequency of sediment standards exceedances was highest in the East Waterway and LDW for total PCBs and next highest for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Exceedance of PAH sediment standards was frequent in the LDW and tended to be within 50 m of shore. 3.3.2 Green River King County (2014b) collected and analyzed sediment samples from 2008 to 2012 in tributaries of the Green River. Of 58 samples collected, 24 exceeded the no effects level (freshwater benthic SCO) for one or more contaminants including three metals (arsenic, nickel and cadmium), bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octylphthalate, and total PCBs (Figure 8). Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and arsenic were the two chemicals with the highest frequency of exceedance. Tributaries included Big Soos Creek, Covington Creek, Jenkins Creek, Newaukum Creek, Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek in Kent and Mill Creek in Auburn. Creeks located in the most urbanized areas (e.g., Mill in Kent and Springbrook) generally had a greater number of freshwater benthic SCO exceedances than the lesser developed creek basins. Four stations were located in the Green River mainstem but there were no exceedances of freshwater benthic SCO at these locations. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 23 January 2018 Figure 8. Surface sediment stations (collected 1991-2013) with benthic exceedances along the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways before EAA remediation actions. Original Sources: AECOM 2012, Windward and Anchor QEA 2014, Urban Waters Initiative (Ecology 2009), and PSEMP Database (Ecology 2015). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 24 January 2018 Figure 9. Total PCB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments (King County 2014b).Two stations with highest concentrations exceed SCO. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 25 January 2018 3.3.3 Early Action Areas in LDW Based on identification of highly contaminated areas during the first phase of the LDW RI, five Early Action Areas (EAA) were selected by EPA and Ecology for early cleanup. Together, cleanups at all five EAAs cover 29 acres and are expected to reduce the LDW area-weighted average surface sediment PCB concentration by approximately 50% (EPA 2014). The status of cleanup actions in these areas is summarized below. See Figure 5 for locations of each EAA. Slip 4 • Approximately 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of PCB-contaminated sediments were dredged and 3.4 acres were capped with clean sand, gravel, and granular activated carbon amended filter material, during October 2011 through January 2012, by the City of Seattle (with participation by The Boeing Company) under an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (consent order) (Seattle 2015). Upland plantings were also completed in 2012. A net gain of 1.1 acres of intertidal, shallow subtidal and riparian habitat resulted. • Dredging and capping was monitored with one brief exceedance of the turbidity standard during placement of clean cap sand. The City of Seattle has been monitoring the cap and documented recontamination (exceedance of SMS) with PCBs in Years 1 and 3 (Seattle 2015). In-water construction activities in Year 3 may have influenced the surface sediments on the cap (pers. comm. Schuchardt 2017). Year 4 monitoring was completed, but did not include sediment chemistry (Seattle 2016). Terminal 117 • Cleanup was performed by City of Seattle and Port of Seattle (Port of Seattle project website http://t117.com). The Port of Seattle work was completed in 2015 and included dredging of 8,000 cy of sediment followed by backfill with clean sand, and removal of 36,000 cy of upland and bank soil (AECOM 2016). As source control actions, the City of Seattle completed cleaning of residential yards in 2013 and finished cleaning adjacent streets and stormwater infrastructure construction in 2016. A monitoring and maintenance plan is currently being developed with EPA. Habitat restoration is planned to occur in 2018 (pers. comm. Florer 2017). Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge (Across from Terminal 117) • The Boeing Company initiated cleanup of river sediment and the shoreline of Boeing Plant 2 in 2013. Substantial upland source control actions were completed before 2013, including building structure removal, joint compound replacement, storm drain cleaning and installation of stormwater treatment systems (pers. comm. Anderson 2017). 163,000 cy of sediment was dredged (and backfilled with clean sediment) from the nearly 1-mile-long property footprint (Amec Foster Wheeler et al. 2016). Shoreline soils impacted by organic chemicals were removed and replaced with salmon habitat features including riparian and intertidal plants, along AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 26 January 2018 with large woody debris features (Amec Foster Wheeler 2014). The project was completed in 2015. • The Boeing Company has completed the first year post-remediation monitoring data report (Amec et al. 2016). Concentrations of all metals and organic chemicals including PCBs were below the no effect threshold (SQS). As expected, deposition of sediments is occurring on the surface of the clean backfill; 22 of 40 samples showed increases in PCB concentrations after one year. http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/principles/environment/pdf/duwamish_backgrounder.pdf • The Jorgensen Forge site is adjacent to Boeing Plant 2. In 2014, in-water sediments were dredged and bank material was removed and backfilled with clean materials. Several rounds of post-cleanup surface and subsurface sediment sampling have documented sediment PCB concentrations above cleanup levels (>SQS). EPA and Earle M. Jorgensen are currently negotiating an amendment to the Agreed Order to establish how remaining contamination will be addressed (Chu, pers. comm. 2017). Diagonal CSO/Storm Drain • King County remediated 7 acres by dredging and capping in 2003/2004 (EBDRP 2015); a total of 68,000 cy of contaminated sediment was removed. Contamination of the surrounding sediments after dredging resulted in placement of a thin layer of clean sand, called an enhanced natural recovery (ENR) area, in 2005, to reduce contaminant concentrations in surface sediments. • King County monitored the site and the surrounding sediments pre- and post-remediation through 2012. The largest storm drain to the LDW discharges to this area, in addition to City of Seattle and King County CSOs; sediment concentrations near the outfall have varied over time. Sediment PCB concentrations in a portion of the capped area remain consistently low. However, concentrations in other portions of the capped area are variable year-to-year and sometimes exceed the PCB marine SQS. The area-wide mean PCB concentration across remediated areas was 61 µg/Kg dw in 2010 falling within an anthropogenic background concentration for urban areas of 40-90 µg/Kg dw calculated in the LDW FS (AECOM 2012). PCB concentrations in the ENR area have been consistently low. Monitoring reports can be found here: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment-management/projects/DuDi.aspx Norfolk CSO • King County completed cleanup in the river at Norfolk CSO in 1999 including dredging 5,190 cubic yards of sediment and backfilling with clean sediment. Sediment monitoring of the cleanup area was conducted for 5 years (project website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment-management/projects/Norfolk.aspx ). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 27 January 2018 • Monitoring in the early years identified the adjacent Boeing site storm drain as a source of PCBs to the Norfolk site (EBDRP 2005). The Boeing Company conducted dredging in 2003 to remediate this area. They also conducted source tracing and added treatment to the storm drain. After the last year of monitoring in 2004, two PAH compounds and PCBs were identified as chemicals at the Norfolk site that exceeded SQS. Monitoring Reports can be found here: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment-management/projects/Norfolk.aspx Natural background for total PCBs in Puget Sound sediments is 2 ug/Kg dw and is based on concentrations in areas without influence of local human activity. This is also the total PCB cleanup level established by EPA for the LDW. Figure 10 is an updated map of benthic exceedances in the LDW with outdated EAA area data removed. Benthic SMS exceedances by any chemical are most numerous and widespread below RM 2.9. Above RM 2.9, benthic SMS exceedances are generally clustered around RM 3.7-4.2 and RM 4.8-5.0 and exceedances of only the SQS are scattered in between. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 28 January 2018 Figure 10. Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non-remediated areas (Windward unpublished; Data through 2010). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 29 January 2018 3.4 Benthic Community Health Assessment As mentioned earlier, Chinook salmon can be exposed to contaminated sediments by direct ingestion, direct contact, or eating contaminated food, such as benthic invertebrates. In addition, the adverse effects of chemical contaminants on the benthic community can theoretically reduce the quantity or quality of food for fish like juvenile salmon. However, studies were not identified in the Green-Duwamish watershed that examine potential effects of benthic community reductions on fish diets or health. Studies that have sampled benthic community 2 taxonomic composition and tested sediments for chemistry and toxicity to benthic invertebrates are summarized here. Only studies that cover the Duwamish Estuary were located. • Taylor et al. (1999, as cited in Windward and Anchor QEA 2014) characterized epibenthic invertebrate taxa residing in intertidal habitat of the lower 2 miles of the Duwamish Estuary including East Waterway. At the three intertidal areas sampled, most taxa were identified as potential salmon prey. • Benthic community sampling was conducted in the 1990’s at Kellogg Island, Duwamish/Diagonal CSO-storm drain, and the LDW Turning Basin. Areas of Kellogg Island demonstrated high abundance and species diversity relative to the Turning Basin and the Duwamish/Diagonal CSO-storm drain sites (Cordell et al. 1994 and 1996, Parametrix and King County 1999). The area sampled at Duwamish/Diagonal has since been remediated (see Section 3.3.3), but benthic community sampling was not part of the post-remediation monitoring activities. • Paired sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate toxicity testing were completed for the East Waterway RI (Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). Comparison of chemistry and toxicity test results to SMS indicated that approximately 21% of the EW area likely cause adverse effects to benthic invertebrates. Potential minimal adverse effects were indicated for 39% of the area and no adverse effects were indicated in approximately 40% of the EW area. • The East Waterway RI also assessed risk to benthic invertebrates by measuring chemical concentrations in tissues and comparing them to effect concentrations. Adverse effects for benthic invertebrates were indicated for TBT in 2 of 12 areas sampled and potential minor adverse effects were indicated for total PCBs in 10 of 13 areas sampled. • The East Waterway RI also examined volatile chemicals by comparing porewater chemistry data to effects concentrations. Napthalene was identified as likely causing adverse effects to benthic invertebrates in one location. No other volatile chemicals were concluded to present risk of adverse effects. 2 Benthic community assessments for contaminants have a different purpose than sampling for and calculation of the Benthic Index for Biotic Integrity (BIBI) (Karr 1998; Fore et al. 2001, Karr & Chu 1999, Kleindl 1995, Morley & Karr 2002). The BIBI is a biological indicator of stream condition integrating multiple stressors of chemical and non-chemical pollution, hydrologic conditions, and physical habitat characteristics. Contaminant assessments of benthic community health are more specific to contaminant effects and involve measurement of sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community taxonomic analysis, and/or sediment bioassays. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 30 January 2018 • Toxicity tests on benthic invertebrates in the LDW (Windward 2010) resulted in 30 of 48 samples that failed the SQS criteria for toxicity. Comparison of sediment chemistry and toxicity test results to SMS indicated (see Map 4-16 in RI for SMS results): o no adverse effects to benthic invertebrates were expected in 75% of the LDW area, o adverse effects are likely in 7%3 of the LDW area, and o adverse effects are uncertain in 18% of the LDW area. • The LDW RI also examined volatile chemicals by comparing porewater chemistry data to effects concentrations. Cis-1,2-dichloroethane was identified as potentially causing adverse effects to benthic invertebrates in one location. No other volatile chemicals were concluded to present risks of adverse effects in porewater. 3.5 Chemical contaminants in Chinook Salmon and their Diet Chinook salmon tissue chemistry data has been collected by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (O’Neill et al. 2015), by Nelson et al. (2013) as part of the Juvenile Salmon Survival Study, and by the LDW Group and EW Group as part of Superfund RIs (Windward 2010, Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). Assessment of adverse effects on fish can be conducted using whole body tissue, bile or other organ chemistry, stomach content chemistry, toxicity tests and/or biomarkers that indicate exposure. Some chemicals do not bioaccumulate because they are metabolized or otherwise broken down in fish. For example, it is inappropriate to assess risk to fish from parent PAHs based on fish tissue concentrations because these chemicals are quickly metabolized resulting in tissue concentrations that do not reflect exposure (Johnson et al. 2008). Exposure to PAHs is more accurately assessed by measuring PAH metabolites in liver bile or PAHs in stomach contents. The WDFW and King County Chinook tissue and the LDW and EW Chinook tissue chemistry results are summarized here. All fish tissue concentrations are based on wet weight. • Juvenile Chinook salmon appear to be exposed to significantly more copper and lead in the Duwamish Estuary than those in the Nisqually, Skagit and Snohomish River systems as reflected by gill concentrations (O’Neill et al. 2015). However, this study could not differentiate Duwamish Estuary from upstream exposure in the Green River. Gill tissue concentrations are indicative of the water exposure pathway. Cadmium and nickel concentrations in LDW Chinook gills were not significantly different compared to the other river systems sampled. Zinc levels in LDW Chinook gills were lower than those from the other three major river systems in Puget Sound. • Juvenile Chinook salmon wholebody concentrations suggest that more of their PCB and DDT burden is contributed from the Duwamish Estuary and/or Elliott Bay than 3 The sediment assessment was updated with more recent data in the LDW FS, resulting in a lower area of 4% with likely adverse effects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 31 January 2018 from Puget Sound (O’Neill et al. 2015). Juvenile Chinook from offshore locations in Puget Sound (>0.5 km from shore in Whidbey Basin and south) had significantly lower concentrations of PCBs and DDTs than the LDW or Elliott Bay locations. However, PCB concentrations in Chinook salmon collected from nearshore Elliott Bay were higher than in fish from the Duwamish Estuary. The average total PAH concentrations of juvenile Chinook stomach contents were significantly higher in the LDW and Elliott Bay than in the Skagit or Nisqually River systems. • Nelson et al. (2013) summarized a 2003 juvenile Chinook sampling effort in the Duwamish Estuary, Lower and Middle Green rivers and Elliott Bay. Twenty six composite samples each containing 6 to 32 subyearling Chinook salmon were analyzed for PCBs and mercury. Hatchery and wild fish were identified and sorted before compositing and analyzed separately. Average PCB levels in hatchery fingerlings from the Duwamish Estuary (29 µg/Kg) were less than half the levels in wild fingerlings (77 µg/Kg). Average PCB levels in Elliott Bay wild (27 µg/Kg) and hatchery Chinook salmon (25 µg/Kg) were similar to each other and slightly higher than Lower Green River wild (14 µg/Kg) and hatchery fish (15 µg/Kg). In theory, the longer residence time of wild Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary may increase their bioaccumulation of PCBs relative to hatchery Chinook salmon. The PCB levels across all samples of wild Chinook salmon from the Duwamish Estuary were highly variable (7.4 to 225 µg/Kg). Mercury levels in juvenile Chinook were low and did not vary by sampling location or fish origin. • King County (2017a) reviewed all fish and shellfish tissue data used in the LDW and EW RI’s and summarized tissue data for PCBs in juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish. These data were collected in the Green-Duwamish watershed from 1998 to 2007. Whole wild and hatchery juvenile Chinook salmon collected from East Waterway (12 composite samples) and LDW (24 composite samples) contained variable levels of PCBs with an average concentration up to 50 times lower than in adult English sole, the fish species measured with the highest PCB concentrations (Table 4). English sole fillet samples contain lower concentrations than wholebody samples; this is due to preferential partitioning into fatty tissues. Chinook tissue were also analyzed for pesticides and TBT. TBT was not detected in juvenile Chinook. These tissue chemistry data were used to inform the LDW and EW ecological risk assessments. See Section 3.6 for LDW and EW Chinook salmon risk assessment results. Total PCB concentrations (µg/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative to English Sole in the East Waterway and LDW (King County 2017a). Fish Species Tissue Type FOD Minimum Maximum Mean East Waterway English sole Fish whole body 13/13 1,460 7,900 J 3,200 English sole Fish fillet (with skin) 20/20 409 5,700 1,700 Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 12/12 7.4 91.5 59 Lower Duwamish Waterway Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 24/24 6.9 1,200 140 FOD – frequency of detection (# samples detected/ # analyzed) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 32 January 2018 • O’Neill et al. (2015) measured PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs in composite samples of juvenile Chinook stomach contents. One sample was collected in the LDW estuary, two from nearshore (Elliott Bay) and one from offshore (Puget Sound). The authors estimated dietary effects thresholds of 3,800 ng PAHs/g for altered growth and 12,200 ng PAHs/g for altered growth and plasma chemistry based on Meador et al. (2006). The single Chinook stomach content sample collected in the Duwamish Estuary did not exceed the effect thresholds for PAHs. One of two stomach content samples collected in Elliott Bay exceeded the PAH threshold. • O’Neill et al. (2015) calculated PBDEs effects ranges for increased disease susceptibility (greater than or equal to 470 to 2,500 ng/g lipid) and for altered thyroid hormone levels (greater than or equal to 1,492 to 2,500 ng/g lipid) in whole juvenile Chinook based on Arkoosh et al. (2013) and Arkoosh et al. (2010). None of the Duwamish Estuary juvenile Chinook tissue samples exceeded either threshold. One of 10 samples in Elliott Bay exceeded the PBDE effects threshold. • From 1996 through 2001, Johnson et al. (2007) measured PCBs, DDTs, and PAHs in juvenile Chinook in the Duwamish Estuary (1998 and 1999 only) and other estuaries of Puget Sound. Results show increased exposure in the Duwamish compared to Puget Sound. PAH metabolites were also higher in Duwamish juvenile Chinook than any of the other 5 estuaries sampled on Washington’s coast (Skokomish, Nisqually, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay). PAH metabolites may be relatively higher in the Duwamish Estuary due to urban development. It is important to note that chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) have been detected in Puget Sound (Miller-Schultze et al. 2014) and waters of the Duwamish Estuary (King County 2017b). The definition of CECs varies, but EPA defines them as “chemicals and other substances that have no regulatory standard, have been recently ‘discovered’ in natural streams (often because of improved analytical chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause deleterious effects in aquatic life at environmentally relevant concentrations” (EPA 2008). Hormones, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), and industrial process chemicals are examples of CECs and are rarely targeted in environmental surveys. Yet, many of them have been documented as endocrine system disruptors in fish. Available information on CECs as pollutants in the Greater Puget Sound is limited to source pathways (e.g. wastewater), ambient surface waters, sediments, and invertebrate and fish tissue chemistry concentrations. A recent study of CECs by King County (2017b) found 17 of 130 CECs were detected in surface waters of the Duwamish Estuary (4 stations sampled). The first and only survey of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in Puget Sound Region wholebody fish tissue detected several (37 of 150) of these chemicals in juvenile Chinook salmon (Meador et al. 2016). Meador et al. (2016) detected more PPCPs in juvenile Chinook salmon than in staghorn sculpin in the areas sampled: Sinclair Inlet, Puyallup Estuary, and Nisqually Estuary. These data suggest preferential bioaccumulation of CECs in juvenile Chinook salmon. The reasons for this are unknown but could be related to differences in prey, habitat, life stage, and/or metabolic processes. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 33 January 2018 3.6 Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on Chinook Ecological risk assessments conducted under Superfund have estimated the likelihood that contaminants in the LDW and EW would cause adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon using a standard and simple model of exposure and effects. These models consider effects that directly influence mortality and growth. In addition to the risk assessments, several field and laboratory studies have investigated adverse effects of contaminants in juvenile Chinook or juvenile coho salmon. Findings of these studies are summarized below. 3.6.1 Modeled adverse effects An ecological risk assessment was conducted for both the LDW and EW RIs. In these assessments, risks to juvenile Chinook salmon from contamination in the waterways were evaluated (Windward 2007; Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). The LDW and EW risk assessments determined that the direct water contact and dietary exposure pathways were the greatest exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon (Figure 11). The LDW ecological risk assessment concluded that cadmium, arsenic, copper, and vanadium in juvenile Chinook salmon food pose low risk of adverse effects on survival or growth; effects levels were not exceeded but no-effects levels were exceeded. These four metals are not bioaccumulative. Other chemicals, such as PCBs and PAHs, were determined not to pose risk of impaired growth or survival to juvenile Chinook based on a screening step that uses conservative (i.e., high) exposure assumptions and no-effect thresholds (Windward 2007). The risk assessment included an uncertainty assessment, which acknowledged reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile salmonids migrating through the LDW. However, this risk assessment was not able to determine if a particular contaminant was the cause of the immunocompetence effect observed in the field. Similar to the LDW assessment, the EW ecological risk assessment concluded adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon growth and survival were unlikely from arsenic, mercury and TBT in surface water and were at low risk in their diet from cadmium, chromium, copper, and vanadium. Risks from cobalt, nickel, and dibenzofuran were concluded to be unknown because there was not sufficient toxicity information to assess them. Other chemicals, such as PCBs and PAHs, were determined not to pose risk of impaired growth or survival to juvenile Chinook (the same methodology discussed above for the LDW Ecological Risk Assessment was used) (Windward 2012). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 34 January 2018 Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model and Pathways for Juvenile Chinook from LDW Baseline Risk Assessment (Windward 2007) Some effect thresholds have been calculated for juvenile Chinook salmon for purposes of comparison with PCB, PBDE, and PAH tissue concentrations. Although not an established tissue standard, Meador et al. (2002) statistically derived a lipid-normalized tissue effects threshold in juvenile Chinook for PCBs of 2400 ug/Kg lipid based on biochemical and immune system effects. This threshold was exceeded by juvenile Chinook sampled in the Duwamish Estuary in 1998 and 1999 (Johnson et al. 2007). More recently, in 2013, 25% (1 of 4) of juvenile Chinook samples from the Green-Duwamish watershed exceeded this effects threshold (O’Neill et al. 2015). 3.6.2 Observed Adverse Effects Juvenile Chinook salmon from the Duwamish Estuary have been observed with immunosuppression, reduced resistance to disease and decreased growth rates (Arkoosh et al. 2001, Johnson et al. 2008). It is uncertain if these changes were caused by an individual contaminant (e.g. PAHs) or a mixture. The observed biochemical changes do not indicate adverse health effects by themselves (Johnson et al. 2007). A type of pre-spawn mortality observed in coho is linked to stormwater and has been documented in small tributaries of the Green River and Duwamish Estuary where Chinook salmon are not found. There is a specific suite of pre-spawn mortality symptoms which AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 35 January 2018 result in mortality of male and female coho before spawning. This is an acute mortality event associated with storm events and the cause is currently suspected to be chemical(s) in vehicle tires (Du et al. 2017). Local researchers have demonstrated that the symptoms are induced by urban stormwater runoff (Scholz et al. 2011, Spromberg et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2016) and eliminated by stormwater infiltration through bioretention soils (McIntyre et al. 2016). This phenomenon has not been observed in other co-occurring salmonids (e.g. chum). Local studies have demonstrated that urban highway stormwater runoff induces cardiotoxicity, reproductive effects and mortality in juvenile coho and other, non-salmonid fish (McIntyre et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2014) which can be eliminated by infiltration through bioretention soils (McIntyre et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2016). Chinook salmon is not a species that has been tested; thus, it is uncertain how they are affected. These studies indicate that stormwater runoff is potentially toxic to Chinook salmon in streams. The absence of impact to chum salmon also demonstrates how one salmon species can be much more sensitive to chemical contaminants than others. Meador (2014) analyzed Puget Sound coho and Chinook salmon hatchery release and return data to compare smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR) in contaminated and uncontaminated estuaries. Ten hatcheries located upstream of contaminated estuaries and 12 located upstream of uncontaminated estuaries were identified for this study. Three of the selected hatcheries (Soos, Crisp and Keta creeks) are located in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The Duwamish Estuary was categorized as a contaminated estuary. Thirty eight years of hatchery SAR data (1972–2008) were statistically compared for Chinook and coho grouped across years and year-by-year. A significantly lower SAR (45% lower) was calculated for Chinook from contaminated compared to uncontaminated estuaries across all years or year-by-year; these statistical differences in SAT were not found for coho in the same estuaries. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 36 January 2018 4.0 CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIONS Several ongoing programs and projects are planning actions in the Green-Duwamish watershed which may provide additional contaminant information relevant to Chinook salmon and/or may influence contaminant concentrations. Perhaps the two largest activities that will improve Duwamish waterway conditions are the LDW and EW sediment cleanups. The LDW cleanup plan will addresses 412 acres of contaminated sediment through a combination of active remediation and monitored natural attenuation. The EW cleanup plan is anticipated to be issued by EPA in the next year, which is expected to include remediation of a large portion of the EW. In addition to the LDW cleanup, King County and the City of Seattle’s Our Green/Duwamish Program and Ecology’s Pollutant Loading Assessment are developing tools and strategies to address water quality in the Green-Duwamish watershed. 4.1.1 The LDW Superfund Cleanup EPA’s Record of Decision contains the LDW cleanup plan (i.e. Selected Remedy) which includes the following actions (EPA 2014). •105 acres of dredging or partial dredging and capping; •24 acres of capping; •48 acres of enhanced natural remediation (placing clean sand to speed up the rate ofnatural recovery; and •235 acres of monitored natural attenuationFigure 12 illustrates the geographic areas where each type of activity will occur in the LDW. These actions in combination with EAA cleanups are predicted to reduce PCB contaminant concentrations by 90% or more in sediment, fish, and shellfish. The cleanup is estimated to require 7 years of construction to complete followed by 10 more years for monitored natural recovery. Currently, the LDW Group (City of Seattle, King County, Port of Seattle, and the Boeing Company) and EPA are conducting pre-design studies which include: •Collection of water, sediment, and biota data to establish baseline conditions priorto the sediment cleanup; •A survey of waterway users to understand how this may affect sediment transportand remediation technology selections (e.g., current and anticipated tug and bargeactivities in the LDW); •Documentation of piers and other structures that may affect remediation design;and •Collection of supplemental sediment and bank data to assist Ecology with sourcecontrol. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 37 January 2018 Figure 12. Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 2014) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 38 January 2018 Collection of new water, sediment, and biota data will provide more current contaminant data that could be used to update the information on Chinook salmon exposure levels provided in this report. The next step in the cleanup process will be remedial design sampling and engineering plans for the cleanup construction activities followed by the construction and long-term monitoring. 4.1.2 The EW Superfund Cleanup The FS for the EW is currently being completed. The FS develops a range of remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated sediments and provides relative rankings for each based on various Superfund cleanup criteria (e.g., long-term effectiveness, short-term impacts, and implementability). EPA will then develop a proposed plan for sediment cleanup and after a public comment period, EPA will then issue a Record of Decision outlining the selected remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in EW. The Proposed Plan is expected to be issued in 2018. 4.1.3 Our Green/Duwamish This project was initiated by King County and City of Seattle. The purpose is to develop a strategy to coordinate the many different efforts in the Green-Duwamish watershed with the objective of protecting and restoring its air, land, and waters (https://ourgreenduwamish.com/). An inventory of projects and programs (Phase I) was conducted in 2015. Workshops were held in 2016 and an initial Watershed Strategy was completed in 2017. The priority topics needing more work were identified as stormwater, open space, climate change, and air quality. Recommendations for actions for each of these topics were made, with the most attention focused on stormwater. Our Green/Duwamish will be developing a final strategy and implementation plan for additional stormwater control in the watershed. 4.1.4 Green-Duwamish Pollutant Loading Assessment Ecology and EPA are leading the Pollutant Loading Assessment (PLA) for the Green-Duwamish watershed which began in 2012 (Ecology Focus Sheet 2014; https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1410053.html ). This project is intended to provide information useful for addressing water quality issues in the watershed that will remain after the LDW Superfund Site cleanup. Clean Water Act violations and contaminated water upstream of the LDW are projected to persist after cleanup is completed. Therefore, EPA and Ecology are working with technical experts and stakeholders in the region to develop models that can: •Develop a modeling tool to assess pollutant loads from different sources (point anddiffused) •Better understand the relationship between water, sediment and fish tissue quality •Predict improvements in water, sediment and tissue quality expected to occur as aresult of management actions AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 39 January 2018 This effort will occur in phases over several years. As of early 2017, a modeling project plan has been completed (TetraTech 2016) and the watershed model is in development (TetraTech 2017). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green‐Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 40 January 2018 5.0 UNCERTAINTY This section discusses key types of uncertainty associated with the information presented in this document. Measurement uncertainty is associated with data/sample collection methods and analysis for any field or laboratory study conducted. Results of desktop statistical analyses and modeling studies (e.g., ecological risk assessments) also have an inherent quantifiable error. This document does not evaluate each study presented here for these data quality uncertainties. Instead, it evaluates the collective knowledge uncertainty in relation to this document’s objective: to assess whether there is evidence that Chinook salmon health is or is not adversely impacted from contamination in the Green‐Duwamish watershed. The primary sources of uncertainty discussed are data quantity (completeness of spatial coverage, number, and representativeness of samples) and Chinook salmon effects assessment methods (effect threshold development/selection and endpoints evaluated). 5.1 Data Quantity When considering sample density, the majority of information gathered to characterize contamination in the Green‐Duwamish watershed has been on sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate community health within the Duwamish Estuary. Sediment and benthic community health data are available at lower densities for the Green River subbasins. These contaminant data are helpful in describing exposure of juvenile Chinook salmon to contamination via their diet (benthic invertebrates), direct sediment contact, and incidental sediment ingestion. The benthic community assessments are also helpful in describing if there might be a reduction in benthic invertebrate food for Chinook salmon from contaminant impacts. Collection of water chemistry data has been very limited in scope and frequency throughout the watershed. The existing data provide some confidence that contaminant exposure to juvenile Chinook or other aquatic life is not a substantive chronic problem, but little certainty that acute or chronic exposures are not problematic under certain flow conditions and/or in some tributaries. Since 2000, 66 juvenile Chinook salmon composite tissue samples have been processed and analyzed for the studies reviewed in this report; however, all but 4 of these were sampled more than 10 years ago. With several Lower Duwamish remediation projects completed during this time, these older data may represent higher exposures than current conditions. Most of the available juvenile Chinook tissue chemistry data are from the Duwamish Estuary where chemical risk is likely highest. It is most efficient to remain focused on evaluation of Chinook salmon impacts from toxic contaminants in the Estuary before evaluating Chinook upstream. The overall higher spatial density of environmental data from the Duwamish Estuary likely represents the highest risk exposure scenario given this areas’ more industrialized land use history compared to any area of the Green River. However, there may be more localized, small scale, but relatively contaminated sediments in some areas of the Green watershed that AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 41 January 2018 have not been identified to date. This seems unlikely but possible given the limited sampling conducted in this relatively large watershed. 5.2 Chinook Effects Assessment Methods 5.2.1 Effect Thresholds Several studies reviewed here have compared contaminant concentrations to WA state standards (e.g., WQS, SMS). The WQS were developed to be protective of aquatic life while the marine sediment standards and freshwater and marine benthic cleanup standards were developed to protect benthic invertebrates. The WA state WQS and SMS were derived using effect thresholds for many different species. However, Washington State WQS (last issued in 2006) have not kept pace with EPA’s updates in criteria. For example, the freshwater copper WQS is still calculated based only on hardness whereas EPA has updated their freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life copper criteria to account for the influence of dissolved organic carbon concentrations (i.e., using the Biotic Ligand Model). It is unknown how well WQS protects Chinook salmon absent incorporation of modern toxicity information into the WQS. Because they protect benthic invertebrates, the sediment standards do not include any fish toxicity data. Therefore, studies summarized in this report comparing sediment chemistry to SMS reflect how contaminants may impact the health of benthic invertebrate populations, an important food source for juvenile Chinook. However, these data are not directly relevant for evaluating adverse impacts of contaminants on Chinook health. More meaningful are the Chinook tissue data and measures of chemical effect. However, many sources of uncertainty present themselves in the interpretation of these data. There are no existing Washington State (or federal) regulatory standards for tissue concentrations that are protective of fish (some exist for protection of human health or wildlife). Therefore, effect thresholds for fish tissue assessments require project-specific derivation and these efforts can result in very different threshold values for the same contaminant and species of interest. This is partially because of uncertainties in the many assumptions required to identify an effect threshold. For example, the LDW screening ecological risk assessment (Windward 2007) used the highest no-effect thresholds from published studies compared to the maximum measured chemical concentrations in juvenile salmon. The intent for the risk assessment thresholds was to estimate a value below which adverse effects to Chinook salmon would not occur. The final selected threshold for PCBs was 27,000 ug/Kg tissue wet weight based on mortality in spot fish. During the EW risk assessment screening, a lower effect threshold for PCBs was identified (1,400 µg/Kg) based on survival of pinfish4. Criteria leading to these threshold selections were defined based on several assumptions, such as that growth and mortality effects are protective but reproductive effects do not need consideration because juvenile salmon do not grow to reproductive age in the LDW or EW. Other examples of assumptions included: 4 The 1,400 µg/Kg no effect level was based on applying an uncertainty factor of 10 to an observed adverse effects level of 14,000 µg/Kg ww in pinfish (Hansen et al 1971). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 42 January 2018 •Only used tissue concentrations provided in study; none were estimated, •effects study data on any fish species can be considered, not just salmonids orChinook, •the highest qualifying no-effect concentration below the lowest qualifying effectconcentration should be used for endangered species assessment, •and effect and no-effect concentrations should be in wet weight, not lipidnormalized.The rationale for the appropriateness of these and other assumptions is provided in the LDW and EW ecological risk assessments (Windward 2007, 2012) and is not the subject of discussion here. In comparison, Meador et al. (2002) estimated a PCB Chinook salmon tissue effects threshold for sublethal effects using different assumptions that resulted in 2.4 µg/g lipid, equivalent to approximately 144 µg/Kg tissue wet weight (assuming 6% lipid). Criteria leading to this threshold selection were defined based on assumptions such as the 10th percentile concentration of biological effect studies is protective of individual Chinook salmon. Other example assumptions used by Meador et al. (2002) included: •that 75% of an injected Aroclor PCB dose or 50% of ingested food dose isadsorbed into body tissues (used to estimate tissue concentrations frominjection or food exposures if not reported), •only salmonid species effects studies should be used to calculate an effectsthreshold, •a PCB effect concentration should be lipid normalized before evaluation, •lipid content, to allow lipid-normalization, was estimated from the literature fordifferent Chinook salmon lifestages (adult, fry and juvenile), •and immune system/biochemical effects should be considered, but mortalityand growth effects excluded.Several other assumptions are described in Meador et al. (2002). These three different PCB effect thresholds (27,000 µg/Kg, 1,400 µg/Kg and 140 µg/Kg) were generated using different assumptions including different target endpoints (growth and survival versus biochemical changes). Biochemical endpoints are more sensitive and provide additional protection than other endpoints, but their link to individual health and survival is more tenuous than growth, reproduction, and survival endpoints. In this comparison, the no-effect thresholds (27,000 and 1,400 µg PCBs/Kg) are much higher than the effect threshold (144 µg PCBs/Kg); the largest difference is two orders of magnitude. This comparison highlights one reason tissue effect thresholds are highly uncertain and can result in different conclusions regarding the potential risk of effects. The quantity of available exposure and effect studies for salmonids is much lower than for other fish species. Often, available salmon studies are limited to rainbow trout, a species AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 43 January 2018 bred captively for mass production and questionable in its representation of wild salmon. For example, six dietary exposure studies were identified for the LDW ecological risk assessment of arsenic in fish (Windward 2007). All but one of these tested rainbow trout and the remaining species was striped bass, a non-salmonid. Very few effect thresholds have been developed for the numerous CECs that are documented to adversely impact fish. Therefore, although these chemicals have been detected in Puget Sound and its urban estuaries, there is currently no established method for interpreting measured concentrations. 5.2.2 Exposure Pathways Chinook salmon can be exposed to contaminants through respiration (uptake through gills), dietary ingestion of prey, and incidental ingestion of sediment. Exposure through gill uptake can be significant for contaminants like many metals; thus, gill tissue concentrations can provide valuable information. The most uncertain estimation is for direct exposure to sediments through ingestion. However, this pathway is usually a small contribution to total exposure. The dietary pathway for fish is often of significant magnitude for certain chemicals, but it is difficult to accurately quantify exposure from this pathway. Some studies measure chemical concentrations in dietary components (e.g., stomach contents, invertebrate prey) which can have high natural variability due to individual preferences and food availability. Even with this information, there is uncertainty in the chemical uptake rate from food into fish tissue that is challenging to characterize. Dietary exposure assessment may be more valid than salmon tissue assessments if the contaminant(s) present are metabolizable by fish, such as with PAHs. Using tissue chemistry data to estimate exposure has the advantage of integrating accumulation from all exposure pathways. Thus, it is found useful when assessing bioaccumulative chemicals. 5.2.3 Multiple Contaminant Effects It is rare for only one chemical contaminant to be elevated in natural surface waters, especially in urban environments like the Duwamish Estuary. The effects of exposure to contaminant mixtures on fish are poorly understood and can only be assessed for a limited number of related chemicals (e.g., dioxins). Chemicals can have additive, antagonistic or agonistic effects but the net effect of multiple contaminants on fish are unknown. For this reason, biomarkers or evidence of adverse health in fish are sometimes used to evaluate contaminant effects. Perhaps the largest challenges in using biomarkers are determining which environmental contaminant causes the measured effects and if the observed effects impact the health and long-term survival of the fish. Lastly, the combined effect of chemical exposures and other stressors, such as higher temperatures and low dissolved oxygen, on fish is also difficult to assess. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 44 January 2018 6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Observations of potential impacts of contaminants to juvenile Chinook salmon: • Chinook smolt-to-adult (SAR) return rates have been found to be significantly lower in contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, relative to uncontaminated estuaries. Tissue chemistry/biomarkers • LDW and EW risk assessments did not identify risk of impaired growth or survival for juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the LDW risk assessment noted reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile Chinook migrating through the LDW. • Subsequent studies using more conservative assumptions concluded PCBs may be causing health impacts. • The risks of impacts to Chinook salmon from CECs are unknown although these chemicals have been detected in the Lower Duwamish Estuary. • Relatively little juvenile Chinook tissue chemistry data have been collected or evaluated in the Duwamish Estuary in the last 10 years, and even less data are available for the Green River. Available tissue chemistry data indicate juvenile Chinook salmon are bioaccumulating contaminants while in the Duwamish Estuary. Tissue assessments suggest that PCB exposure may be causing sublethal adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon. Sediment • In the most contaminated areas of the LDW and EW, contaminated sediments are potentially impacting benthic invertebrates which could reduce the quantity or quality of food for juvenile salmon. • Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals and phthalates. • In the Duwamish Estuary, PCBs are the most widespread sediment contaminant. Sediment contaminants in the Green River need more characterization. Based on existing data, sediment contamination is highest in Mill (in Kent) and Springbrook Creek and may be a concern to benthic invertebrates. Mill Creek (in Auburn) is less contaminated and Jenkins, Newaukum, Covington or Big Soos creeks are of little concern. Arsenic and BEHP concentrations most frequently exceeded the no-effects benthic sediment cleanup level (SCO) in Green River tributaries. • Superfund cleanup of contaminated sediments will be an important step in reducing the exposure of aquatic life including Chinook salmon to contaminants, particularly PCBs. Sediment recontamination will remain a risk from dredging activities during cleanup of the LDW and EW. Water chemistry • Several water quality assessments have not identified any chemicals that are presenting notable risk to aquatic life. Of the chemicals investigated, mercury in water may be a chronic exposure risk for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Green River. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 45 January 2018 A qualitative summary of information on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook salmon reviewed in this report is presented in Table 5. The summary considers whether the completed assessments using each data type are directly reflective of risk to Chinook salmon, the level of risk posed to Chinook by the contamination, and how much knowledge uncertainty is associated with the information. Considering the low sample density and spatial distribution of water samples across the whole Green-Duwamish watershed, uncertainty associated with water data is concluded to be high although risk based on existing data appears to be low (Table 5). The risk from sediment contamination in the LDW and EW to Chinook from direct ingestion has not been quantified but is likely low relative to other pathways. However, the knowledge uncertainty on this risk is high due to limited information available on sediment consumption during feeding activities. Sediments in the LDW and EW are well characterized, but the impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon are highly uncertain because direct exposure data are unavailable. The impacts of sediment contamination in some areas of LDW and EW on benthic invertebrates is high 5 (adverse impacts) to moderate (minimal impacts) potentially reducing Chinook salmon food quality or quantity. The knowledge uncertainty regarding how these benthic impacts affect Chinook salmon is high. Chinook tissue and biomarker data are the most directly relevant to Chinook salmon. Tissue chemistry assessments using these data in the LDW and EW RIs concluded low contaminant risks while the most recent assessment by WDFW indicates PCBs may be adversely affecting juvenile Chinook. Due to low sample density and effects assessment methods, knowledge uncertainty is high. Only water and sediment chemistry data were identified as available from the Lower and Middle Green River subbasins (Table 5). Aquatic life assessments suggest overall chemical exposure to Chinook salmon is low. The risk from sediment contamination in the Lower and Middle Green River to Chinook salmon from direct ingestion has not been quantified, but is likely low relative to other pathways. The knowledge uncertainty on this risk is high due to limited information available on sediment consumption during feeding activities. Similarly in the Upper Green, only water chemistry data are available and the overall chemical exposure appears low. The knowledge uncertainty associated with these data is high due to low sample density and lack of updated Chinook-specific thresholds in the WQS. Summary of Information available on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook. Duwamish Estuary Chinook specific assessment? Risk Level Uncertainty Notes Water No – Aquatic Life Low High Low data volume; not evaluated with updated Chinook- specific thresholds. 5 Risk definitions used here are not equivalent to regulatory definitions used in Superfund process. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 46 January 2018 Duwamish Estuary Chinook specific assessment? Risk Level Uncertainty Notes Sediments – Direct Exposure None completed Low High Lack of exposure data; unknown and indirect effect on Chinook. Sediments and Benthic Invertebrates No – Indirect exposure via prey High (for 4% of LDW);Moderate (for 18% of LDW); Low in other areas High Large volume, indirect and unquantified effect on Chinook; multiple lines of evidence. Tissue/Food/Biomarkers Yes Moderate (PCBs) High Small data volume and highly uncertain effect thresholds. SAR (return rates) Yes High High Contaminants as cause for low SAR unconfirmed. Need further analysis and other lines of evidence. Low to Mid-Green Water No – aquatic life Low Moderate Small data volume; Black River levels highest for PCBs and PAHs. Sediments – Direct Effect No Low High Lack of exposure data; unknown and indirect effect on Chinook. Sediments and benthic invertebrates No – Indirect effect on prey Low in mainstem and most tributaries; moderate in Springbrook and Mill (Kent) creeks. High in mainstem; Moderate in tributaries. Indirect and unquantified effect on Chinook; Low sample density in mainstem; >10 per creek. Upper Green Water No – aquatic life Low High Small data volume; not evaluated with Chinook-specific thresholds. Relatively recent tissue chemistry data, biomarkers, and smolt-adult-return rate analysis provide multiple lines of evidence, although from only a handful of studies, that juvenile Chinook may experience adverse effects from contaminants in the Green-Duwamish watershed. However, substantial basic knowledge uncertainties are associated with these studies. Recent Chinook tissue assessments are based on only one published Chinook-specific effects threshold for PCBs, one for PAHs and one for PBDEs. Additional studies are needed to bound the uncertainty in relating tissue thresholds and effects in juvenile Chinook. The biomarkers measured by Johnson et al. (2008) and (Arkoosh et al. 2001) need to be connected to Chinook survival and repeated in additional studies. Additional work is needed to demonstrate that lower SARs for Chinook in contaminated estuaries like the AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 47 January 2018 Lower Duwamish result partly or wholly from contaminants and not lack of refugia, food, slower growth or other factors. Considering all of the information reviewed in this report, findings relevant to chemical contaminants and Chinook are: • The Chinook salmon smolt-to-adult return rates have been found to be significantly lower in contaminated estuaries (including the Duwamish Estuary), relative to uncontaminated ones. • Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon are more contaminated than those in other Puget Sound waterbodies; • Duwamish Estuary juvenile Chinook salmon may experience adverse effects from contaminants; reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile salmonids migrating through the LDW. Better effects data are needed to evaluate effects from PCBs and additional contaminants. No information on potential impacts of CECs on salmon are available for WRIA 9 although limited data show some are present in the Duwamish Estuary. • Biomarkers, demonstrating contaminant exposure, have been observed in LDW Chinook salmon. • Benthic invertebrates in some areas of the Duwamish River experience adverse effects from contamination. Therefore, it is possible this could reduce food availability for juvenile Chinook salmon and/or shift diet composition. • Generally, water and sediment contaminant concentrations increase with distance downstream making the Upper Green the least contaminated and Duwamish Estuary the most contaminated; • In general, tributaries with evidence of highest sediment contamination are the most urbanized (Springbrook and Mill [in Kent] creeks). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 48 January 2018 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Although there are several substantial knowledge uncertainties related to contamination in the Green-Duwamish watershed, the highest risk to Chinook salmon from chemical contaminants is most likely in the Duwamish Estuary. Focusing future Chinook salmon work on this part of the watershed will increase the likelihood of success in determining if contaminants are impacting Chinook survival. However, contamination in the Lower Green River, while less severe than the Duwamish River, may also impact Chinook survival. Therefore, supplementing Duwamish Estuary sampling with some in the Lower Green River is recommended to provide context on relative spatial contributions and inform if management of chemical contamination upstream of the LDW will be necessary. While tracking the LDW cleanup schedule, it is recommended that further direct work on Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon be supported by the WRIA 9 group. Work completed before cleanup begins on the LDW and EW will provide a foundation for comparison with future data to measure how juvenile Chinook health and contaminant impacts change over time. This work will be most efficiently directed at Chinook diet and tissue chemistry, biomarkers and sublethal effect measurement and improvement of Chinook-specific effect thresholds. Although any single type of exposure or effect measurement may have substantial uncertainties, collectively, multiple lines of evidence can more accurately characterize chemical impacts on Chinook salmon. Recommendations for Future Work: • Conduct studies that measure contaminants in juvenile Chinook tissues and stomach contents at different life stages or residence times; e.g., in rearing habitat for Chinook, in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation. • Focus new studies on contaminants known to be elevated in the Duwamish Estuary and for which substantial effects data are published for some salmonids (PCBs, PAHs) and opportunistically explore CECs, such as pharmaceuticals, in water and Chinook salmon to build a chemistry database. CEC analysis is costly, effects analysis tools are lacking, and substantial new data are necessary to begin risk evaluation for Chinook. Therefore, prioritizing known contaminants first will optimize resources. • Establish one or more new tissue effect thresholds for PCBs that are Chinook-specific. Effects thresholds are a tool that allow chemistry results to be placed into the context of toxicity. PCBs are the most widespread contaminant in the Duwamish Estuary. Outside of Superfund risk assessments, there is only one published PCB effect threshold that has been developed to assess Chinook in this region. Given the highly variable assumptions made in defining an effects threshold, developing one (or more) new PCB thresholds would provide a more stable foundation for evaluating how PCBs are affecting Chinook survival. • Support studies that examine other effects evidence (e.g., juvenile Chinook bioassays with Duwamish sediments, biomarkers) by providing in-kind or financial assistance. In addition to the types of evidence recently collected for Chinook AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 49 January 2018 salmon (tissue and stomach content chemistry concentrations), work on other lines of evidence that can demonstrate occurrence of contaminant effects. For example, encourage National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or WDFW to conduct laboratory exposure of salmon for PCB, PBDE, PAH effect endpoints using Duwamish sediments. • Tease out cause(s) of lower SAR by collecting juvenile salmon when they leave the Duwamish Estuary and measure body mass, nutrition and stomach contents and compare to release mass of Chinook salmon from hatcheries. This would test if food quality (e.g., benthic invertebrates) between hatchery and Duwamish Estuary mouth may be reducing juvenile health and decreasing SAR. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 50 January 2018 8.0 REFERENCES AECOM. 2012. Final Feasibility Study for the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA. Prepared by AECOM for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. http://ldwg.org/rifs_docs9.htm#final2012 AECOM. 2016. Removal Action Construction Report. Phase 1: Sediment and Upland Cleanup. Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, Terminal 117 Early Action Area. Prepared by AECOM Environment for Port of Seattle. Amec Foster Wheeler. 2014. Habitat Project Construction Completion Report. Submitted by Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. to The Boeing Company. Seattle, Washington. Amec Foster Wheeler, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand; and Floyd Snider. 2016. Corrective Measure Implementation Report: Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank. Corrective Measure. Boeing Plant 2. Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Submitted by Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., Dalton, Olmsted, & Fuglevand Inc., and Floyd/Snider, Inc. to The Boeing Company. Seattle, Washington. Anchor QEA and Windward. 2016. Feasibility Study. East Waterway Operable Unit Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Draft Final. October 2016. Arkoosh, M.R., D. Boylen, J. Dietrich, B.F. Anulacion, G. Ylitalo, C.F. Bravo, L.L. Johnson, F.J. Loge, and T.K. Collier. 2010. Disease susceptibility of salmon exposed to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Aquat. Toxicol. 98(1): 51-59. Arkoosh, M., E. Clemons, P. Huffman, A. Kagley, E. Casillas, N. Adams, H.R. Sanborn, T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein, 2001. Increased susceptibility of juvenile chinook salmon to vibriosis after exposure to chlorinated and aromatic compounds found in contaminated urban estuaries J. Aquat. Anim. Health 13(3): 257-268. Arkoosh, M., J. Dietrich, G.M. Ylitalo, L.J. Johnson, and S.M. O'Neill. 2013. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and Chinook salmon health. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Newport, Oregon. 49 pp. plus Appendices. Conn, K.E., B.W. Black, A.M. Vanderpool-Kimura, J.R. Foreman, N.T. Peterson, C.A. Senter, and S.K. Sissel, 2015. Chemical concentrations and instantaneous loads, Green River to the Lower Duwamish Waterway near Seattle, Washington, 2013–15: U.S. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 51 January 2018 Geological Survey Data Series 973, 46 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds973. Cordell, J., L.A. Tear, C.M. Simenstad, W.G. Hood. 1996. Duwamish River Coastal American Restoration and Reference Sites: Results from 1995 Monitoring Studies. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Cordell, J., L.A. Tear, C.M. Simenstad, S.M. Wenger, and W.G. Hood. 1994. Duwamish River Coastal American Restoration and Reference Sites: Results and Recommendations from Year 1 Pilot and Monitoring Studies. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Cordell, J., J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and A. Gray. 2006. Fish assemblages and patterns of Chinook salmon abundance, diet and growth at restored sites in the Duwamish River. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Technical Committee and WRIA 9 Steering Committee. David, A.T., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, C.S. Willings, A. Gray, and H. Berge. 2015. Wetland loss, juvenile salmon foraging performance and density dependence in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. Estuaries and Coasts, 39:767-780. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12237-015-0041-5 Du, B, J. K. Lofton, A. Peter, C.A. Gipe, J. James, N. McIntyre, J. Scholz, E. Baker, E.P. Kolodziej, 2017. Development of suspect and non-target screening methods for detection of organic contaminants in highway runoff and fish tissue with high-resolution time-of- flight mass spectrometry. Environ. Sci.: Processes and Impacts, 19:1185-1196. EBDRP. 2005. Norfolk CSO Sediment Remediation Project, Final Monitoring Report – Year 5. Panel Publication 38. Prepared by the King County Water and Land Resources Division for the King County Wastewater Division and the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program. EBDRP. 2015. Duwamish/Diagonal Sediment Remediation Project Final 2010 Monitoring Report. Panel Publication 43. Prepared by the King County Water and Land Resources Division for the King County Wastewater Division and the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program. Ecology. 2009. Urban Waters Initiative, 2007. Sediment Quality in Elliot Bay. Prepared by V. Partridge, S. Weakland, E. Long, K. Welch, M. Dutch, and M. Jones. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Ecology Publication 09-03-014. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 52 January 2018 Ecology. 2013. Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in salmon-bearing streams, 2009-2011 Trienniel Report. D. Sargeant, E. Newell, P. Anderson and A. Cook. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Agriculture. Olympia, WA. Ecology No. 13-03-002. Ecology. 2014. A Pollutant Loading Assessment (PLA) for the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. Publication 14-10-053. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1410053.pdf Ecology. 2015. PSEMP Sediment Database (last updated 2/5/2013, accessed 5/27/2015). Washington Department of Ecology, Marine Sediment Monitoring Program, Olympia, WA. Ecology and King County. 2011. Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound: Assessment of Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA and King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Ecology Publication No. 11-03-055. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1103055.pdf Eisler, R., and A. Belisle. 1996. Planar PCB Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Biological Report 31 of the Contaminant Hazard Reviews. National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. Engel, J., K. Higgins, and E. Ostergaard. 2017. Draft WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon. Chapter of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update. EPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. Office of Water and Office of Science Technology. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-822-R-02-047. EPA. 2003. Harbor Island Superfund Site, West Waterway Operable Unit, Seattle, WA: Record of Decision. EPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria listings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed May 2008. www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html EPA. 2014. Record of Decision: Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. http://ldwg.org/ (EPA website under construction) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 53 January 2018 Fore, L.S., K. Paulsen, and K. O'Laughlin. 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46: 109-123. Fresh, K.L., 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Johnson, L. 2000. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to protect estuarine fish. Prepared by Lyndal Johnson of Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/NMFS, Seattle, WA. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, J.L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F. Anulacion, and T.K. Collier, 2007. Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of the United States. Environ. Monit. Assess. 124(1-3): 167-194. Johnson, L.L., MR. Arkoosh, C.F. Bravo, T.K. Collier, M.M. Krahn, J.P. Meador, M.S. Myers, W.L. Reichert, J. Stein. 2008. Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fish from Puget Sound. Chapter 22 in The Toxicology of Fishes. DiGiulio, R., and D. Hinton (eds). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. USA pp. 877-923. Karr, J.R. 1998. Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape management. Pages 502-528. In Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby (editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer, New York, NY. Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC. King County. 2005. Screening Level Risk Assessment of the Green River Watershed. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. King County. 2013. PCB/PBDE Loading estimates for the Greater Lake Washington Watershed. Prepared by Curtis DeGasperi, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2014a. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control: Green River Watershed Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Carly Greyell, Debra Williston, and Deb Lester. Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 54 January 2018 King County. 2014b. Sediment Quality in the Green River Watershed. Prepared by Dean Wilson, Carly Greyell, and Debra Williston, King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. King County. 2017a. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on the Duwamish Estuary. Prepared by Chris Magan, Timothy Clark, Kate Macneale, Martin Grassley, Bob Bernhard, and Dean Wilson, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington King County. 2017b. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Prepared by Richard Jack and Martin Grassley, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. King County. 2015. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control: Upper and Middle Green River Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Carly Greyell, Richard Jack, and Debra Williston, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. Kleindl, W.J. 1995. A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Puget Sound Lowland Streams, Washington, USA. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. McIntyre J.K., J.W. Davis, K.H. Macneale, B.F. Anulacion, C. Hinman, N.L. Scholz, J.D. Stark. 2015. Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere 123:213-219 Open Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653514014805 McIntyre, J.K., R.C. Edmunds, M.G. Redig, E.M. Mudrock, J.W. Davis, J.P. Incardona, J.D. Stark, N.L. Scholz. 2016. Confirmation of stormwater bioretention treatment effectiveness using molecular indicators of cardiovascular toxicity in developing fish. Meador, J.P. 2014. Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71: 162–180. Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2002. Use of tissue and sediment-based threshold concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the US Endangered Species Act. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 12(5): 493-516. Meador, J.P., Sommers, F.C., Ylitalo, G.M., and Sloan, C.A. 2006. Altered growth and related physiological responses in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63(10): 2364-2376. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 55 January 2018 Miller-Schultze, J., A. Gipe, D. Overman, and J. Baker. 2014. Contaminants of emerging concern in Puget Sound: A comparison of spatial and temporal levels and occurrence. Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference Proceedings. http://cedar.wwu.edu/ssec/2014ssec/Day3/14/ Morley, S.A., and J.R. Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology. 16:1498-1509. Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft, and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal habitat in a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 35:774-784. Nelson, T., H. Berge, G. Ruggerone, and J. Cordell. 2013. DRAFT Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliott Bay nearshore. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle. O’Neill, S.M., A.J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West. 2015. Toxic contaminants in juvenile Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tsawytscha) migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Report FPT 16-02. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife in Olympia, and Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Parametrix and King County. 1999. King County CSO Water Quality Assessment for the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. Appendix B4 Methods and Results of Aquatic Life Risk Assessment. Pers. Comm. Anderson. 2017. Email communication between Brian Anderson of The Boeing Company and Jenée Colton of King County on May 5, 2017. Pers. Comm. Chu. 2017. Phone conversation between Rebecca Chu of EPA Region 10 and Jenée Colton of King County on April 28, 2017. Pers. Comm. Florer. 2017. Email conversation between Joanna Florer of Port of Seattle and Jenée Colton of King County on June 27, 2017. Pers. Comm. Schuchardt. 2017. Email communication between Dave Schuchardt of City of Seattle and Jenée Colton of King County on June 27, 2017. Pers. Comm. Williston. 2017. Email communication between Debra Williston and Jenée Colton of King County on December 4, 2017. Ruggerone, G.T., and D.E. Weitkamp, 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc and Parametrix, Inc. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, Seattle Washington. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 56 January 2018 Scholz, N.L., M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, J.S. Labenia, J.K. McIntyre, et al. 2011. Recurrent Die-Offs of Adult Coho Salmon Returning to Spawn in Puget Sound Lowland Urban Streams. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28013. Seattle. 2015. Slip 4 Early Action Area (EAA): Long Term Monitoring Data Report: Year 3 (2015). Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by City of Seattle, Seattle, WA. Spromberg, J., D. Baldwin, J. McIntyre, S. Damm, B. Anulacion, J. Davis, and N. Scholz. 2015. Coho salmon spawner mortality in western U.S. urban watersheds: Bioinfiltration prevents lethal stormwater impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12534 Open Access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12534/epdf Stalling, D. and F.L. Mayer. 1972. Toxicities of PCBs to fish and environmental residues. Env. Health Persp. 1:159-164. Tetra Tech. 2016. Modeling Quality Assurance Project Plan for Green/Duwamish Pollutant Loading Assessment. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. Contract EP-C-12-055. Tetra Tech. 2017. Revised Draft LSPC Model Development and Hydrology Calibration for the Green/Duwamish River Pollutant Loading Assessment. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. https://www.ezview.wa.gov/Portals/_1962/Documents/DGPLA/DuwamishModelDocumentation020117Hydro.pdf Windward. 2007. Phase 2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Appendix A of Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and WA Department of Ecology for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. Windward. 2009. East Waterway Operable Unit Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Final Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 for the East Waterway Group. Windward. 2010. Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental AGENDA ITEM #6. e) An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section 57 January 2018 Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. Windward. 2012. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Appendix A of East Waterway Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 for the East Waterway Group. Windward and Anchor QEA. 2014. East Waterway Operable Unit. Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC and Anchor QEA for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. Wood, C.M. 2012. An Introduction to Metals in Fish Physiology and Toxicology Basin Principles. Chapter 1 in Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals. C. Wood, A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner (eds). Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. pp. 1-51. Wood, C., A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner. 2012a. Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals. Volume 31A in the Fish Physiology Series. Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. 494 pp. Wood, C., A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner. 2012b. Homeostasis and Toxicology of Non-Essential Metals. Volume 31B in the Fish Physiology Series. Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. 504 pp. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE B-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 1 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) Purpose: This technical briefing synthesizes and evaluates available Chinook salmon habitat use and productivity literature that has become available since 2004, with an emphasis on WRIA 9 specific information. The information should pertain to possible updates the WRIA could make to amend programs, policies or project rankings as part of the Chinook salmon recovery effort that was documented in the 2005 Chinook salmon Habitat Plan. The paper is organized into two primary sections, issues that cross subwatersheds, or ‘watershed wide issues’ and then issues focused on individual subwatersheds. Following the description of major topic area is a subsection summarizing the primary technical recommendations and implications for recovery actions. Three other technical briefings will cover climate change, chemical contaminants in the watershed, and water temperature issues. In sum, these briefings will be considered an addendum to the 2005 WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report-Scientific Foundation for Salmon Habitat Conservation, and provide the scientific foundation for updating the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. Watershed Wide Issues Viable Salmonid Population Parameters and Green River Chinook In order for Puget Sound Chinook to be removed from the Endangered Species Act listing, two populations within the South Puget Sound geographic region (Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Duwamish/Green, and Lake Washington) will need to attain a low risk status of extinction. The watershed conditions for the remaining populations need to be improved compared to conditions at the time of listing. To be considered low risk of extinction, a population will need to meet the NOAA viability criteria for all Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). NOAA defines VSP as: Abundance is the number of individuals in the population at a given life stage or time; Productivity or population growth rate is the actual or expected ratio of abundance in the next generation to current abundance; Spatial structure refers to how the abundance at any life stage is distributed among available or potentially available habitats; and Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by individuals within a population. VSP-Abundance The number of natural origin Green River Chinook spawners is the primary life stage that is tracked for the abundance indicator. The overall trend in abundance has been steadily declining since before the first plan was adopted in 2005 (Figure 1 and Table 1). In 2009, the number of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) was the lowest ever recorded, with less than 200 fish. For five of the past seven years (2010- 2017), the number of NOS has been less than the lowest planning target range (1,000 NOS) for WRIA 9. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 2 Figure 1. Trends in natural origin Chinook spawners and all spawners (hatchery origin plus natural origin). (Data from NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database and WDFW Nathanael Overman) Table 1. Status of VSP metrics of the Green River Fall Chinook population from 2005 through 2015. (Data from NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database and WDFW Nathanael Overman. 2005-2008 numbers from WRIA 9 ITC 2012) VSP-Productivity The WRIA has tracked egg-to-migrant survival rates as a primary means of evaluating productivity (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Egg-to-migrant survival rate is defined as the proportion of fertilized eggs that become juvenile migrants (fry or parr) into the Lower Green, as quantified by the WDFW smolt trap at river mile 34. Although, the average rate for wild Chinook populations is 10.4% (Quinn 2005), the WRIA has set a target of 8% because the Green River Chinook population has high rates of hatchery fish spawning with 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Number of SpawnersGreen River Chinook in River Spawning Total Spawners Natural origin spawners Linear (Total Spawners) Linear (Natural origin spawners) Population attribute Indicators of change Units Target 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Productivity Egg-to-Migrant Survival (RM 34-60) % of eggs deposited ~8%1.47 0.09 3.66 2.07 2.10%5.70%8.00%6.02%9.72%11.39%8.75% Abundance Natural origin spawners #1000-4200 1046 2535 2022 4227 182 909 640 1685 559 1069 864 Diversity Hatchery-origin recruits spawning in river % of total <30%60 60 53 35 74 60 40 47 74 63 79 Diversity Relative abundance of parr % parr TBD 70 31 37 39 39 90 49 53 28 20 3 Diversity Timing of peak outmigration fry 3/11- 3/16 3/30- 4/5 3/30- 4/5 3/29- 4/4 3/7- 3/13 2/20- 2/26 3/11- 3/17 3/3- 3/9 2/2- 2/8 Diversity Timing of peak outmigration parr 6/2- 6/8 6/15- 6/21 6/15- 6/21 6/7- 6/13 5/23- 5/29 6/4- 6/10 5/27- 6/2 5/26- 6/1 6/15- 6/21 Diversity Proportion 5 and 6 year old spawners % of NOR returns Increase 65%1%7%2%16%17%6% Spatial Structure Changes to spawning distribution No data From WRIA 9 ITC 2012 not evaluated From NOAA SPSD and WDFW (Nathanael Overman) not evaluated not evaluated AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 3 wild fish (see diversity metric below). Between 2005 and 2015 the survival rate has ranged from 0.09% to 11%, with an average of 5.4% (Table 1). While the average over the last 11 years is below the WRIA’s target, there has been an increase in the egg-to-migrant survival rate, with an average over the last 5 years (2011-2015) of 8.7%, compared to the previous 5 years (2006-2010) average of 2.9%. VSP-Spatial Structure The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator or metric for spatial structure. However, natural origin adults predominately spawn in Newaukum Creek and the mainstem Green River. Due to genetic goals at the Soos Creek Hatchery, most of the adults passed above the hatchery to spawn naturally in Soos Creek are of hatchery origin. Furthermore, adults are still not being passed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam. For the spatial structure of the population to improve, natural origin spawners will need to be spawning in both of these areas that were part of their historic range. VSP-Diversity The fourth VSP parameter, diversity, refers to variation within a population which covers a wide range of characteristics, one of which is life history type. For example, within WRIA 9, juvenile life history types have been classified according to how long they reside in different parts of the Green River, with special emphasis on the Middle Green as well as the Duwamish. There are three broad life history types: fry migrants, parr migrants, and yearlings (Figure 2 and Table 1), however fry migrants can be broken down into three categories, making a total of 5 life history types. 1. The first fry life history type is early or marine direct fry migrants. These fry leave the Middle Green shortly after hatching and move quickly from the estuary into Puget Sound. Based on fish use sampling (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Nelson et al. 2012 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013, ICF International 2010) this life history type does not occur in large numbers, but appears to be present. 2. The second fry life history type leaves the Middle Green from Jan through March and rears for weeks to months in the Duwamish until they reach smolt size. This life history type is considered common and generally is the most abundant juvenile life history type (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Nelson et al. 2012, Topping and Anderson 2014), but recent data from 2015 and 2016 showed very few of this life history type survived to adulthood in 2015 (Personnel Communication Lance Campbell, WDFW 2017. See the otolith section below for more information). 3. The third fry life history type, Lower Green parr, are fish that leave the Middle Green as fry, but rear in the Lower Green until they are parr size and ready to smolt. The evidence for the prevalence of this life history type is incomplete due to limited fish use sampling and the constant immigration of new fish from the Middle Green River. Recent sampling shows some amount of preferential use of select habitats within the Lower Green, indicating that at least some fish are likely rearing in the Lower Green until reaching parr size (McCarthy et al. 2017 and Gregersen 2017). However, the Lower Green generally lacks adequate off channel habitat that would allow large numbers of fry to rear long enough to reach parr size (R2 Resource Consultants 2014). 4. The fourth life history type is the Middle Green parr that rear in the Middle Green River as fry and migrate out of this area from late March through June. They are considered relatively common, and are generally the second most abundant life history type (Topping and Anderson 2014, Anderson and Topping 2017). 5. The fifth life history type are yearlings, which are juveniles that spend an entire year in freshwater before immigrating out of the Green River. It is not clear where in the broader Green River they overwinter. The majority of yearlings captured in the past are from hatchery releases AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 4 of yearling fish that were purposefully held for a year in an attempt to residualize the fish to create year round fishing opportunities in Puget Sound. These fish are commonly referred to as being part of the ‘blackmouth’ fishery. The wild yearling life history type has been found in small numbers at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) smolt trap (Topping and Anderson 2014) and in the limited floodplain accessible habitats of the Lower Green (Lucchetti et al. 2014). Figure 2. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). WRIA 9 has used three metrics to measure diversity. 1. The first metric is the percentage of hatchery origin spawners spawning in the wild with natural origin Chinook. The target is for there to be less than 30% hatchery origin Chinook spawners. This has not been met in the last 10 years, during which time the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds has ranged from 35% to 75% (Figure 3 and Table 1). 2. The second metric is the percentage of juvenile Chinook that outmigrate as parr. Based on recent analyses by Anderson and Topping 2017 (described in more detail below in Middle Green subwatershed section), this indicator should no longer be used because the observed percentage relies heavily on basic habitat capacity, the number of natural origin spawners, and AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 5 the flow experienced during rearing. Tracking the percent of parr does not provide a reliable metric to compare trends given the number of factors that affect it. 3. The final metric is the proportion of natural origin adults that return as five and six-year old fish, with a simple target of an increasing percentage of older fish returning over time. In the last seven years there have been no six-year old fish, thus all the data discussed summarizes only five-year old Chinook. Excluding 2009, which was an outlier year with the lowest return of adults on record, the proportion of five-year olds has ranged from a high of 17% to a low of 1% (Table 1). The average percent return for the last 10 years, 14.4%, is similar to the average over the last 46 years of 15.4%. Figure 3. Percent of hatchery Chinook in the Green River spawning grounds compared to natural origin Chinook (from the 2014 WRIA 9 Implementation Progress Report 2005-2014) Technical Recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions:  The overall trend in wild Chinook salmon population abundance is still declining. The returns of wild fish to the Green River in 2009 were the lowest recorded in the last 30 years, with less than 200 wild fish spawning in the river (Figure 1). As noted above, a primary way to increase adult abundance is to create or get access to more rearing habitat. Improving and increasing rearing habitat in the Middle and Lower Green and providing access to the upper watershed are primary ways of achieving this goal.  Productivity has improved in the last five years (2011-2015), compared to the previous 5 years when the WRIA last evaluated the egg-to-migrant survival rate. It is unclear why the rate has improved. Based on findings described in the diversity section above, the WRIA should likely AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 6 focus on evaluating the number of parr leaving the Middle Green versus the proportion of parr to fry as a better indicator of long term habitat capacity and productivity because the number of fry leaving the Middle Green is highly variable, which makes using the metric of the percentage of parr useless.  Spatial structure is not being tracked. There is a suggestion in the Strategic Assessment that the WRIA create a method to track to what extent spawning habitat patches are utilized every year. The ITC also recommends creating a metric to evaluate Chinook parr distribution, possibly through minnow trapping as has been done in some Alaska watersheds (Bryant 2000). The WRIA should develop spatial structure metrics that can be cost efficiently tracked.  Spatial Structure is still greatly limited compared to historic conditions. The lack of fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) greatly impacts the WRIA’s ability to meet this goal. The upstream fish passage facility is complete. However, the downstream fish passage facility at HHD (Project # UG-4) has not been built and it is unclear when it will be. Given the large quantity and high quality of spawning and rearing habitat above the dam in combination with the highly constrained built-out condition of the lower two thirds of the watershed, the lack of access to the habitat upstream of HHD is negatively affecting all VSP parameters. Providing fish passage at the dam is a critical need and this project should continue to be a high priority for the WRIA.  Diversity metrics show there are still very high numbers of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. Since plan adoption, the percent of hatchery spawners has not fallen within the target range set by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) for an integrated stock like the Green River. This points to a need for the ‘H’ integration process to be restarted and reinvigorated with the co-managers so that solutions for issues like the number of hatchery adults spawning with wild fish can be implemented. Fish Passage  The majority of known barriers are found higher up in most stream systems, limiting habitat access to primarily coho salmon and steelhead. A comprehensive fish passage barrier assessment has never been done within WRIA 9 and the list of known barriers comes from assessments of small geographic areas that underwent an assessment for one reason or another over many years. Given the built out nature of the lower two thirds of the watershed, there are many stream crossings that have never been assessed for passage. Furthermore, the ability of fish to pass a structure changes over time as stream conditions change. WDFW suggests that partial barriers and passable stream crossing be evaluated roughly every ten years (Price et al. 2010). With the recent establishment of the statewide Fish Barrier Removal Board, there has been renewed effort at the state level to fund and address known fish passage barriers. While there are many known barriers within WRIA 9, there are two barriers that are of higher importance than most others: o Howard Hanson Dam (HHD): In 2005 it was expected fish passage at the dam would be provided within five years. While the upstream passage facility was built, the downstream fish passage structure has not been built yet. There are differing estimates as to how much salmon habitat would be accessible above the dam. The range of fish habitat that would be opened up is from 78 miles to 165 miles (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1998 and WRIA 9 Salmon Plan 2005). The lack of downstream passage has had a huge impact on the trajectory of recovery for the population. The large amount of generally higher quality habitat above the dam that is still inaccessible, which affects all VSP parameters (WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment 2005). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 7 o Black River pump station: New technical documents produced in 2015 as part of the Black River Needs Assessment and Capital Improvement Planning indicate that the pump station has a variety of fish passage issues related to how the facility is structured and managed. The description implies that velocities through parts of the structure would limit upstream passage of smaller juvenile salmonids. Passage equipment is run only during certain times of the year, greatly limiting both upstream and downstream passage. Some of the pump intakes lack fish exclusion screens to keep fish out of the intakes for the pumps; these unscreened pumps are each run an average of hours a year. The pump station is located near the mouth of the Black River, which limits access to over 50 miles of stream, including Springbrook Creek, Panther Lake Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek (Kent) (Figure 4). Habitat assessments done in the 1990s indicate that much of the physical habitat is not in ideal condition and there are a large variety of water quality problems (Harza 1995). While Chinook have been found in the system (Harza 1995 and Personal Communication Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011) the stream habitat is more typical for coho and steelhead. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  Implementation of the existing Salmon Plan Project UG-4 (Upper Green project #4), which would provide downstream fish passage at HHD, remains a critical gap to all VSP parameters - especial spatial structure.  Work with King County to prioritize improvements in both the fish passage infrastructure as well as standard operating procedures at the Black River pump station.  Invest in a fish passage program that would provide an ongoing comprehensive assessment of potential barriers, with an emphasis on areas within the typical range of Chinook salmon.  Map and prioritize fish passage barriers in WRIA 9 according to the amount and quality of habitat upstream. Given issues described in the water quality temperature technical memo, an emphasis on cold water refugia and rearing habitat should also be considered in any passage program (Kubo 2017). Spawning  Chinook have been seen spawning in tributaries they were not previously documented in and we have more detailed data for where they spawn within Soos Creek (Figure 5). a. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) surveys in Soos Creek during the last five years have documented the primary spawning areas more definitively than past efforts. The vast majority of the spawning in the Soos Creek Watershed is occurring on the mainstem of Soos Creek from the mouth of Jenkins Creek downstream to the hatchery. b. Since plan adoption in 2005, Chinook have been seen spawning in: Bingamon Creek, tributary to Mullen Slough within the Agricultural Production District in 2010 (Personal Communication Don Finney King County, 2010), and by the ACOE in of Springbrook Creek in 2011 (Personal Communication Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011), Watercress Creek, a tributary to Newaukum Creek by KCDOT in 2007 (Personal Communication Stephen Conroy, King County, 2017), and Big Spring Creek in 2016 (Personal Communication Josh Latterell, King County, 2017). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 8 Figure 4. Map of the subwatershed that feeds into the historic Black River. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 9 Figure 5. Locations of previously undocumented Chinook spawning areas. Adapted from the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment 2000. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 10  In the 2005 plan, a landslide located in the Middle Green near river mile 45.5 was singled out as a concern because of potential sedimentation of redds. However, a subsequent assessment indicated that there was no ongoing sedimentation impact from this slide (Booth 2012).  The gravel supplementation program (Plan Program M-1) has been implemented for over ten years to supplement spawning gravel in the Middle Green to counteract the impacts of the HHD which had starved the Middle Green of spawning gravels. Concerns had been expressed about the high number of redds occurring in the immediate area supplemented with gravel and because of the potential for redds to be undermined by the mobility of recently placed substrate. In response to those concerns, the ACOE has modified how it places gravel and reduced the size uniformity of the gravel to make it less mobile so that the gravel more slowly gets incorporated into the river (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017).  Since plan adoption, different methods to estimate spawner abundance have been used and explored by the co-managers. There are large differences in the escapement estimates created by redd counting versus genetic mark-recapture. More work is needed to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods. This is predominately an issue to be worked between the Co-managers, but it affects the WRIA in because of how much the population abundance monitoring and tracking rely on the Co-managers’ data.  The MIT tagged and tracked adults shortly after entering the estuary in 2015, 2016, and, 2017, with tags that included temperature gauges. They undertook this study due to gain a greater understanding about the possible impacts of high water temperatures on adult Chinook migrating through the lower river. Temperature gauges on and in the fish provide a more accurate understanding about the conditions the fish experience while holding and migrating through the river and can provide insight into if fish are finding and utilizing any cold water refugia. Although the results of this research will not be available for this addendum to the Strategic Assessment (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017), the results should be tracked to see if different actions might be called for before the next 10 year update.  Anderson and Topping’s (2017) verified that spawning habitat in the Middle Green River is not currently limiting the productivity of the Chinook salmon population; rather the lack of juvenile rearing habitat is the primary limiting factor. No matter the number of spawners, a similar number of parr are leaving the Middle Green each year. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  Management Strategy 1 (also known as Policy MS-1) guides differentially allocating funding to specific subbasins based on limiting factors and habitat needs, page 5-16 of the Salmon Plan. This policy should be reviewed for relevancy given all the information we now have. It is often difficult to determine how much an individual project improves spawning versus rearing habitat when restoring riverine processes. At a minimum, the stipulation related to spending one third of funding resources on spawning habitat restoration should be evaluated since spawning habitat does not appear to be limiting the population at this time.  Devote resources to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of counting spawner returns, and encourage use of the most accurate methods.  Continue to track the ACOE’s gravel supplementation effectiveness monitoring and the MIT’s adult archival tagging monitoring effort. Consider incorporating findings into a plan update prior to the next 10 year update if findings warrant it. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 11 Floodplain Habitats  The Salmon Plan does not generally describe the floodplain’s value to salmonid rearing as much as it notes the large acreage loss of connected floodplain area and the conversion of land cover from forested floodplains to some form of developed land cover (industrial, residential and agricultural). The most intensive changes in land use and development patterns occurred along the banks of and within the floodplain of the Lower Green subwatershed (Strategic Assessment 2006).  Since plan adoption, there have been many papers out of the Sacramento River area (Summers et al. 2001a and 2001b, 2004, 2005, Jeffres 2007, Feyrer et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2007, Henry et al. 2010, and Katz et al. 2013), Columbia River system (Lestelle et al. 2005) and the Chehalis River (Henning 2004) showing that Chinook growth was greater for fish with access to the floodplain versus those rearing in mainstem habitats only. It is theorized that the increased growth rate is due to that they have access to a greater amount of food resources in the floodplain than in the main channel and that the risk of stranding is offset by the potential for increased growth rates. These papers describe how important floodplain habitats are to juvenile Chinook growth in general and aid in understanding how the magnitude of habitat loss in the Lower Green and to a lesser extent in the Middle Green have impacted juvenile Chinook production locally.  The habitat area within the bank full width of mainstem channel in the Lower Green is approximately 282 acres (unpublished King County GIS data 2017). Historically, the Lower Green River had approximately 19,642 acres of connected floodplain (Collins and Sheikh 2004) and currently has only 3,518 acres of partially connected floodplain. The estimate of the current amount of connected floodplain was created by the WRIA 9 ITC in 2014 for the Lower Green SWIF based on analyses of existing FEMA 100 year floodplain data that excluded the majority of the right bank area within the City of Kent due to this area not really being connected in a meaningful way for fish and the City’s efforts to bring all its levees in this area up to 100 year flood protection. This amounts to a complete loss of 82% of floodplain area. The remaining 18% of floodplain has very limited connectivity due a variety of factors (e.g. the White and Black Rivers being diverted, HHD).  The timing of late winter and early spring flooding historically aligned with providing the early migrating fry life history type with substantial slow, shallow water habitat in the floodplain (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Due to the loss of floodplain noted above (due to levees, HHD water management, etc.) fry are now more much more restricted in extent of potential rearing habitat, especially in the Lower Green. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  The new information on the importance of floodplain habitats to juvenile Chinook growth should be considered when prioritizing recovery actions. Survival/Otolith Data: Otoliths are ear bones in fish that look like a cross section of a tree, showing rings for each day of growth. The bones are made up of the minerals that were available to the fish in its specific environment. There are different levels of minerals, like strontium, in the marine and estuarine environments that create a mark on the ear bone that allows one to determine how old juvenile AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 12 salmon were when they left freshwater and began rearing in estuarine/marine waters. This also allows one to estimate what size they were when they entered salty water as well as look for patterns around which juvenile life history types are surviving to adulthood. This data will not allow us to compare the survival rate of all five life history types noted above. The format of the data lumps the five types into three groupings of juveniles: yearlings, Middle/Lower Green Parr and direct/estuarine fry.  Ruggerone and Volk (2004) looked at juvenile Chinook in the Duwamish toward the end of the outmigration period. The results showed low surival of estuary reared Chinook, but these results should be treated carefully as they evaluaterd a very small portion of a single migratory period.  Campbell and Claiborne (2017) indicated that the Duwamish estuarine rearing fry life history type’s contribution to the adult return in 2015 was extremely low (<1%), based on a subsample of adult otoliths analyzed as part of the larger Puget Sound Marine Survival project. Juveniles that were smaller than 60mm in size when they began to rear in salt water were almost nonexistent in the adult returning Chinook. Whereas the Skagit and Nooksack’s fry contribution was 36% and 24%, respectively. This indicates other watersheds estuarine rearing fry types are surviving to adulthood at much higher numbers than Green River’s. WRIA 9 provided WDFW funding to collect adult otoliths from the 2016 and 2017 spawning seasons. Draft data for the 2016 adults found very similar results with less than 3% of the returning adults originating as estuarine rearing fry (Personal Communication Lance Campbell). Based on smolt trap data, an average of 60% of all juveniles migrate past the trap as fry. Some of these fry likely rear in the Lower Green and become the Lower Green parr life history type, but based on other data (Ruggerone et al. 2006, and Nelson et al. 2012) it is known that many of the fry rear in the Duwamish (Figure 6). If we apply the recent otolith findings to the previous research looking at size, abundance, and timing of fry using the estuary (Nelson et al. 2012, and Ruggerone et al. 2006) we see that fry in the Duwamish prior to early April did not survive to adulthood and many fry from early April to mid-May also did not survive to adulthood. While still tentative with only two years of similar data, the loss of almost all the fry that reared in the Duwamish is severely limiting fry productivity, overall population productivity, and abundance, as well as reducing overall life history diversity.  If the outcomes of the 2017 data collection and analyses, are similar to 2015 and 2016, the ITC may need to reevaluate actions/recommendations made in specific subwatersheds, especially the Duwamish shortly after this plan update has occurred.  There has been no new information on habitat use by yearling Chinook in the Green River. They have been found in the past in the Lower Green River floodplain within channels of the two larger streams that are accessible (Auburn Mill Creek and Mullen Slough). Limited data on fish use by yearlings in the Snoqualmie River have shown them to use similar small stream channels that are located within the floodplain of the Snoqualmie River. Draft work by Lance Campbell showed that wild yearlings made up a small portion (~5%) of the returning adults in 2015 based on a subsample of otoliths analyzed as part of the larger Puget Sound Marine Survival project (Personal Communication with Lance Campbell, WDFW, 2017). Interestingly, this number appears to be much larger than the percentage of yearlings outmigrating that have been captured by WDFW’s smolt trap. There are several possible reasons for this. Fry and parr may migrate past the trap and choose to reside for a year in accessible habitats of the Lower Green, thus the trapping data would not record them as yearlings. It is known that the smolt trap has greater trapping efficiency with smaller fish than yearlings, thus there could be higher numbers of yearlings in the Middle Green, but they are able to avoid the trap when the outmigrate. And finally, it is possible the trap is accurately estimating the number of yearlings leaving the Middle Green. It is known that the larger fish are (like yearlings) when they outmigrate, the higher their AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 13 survival rate is to adulthood. This differential survival means that a very small number of juveniles of this life history type could make up a much larger proportion of adults. Figure 6. Shows juvenile Chinook timing from sampling that occurred in 2003, combined with highlighting to show survival to adulthood based on 2015 and 2016 otolith data. The red highlight shows timing and size of juveniles that would not survive to adulthood and the green highlight showing highest survival based on 2015 and 2016 data. Adapted from Nelson et al. 2012. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  See Duwamish subsection below for related recommendations.  Update strategies based on new findings after more years of otolith work are completed.  Conduct research to determine where yearling Chinook are currently rearing/overwintering, so that these areas can be identified for protection and restoration. Begin by looking in small stream channels along the mainstem Green River. 0 20 40 60 80 Jan 26 to Feb 22 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Feb 23 to Mar 15 0 10 20 30 40 Mar 15 to Apr 5 0 10 20 30 40 Apr 6 to Apr 26 0 10 20 30 40 Apr 27 to May 17 0 10 20 30 40 May 18 to Jun 7 0 10 20 30 40 Jun 8 to Jun 28 0 10 20 30 40 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Length (mm) Jun 28 to Jul 27Number of Salmon AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 14  Combined with the floodplain subsection above, it provides more context to the value of accessible floodplain habitats to provide habitat for fry, which do not appear to be surviving to adulthood in large numbers. Relevant Co-Manager Topics  As part of a recent update to the Hatchery Genetic Management Plan, the Co-managers changed hatchery practices and began a new program to create unclipped ‘highly integrated’ hatchery juveniles. These hatchery juveniles are managed separately from the primary Soos Creek hatchery fish and are reared and released farther upstream at the Pautzke ponds. Given that these hatchery fish are not externally marked, it will be difficult to tell them apart from naturally spawned fish. This is a concern because it will affect current monitoring protocols, and affect WRIA 9’s monitoring approaches, assumptions, and recovery goals around the number of natural origin adult returners as well as that more juvenile fish are being released and how that higher number of hatchery fish may impact juvenile productivity.  The Research Framework noted that the historic run timing of Chinook returning to the Soos Creek hatchery has been shifted three weeks earlier due to older (pre-1960s) hatchery practices. Given that the Green River system has been managed as an integrated stock and that there has been a higher proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds than recommended in the HSRG, it is assumed that the wild population’s timing was also shifted earlier. Bowerman et al. 2016 noted that spring and summer Chinook, which enter fresh water earlier than fall Chinook, are more susceptible to energetic depletion and environmental stressors like high water temperatures. The Green River Chinook population timing being shifted earlier likely has negative impacts on abundance and productivity due to lower water levels and higher temperatures, early emergence of fry before prey is available. Expected environmental and habitat changes associated with climate change will only exacerbate those negative impacts. NOTE: This issue may be best addressed via a recommendation for a future H-integration effort to evaluate the broader issue. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions:  Addressing climate change impacts on Chinook may require changing hatchery and harvest practices, which are not within the WRIAs purview to directly affect or change. The WRIA should work with the co-managers to lay out a process or framework where these technical and policy issues can be discussed.  An ‘H’ integration process needs to be restarted and reinvigorated so that issues like the number of hatchery adults spawning with wild fish and how the ‘highly integrated’ returning adult fish effect HSRG goals related to managing integrated stocks, productivity of wild fish, as well as monitoring and assessment efforts. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 15 Subwatershed Specific Issues Upper Green River  Program Upper Green 1 (U-1) is the development of planning effort focused on a long term comprehensive restoration and planning approach for the upper watershed. It did not occur prior to this Salmon Plan update.  The 2015 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest: Forest-Wide Sustainable Roads Report was recently completed. The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Forest includes much of the Upper Green River basin. It lays out the USFS recommendations for which forest roads to maintain and abandon.  Since 2001, Tacoma Water has implemented several fisheries-related habitat conservation measures projects under its habitat conservation plan. Briefly they include: o Construction and operation of an adult fish trap and haul facility and downstream juvenile bypass system at the Tacoma Water Municipal Intake (RM 61) o Replacement of impassable culverts on twenty-five streams within the Upper Green River o In cooperation with the USACE, installation of individual LWD and ELJs within approximately thirteen miles of the mainstem Upper Green River and approximately six total miles of tributary stream o Provided approximately 70 pieces of LWD annually from the Upper Green River for release into the Middle Green River below the Tacoma Water Headworks  As part of the Additional Water Storage Project (AWSP), baseline habitat surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2006 by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2) (2007). The first post-AWSP survey was conducted by Tacoma Water in 2012 and 2013 (in review). The second post-AWSP survey is scheduled to be conducted by Tacoma Water in 2017 and 2018. While habitat surveys done by different crews or in different years can result in habitat changes that are not ‘real’ but an artifact of surveyor bias, it is believed the statistical differences between years noted below are real (Personal Communication Tyler Patterson, Tacoma Water, 2017).  The post ASWP in 2012 and 2013 habitat monitoring surveys were conducted on Tacoma Water- owned portions of the mainstem river (RM 68-85) and several tributary streams, including the Sunday Creek (RM 0-3.5), Smay Creek (RM 0-1.8), and the North Fork Green River (RM 0-2) and compared against baseline surveys from six years prior by R2. Results indicated: o Pool frequency (pools per channel width) and total pool area (feet2) improved throughout the mainstem between surveys, while residual pool depth (feet) remained about the same. o Pool frequency increased substantially in the major tributaries of the Upper Green River (i.e. Sunday Creek, Smay Creek and the NF Green River) between surveys. Total pool area increased in Smay Creek and the NF Green River, but decreased slightly in Sunday Creek. The decrease in Sunday Creek total pool area was due to a substantial decrease in mean pool area. Like the mainstem, residual pool depths and canopy cover remained relatively constant between surveys in these tributaries. o Canopy cover did not change significantly between surveys, moving from a mean of 20% in the baseline to 23% post-AWSP. The adjacent riparian areas along the mainstem and major tributaries are within Tacoma’s “Natural” Forest Management Zone. This zone is managed “to preserve health and vigor of the vegetative cover to reduce erosion and provide habitat for fish and wildlife”. Substantial portions of the riparian areas within AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 16 this zone are still composed of young alder and black cottonwood with mature alder and black cottonwood interspersed. Conifers are present but are mostly subdominant in these areas. These immature canopy areas are adjacent to channel banks and appear to the result of channel migration over time versus any active management measures. The six year time span between surveys is not likely long enough to see significant improvement in canopy-related shading overall. o The frequency of Large Wood Debris (LWD) increased from 140 pieces mile to 208 pieces per mile between surveys and jam frequency increased from 4 jams per mile to 8 jams per mile. In comparison, the LWD and jam frequencies in the Middle Green River in 2012 were 141 pieces mile and 4 jams per mile, respectively. Median bed surface grain size (D50) decreased throughout the mainstem likely indicating increased sediment storage capacity behind jams and sediment supply rates out pacing the system’s ability to transport it. This is likely the result of that there has been an increase in total LWD frequency from both engineered projects and natural bank input. Two substantial high flow events (2006 and 2009) occurred between the baseline and first post-AWSP surveys which likely increased natural LWD input, sediment supply (e.g. bank erosion), and sediment storage. o The frequency of LWD also increased substantially in all three tributaries, while the frequency of log jams increased in Sunday Creek and remained about the same in Smay Creek and the NF Green River (Table 2). A similar trend in sediment grain size seen in the mainstem was observed in the three major tributaries with greatly reduced D50 between surveys. Table 2. LWD and wood jam frequency comparisons between baseline and post-AWSP surveys for major tributaries in the Upper Green River. Major Tributaries LWD/mile Jams/mile Baseline Post-AWSP Baseline Post-AWSP Sunday Creek 238 317 7 12 Smay Creek 491 663 22 23 NF Green River 420 547 19 18 Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  The habitat in the Upper Green is generally of higher quality than the Middle and Lower Green River, but it is still inaccessible to anadromous fish. Given the continuing decline of Chinook abundance, there is a strong and urgent need to provide access to this habitat.  Development of Program U-1 should be a high priority because a more in depth planning process would help set priorities for remaining habitat issues in the Upper Green. WRIA 9 should seek funding to do this work over the next three years. This process should be tracked, and depending on the outcomes, another plan amendment should be considered at that time. Middle Green River  Fish productivity associated with existing habitat conditions within the Middle Green River is discussed in detail in Anderson and Topping (2017); their findings, likely apply in the Lower AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 17 Green River channel as well because that portion of the river provides the same rearing functions as the Middle Green. Many of their findings reinforce background technical information or assumptions in the Salmon Plan and Strategic Assessment, and provide greater certainty that a lack of rearing habitat is the primary limiting factor. Some of their primary findings are:  There is limited rearing habitat capacity (off channel habitats like side channels and backwaters) for fry in the Middle Green, and this is likely one of the main factors contributing to the early downstream migration of fry in large numbers. There is not enough habitat for large numbers of fry to grow into parr. Thus, the limited habitat capacity expresses itself by limiting the number of parr that can be produced, while the number of fry produced does not get limited. Since it is assumed that parr survive to adulthood at much higher rates than fry, the habitat limitation reduces our ability to meet abundance, productivity, and diversity Viable Salmonid Population goals.  High flows (between 8,000 to 10,000 cfs*) from November through mid-January appear to scour eggs in gravel, sharply reducing the overall productivity of the number of juveniles per spawner.  High flows (between 6,000 to 8,000 cfs*) during typical fry outmigration period (mid- January through the end of March) reduced the number of parr produced, likely because fish were flushed into habitats downstream of the trap.  More days with spring flows (April through June) above 1,200 cfs* appears to increase the number of parr produced. This is likely due to increased connectivity to off-channel habitats, like side channels. A separate study (R2 2010) showed that as flows drop below 1,200 cfs, side channel habitats become less connected to the mainstem Green. *flow ranges are tentative and should be refined over time as more data is collected.  A combination of reports from R2 and Tacoma Water looked at habitat availability and juvenile salmonid use in the Middle Green River over the last 15 years. The intent of the reports was to be able to compare changes in habitat and fish use over time. However, due to agency priorities and variations in annual weather/flow patterns, the results are not completely comparable. The findings of each effort are synthesized here. o The 2006 R2 report on fish use of lateral habitats showed high usage of mainstem slow velocity habitats by juvenile Chinook between 1998 and 2002. However, the observed use of these habitats may merely be a function of higher mean daily flow levels and outmigration timing with more fish being flushed out of the system early. The sampling design was not set up to evaluate habitat usage for different flow regimes, thus the recommend that future studies be designed to incorporate different flow regimes. A follow on study to evaluate the distribution of what habitats were available at different flows (R2 2013) showed that 500 cfs flows produced the most slow water habitats overall. However, most of the habitat was adjacent to unvegetated banks, was not complex, and occurred after most juvenile Chinook have left the Middle Green River making the amount of habitat available at 500 cfs less important. The transition point for complex vegetated mainstem edge habitat and side channel habitats appeared to be that as flows decreased below 1,200 cfs, wetted habitats begin to pull away from complex vegetated banks and that the more heavily armored lower reaches of the Middle Green had less slow velocity habitat available at all flows. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 18 o Overall the R2 2013 report found that as flows increased more slow velocity lateral (off channel) habitat became available, but slow velocity mainstem habitat decreased. However, as flows decreased, more mainstem slow velocity habitats were available while the amount of low velocity lateral habitats decreased. o Juvenile use surveys of lateral habitat in 2011 were unable to sample sufficiently across the four flow targets established by R2 in 2010 to find patterns of use related to flow (Patterson et al. 2015). Most sampling occurred at relatively higher flows, with very limited sampling in the 500 and 800 cfs range. Unlike the R2 2006 study, the 2011 juvenile salmonid use study (Patterson et al. 2015) found higher use of off channel habitats than mainstem habitats. This higher use may be driven by the flow to habitat relationship noted in the previous year’s habitat study, i.e., at higher flows there are more slow velocity lateral habitats available than similar velocity mainstem habitats.  Since 2001 there has been a slow increase in pool frequency in two reaches of the Middle Green, while the amount in the other three reaches was variable over time (R2 2012).  The amount of individual pieces of wood per mile has fluctuated, with the most recent data (2012) showing 32.3 pieces per mile, with a high of 47.8 pieces per mile in 2009 and with a low of 15 pieces per mile in 2001. However, while the number of jams has fluctuated between years, there appears to have been a relatively steady increase in the number of jams per mile (2001 0.8 jams/mile to 2012 4.2 jams/mile) (R2 2012).  Channel Dynamics Middle Green o The extent and duration of higher flows are controlled by operations of the HHD. Stream flow greater than 8,829 cfs (250 cms) as measured at the Auburn USGS gauge is needed to force lateral bank migration, which in turn creates new off channel habitats necessary for juvenile Chinook rearing (Konrad et al. 2011). For the purpose of relating flow discharge to habitat, this report will refer to flow discharge in excess of 8,800 cfs as “habitat forming flows”. o Flow management at HHD prolongs the duration of moderate flows (>5,900cfs) by 39% compared to historic conditions (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). o Scour of redds begins between 5,000 and 8,000 cfs (R2 2014 Zone 1 nourishment gravel stability). Thus, this report will refer to flow discharge in the range of 5,000-8,000 cfs as “redd scouring flows” to differentiate these high flows from higher ones that can have positive habitat benefits. o Combining the findings above, flow management appears to be increasing the number of days with redd scouring flows (directly reducing egg and fry survival) while at the same time reducing the number of years that attain habitat forming flows (indirectly leading to lower productivity through less off channel habitats created). Follow up analyses should look at whether there has been a continued increase in the number of days of “redd scouring flows” noted by Kerwin and Nelson (2000) and WRIA 9 ITC (2012). Future Status and Trends reports should quantify this metric as well as number of days of habitat forming flows (above 8,800 cfs).  MIT Draft smolt trapping data from Soos and Newaukum creeks (~2013-2016) indicate lower survival rates in these streams than previously calculated previously by WDFW based on several AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 19 years of trapping. MIT data indicate that the primary Chinook life history type leaving the creeks is fry, with very few fish rearing to parr size/age. (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017). Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions:  As supported by the numerous studies conducted in the Middle-Green subwatershed, there is a need to increase off channel habitat availability, especially in the Middle Green (and Lower Green River), in order to increase the abundance of habitat that can support more fry rearing to parr sized juveniles, which have the highest likelihood of surviving to adulthood. Given our improved understanding and certainty that a lack of fry habitat is a primary limiting factor in overall abundance and productivity of the Chinook population, greater emphasis should be placed on creating more rearing habitats in the Middle Green or more specifically, removing infrastructure (levees and revetments) that limits of creation of and access to off channel habitat. The Middle Green has undergone several project identification efforts in the past. The projects that are most likely to create the type of necessary rearing habitat unfortunately overlap with both the County’s ‘Upper Green Agricultural Production District as well as many Farmland Protection Program easements. County agricultural policies and programs create regulatory and implementation hurdles to implementing the aforementioned high priority restoration projects in the Middle Green. With the ongoing downward trend in Chinook abundance and the urgent need for more fry habitat, the Forum should engage the County to facilitate implementation of high priority salmon projects.  Evaluate the raw data from the earliest R2 study in the Middle Green against flows during the sampling periods to try to better understand the relationships between different flows and habitat use seen in later reports.  The WRIA should work with Tacoma Water, the ACOE, and the MIT to look at how river flows are managed to see if there is a way to limit the amount of “redd scouring flows” that occur between 5,000 and 8,800 cfs that likely scour redds and/or flush fry out of the Middle Green, but aren’t high enough to cause lateral channel migration, which is necessary for high quality off channel rearing habitat creation.  Continued funding for the smolt trap is imperative. As can be seen above, the smolt trap has been in the river enough years that we are able to undertake analyses that show trends related to high and low flows and Chinook productivity. Some of the relationships are still tentative and more data will allow us to have greater confidence in the relationships that have been seen, as well as explore more relationships over time. These data are essential to Chinook recovery. Lower Green River  The draft Retrospective, the Reddington Monitoring Report, the draft 2014 Juvenile Salmonid Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green River study, and the 2013-2014 MIT/R2 Lower Green Fish Use Report all describe differential use of some habitats by juvenile salmon use in the Lower Green River. This indicates it can function as rearing habitat when conditions are appropriate (e.g. off channel habitat exists). o Statistically significant higher catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of wild Chinook along banks with LWD (R2 2014a), though this finding was not replicated by the Retrospective work (KC 2016). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 20 o Shallow or gradually sloped banks with modest levels of LWD had greater CPUE of juvenile salmonids than steep banks with high amounts of complex LWD. (R2 2014a). o Created shallow/slow water habitats at Reddington and Riverview had higher CPUE of juvenile Chinook than nearby vegetated and unvegetated steeper banks. The Retrospective study (2016) also showed higher Chinook CPUE with gradual banks than with slow water. o Most of the studies did not focus on the depth of the sample areas as much as velocity over a range of flows. o The data on overhanging cover and CPUE of Chinook showed a statistically significant decline in CPUE with increasing overhanging vegetation. However, areas with overhanging vegetation are notorious difficult to sample and generally cannot be sampled as efficiently as areas without overhanging vegetation. The likely catch biases from the sampling approach used were not accounted for in any of the studies. Therefore, the results should be treated carefully. o None of the studies attempted to directly assess whether juvenile Chinook are residing in the Lower Green or just passing through. Some of the data indicates juveniles are keying in on some habitats, using them in higher numbers. This preferential use implies fish are residing. More directed mark and recapture studies would help improve our understanding of how long juvenile Chinook reside in Lower Green Habitats. o In March of 2017, the recently restored Leber Homestead site on Mill Creek (Auburn) was sampled twice, once during lower flow conditions (~1,300 cfs, about mean flow during the January –June outmigration period) and once during high flow conditions (~7,000 cfs, about an annual flood) (Gregersen 2017). A small area near the outlet was being used by Chinook fry during lower flow conditions. During high flow conditions three weeks later, Chinook fry were found throughout the larger restored area. Interestingly, the fish that were present under low flow were roughly 5mm longer than the fish that used the site during high flow three weeks later. One explanation of this observation is that the earlier and larger fish at the restoration site migrated downstream volitionally and were residing in productive habitat, whereas the smaller juveniles three weeks later were likely unvolitionally flushed out of the Middle Green and used the Leber site as flood refuge.  Recent surveys of juvenile salmon habitat conditions in the Lower Green show that conditions are still very degraded (R2 2014b)  Initial analyses related to sediment loads of the river for the Lower Russell Road Project indicate that there is a large amount of coarse and fine sand moving through the confined river channel. There is concern that this large sediment load might quickly fill in restored/created off channel habitats as the wider channel area will likely create depositional areas. The Salmon Plan acknowledged that off-channel creation projects in the Lower Green would not be as sustainable as true restoration projects and that maintenance would be needed occasionally for those projects to function as fish habitat. The current concerns are focused around how often maintenance would be needed and if the maintenance interval is financially sustainable. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  A greater understanding is needed of where fry go when they leave the Middle Green River, and if freshwater and estuarine rearing conditions downstream are conducive to fry rearing to parr size and surviving to adulthood. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 21  River bank stabilization/modification projects should strive to provide gradual slopes that inundate over a large range of flows, with large woody cover instead of constructing projects with steep slopes or benches that provide habitat at a very narrow range of flows.  In order to increase the number of fry that can grow into parr before entering the Duwamish, off channel habitat availability should be increased, especially in the Middle Green and Lower Green River.  Any major levee/bank set back project should consider how the project will be affected by sediment movement and deposition, and how this will affect sediment conditions downstream.  Detailed monitoring is needed of existing setback projects like Riverview, Leber, and Reddington to better understand potential maintenance intervals and risks associated with sedimentation.  Future juvenile salmonid use studies should attempt to: o Sample different habitat types (side channels, backwaters, bars, etc.) versus different bank types and with several methods (e.g. minnow traps, and electrofishing). o Explore CPUE effort and depth of habitat. o Focus on differences CPUE and overhanging vegetation to better inform project design o Undertake a mark and recapture study to help improve our understanding of how long juvenile Chinook reside in Lower Green Habitats.  Given the relatively low use of the broader Leber Homestead project site during lower flow conditions, more directed fish use and water quality monitoring should be undertaken to try to understand why more of the site is not being used by Chinook during lower flows. Duwamish River A significant research and planning effort, the Duwamish Blueprint, was completed in 2014 as part of the WRIA 9 planning effort to help understand how juveniles use the estuary, and to identify restoration opportunities. The first four bullets below are described in more detail in in the Duwamish Blueprint (2014):  Ruggerone et al. 2006 found that the entire estuary, not just RM 4-6, was used by juvenile Chinook, but by different life history types at different times of the rearing season. The lowest, saltier area of the estuary was more heavily used by early fry migrants, while the later, larger Chinook migrants (parr) had higher use of the area above RM 6. The Middle portion of the estuary appeared to be more heavily used by the large pulse of later fry migrants during late March, April and May.  Bigger inlets are likely better than smaller inlets for increased use of juvenile Chinook, (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Cordell et al. 2010, and Toft and Cordell 2017)  The findings from Ruggerone et al. 2006, combined with data from other reports (Ruggerone and 2004, Nelson et al. 2011, Oxborrow et al. 2016), and expected climate change impacts on habitat area within the Duwamish, indicate we need bigger restoration sites with more habitat heterogeneity (e.g. deeper water that would not drain out at low tide and available shallow water habitat throughout the full tidal range).  Brackish waters appear to have higher growth potential based on prey availability than more saline areas (Cordell et al. 2010). Other recent findings not included with in the Duwamish Blueprint include:  David et al. 2016 found that variation in abundance of different species of arthropods (prey for juvenile Chinook salmon) in estuaries across the west coast was driven predominately by types of AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 22 vegetation versus broad categories of land cover (e.g. developed, undeveloped, agricultural). Arthropod abundance was highest in freshwater emergent and mixohaline wetland vegetation, compared to scrub shrub wetlands and forested wetlands. Other physical environment factors that are not readily modifiable by humans, like temperature and precipitation, were also found to influence arthropod abundance. They also found that arthropod abundance in restored wetlands rapidly achieved levels found in reference wetlands. They did find that while abundance was similar in both newer and older restored sites, older sites had different arthropod assemblages, including having more energy rich trichopterans than recently restored sites.  Recent sampling from Toft and Cordell 2017 found similar results to the previous sampling efforts. Primarily, they found that the interior areas of restoration sites like Codiga and North Winds Weir are being used at a higher rates/densities than nearby non restored habitats, though the differences were not statistically different. Finding differences that are statistically significantly different can be difficult with this type of sampling, especially when there is so little habitat available. Similarly, the Herrings House restoration site continued to have relatively low use by juvenile salmonids.  Recent sampling by WDFW (O’Neill et al. 2015) and others showed that juvenile Chinook caught in the lower part of the Duwamish River had levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including PCBs, and PAHs that may have adverse effects on fish health and growth rates, thus would be expected to decrease overall productivity. However, based on the limited spatial sampling, it is not clear if the POPs originated in the Duwamish or upstream in other parts of the watershed.  Work by Meador (2014) indicated that hatchery Chinook migrating through contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, had a 45% lower marine survival rate than hatchery Chinook that migrated through uncontaminated Puget Sound estuaries. He evaluated these findings against the total amount of estuary habitat, length of freshwater habitat between each hatchery and estuary, as well as growth rates and did not find these other factors to be explanatory of the lower survival rates seen. He also cited work by Varanasi et al. 1993 that showed Chinook from the Soos Creek hatchery and the Duwamish held in lab conditions for 40 days survived at a rate of 86% and 56%, respectively. The experiment was repeated for a second year with similar results. It is important to note that this specific evaluation looked strictly at hatchery Chinook and given their size at release they are not as reliant on the estuary as wild Green River Chinook fry and parr would be. Thus the effects seen on wild Chinook, that are more reliant on the estuary, would likely be more extreme. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  The information from various previous Duwamish fish studies should be compared and combined with the contaminant findings in the Water Quality white paper to see if there are specific overlaps in timing and location that might be more problematic for certain life history types/times of year.  An adaptive management plan or feasibility study should be completed to evaluate options to improve the habitat use by salmonids at the Herrings House restoration site. At a minimum, it has been suggested by Toft and Cordell 2017 that the inlet/outlet of the channel leading to the restoration area is too narrow and should be widened and shortened to allow for greater connectivity with the river. The site is generally dewatered during lower tides, thus it has also been suggested it could be deepened to increase the amount of habitat available and the duration of availability.  Results by David et al. 2016 show that restoring estuarine wetlands, especially freshwater emergent and mixohaline wetlands, can increase arthropod prey species that juvenile Chinook rely on fairly rapidly. This finding suggests that wetland restoration actions in the Duwamish AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 23 could have fairly quick benefits by providing both space to rear and food and that food resource quality will improve over time.  The combination of recent sampling showing that juvenile Chinook from the Duwamish have levels of contamination that may negatively affect survival as well as the 2015 and 2016 data from Chinook otoliths showing few of the returning adults being from fry that reared in the Duwamish from Jan through April is concerning. Unfortunately, both studies covered only a short period of time and limited area, which means the level of certainty about the broader applicability of the results is lower than what would generally be recommended for taking a dramatically different course of action. In the near term, more studies are recommended to create a better spatial understanding of Chinook contamination levels in the Lower Green and Duwamish. This data would help to better understand contaminant patterns in juvenile Chinook in comparison to known sediment contamination. In addition, it is recommended that more years of otolith data on survival to adulthood of different life history types be collected.  The Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site (RM 0 to 5) is currently in pre-design study phase. The next phase will include signing of responsible parties to a Consent Decree to perform the work as well as the detailed design of the sediment cleanup; both of these together are expected to take approximately 3-5 years. The in-water construction (e.g., dredging and capping of contaminated sediments), which follows design phase, has been estimated to take 7 years. The construction phase of the sediment cleanup, which will be followed by a period of natural recovery, may not be completed until after the 2028 time horizon of this Salmon Plan update. Given the Superfund cleanup timeline, WRIA led salmon habitat restoration projects in the Duwamish should be undertaken cautiously. It is currently not known if clean up actions will occur from upstream to downstream, but current source control strategy by Dept. of Ecology is planned for an upstream to downstream approach. This will likely reduce the risks of recontaminating WRIA sponsored salmon habitat restoration projects, but not eliminate the risks of recontamination. The areas of lower contamination, and thus less cleanup construction, are found in the upper mile of the waterway (RM 4-5). Thus restoration projects sponsored or funded by the WRIA in upper portion of the waterway could begin before full completion of the sediment cleanup with relatively lower risk of being recontaminated by cleanup activities. Until more information is available, a conservative project approach for WRIA funded capital projects over the next ten years in the Duwamish would be to continue to implement projects from the Duwamish Blueprint while taking the following into account: o The WRIA should invest resources into a monitoring/research study to evaluate if previously constructed WRIA restoration projects within the Duwamish have become contaminated. o For all areas of the Duwamish, emphasize acquiring and restoring the largest sites possible in order to provide a variety of elevations and slopes within the restoration sites to accommodate climate change and reduce the impacts of “coastal squeeze” (see climate change paper for more details), as well as having enough space to create habitats that retain at least a foot of water at low tide. Restoration sites should be designed with large openings, and focused on areas with brackish waters (typically where streams enter the Duwamish River or there is a reduced influence of the salt wedge). o From river mile 0 to 4.3 (just upstream of Slip 6), given the known contamination and long timeline for intended clean up actions of the primary area of the Superfund site:  Focus WRIA salmon recovery resources on acquiring large parcels for future restoration projects versus actually undertaking restoration projects until issues AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 24 associated with current contamination and potential recontamination are better understood or addressed.  Work with parties responsible for implementing Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) projects to find ways to enhance or enlarge project sizes with the intent of increasing the ecological benefits. o River mile 4.3 to 11: while it is much less contaminated than the downstream reach, it is still known to have some sediment contamination. The section from RM 4.3 to 5.0 is still located within the Superfund site, though remedial actions (e.g. dredging) that could have a higher likelihood of leading to recontamination are fewer in number and smaller in size.  Same as conditions noted above, but if a WRIA salmon habitat project sponsor moves forward with salmon restoration projects in this reach, it is recommended that the WRIA work with the project sponsor to fund more extensive feasibility analyses that evaluate the existing contamination issues as well as the likelihood of recontamination of the salmon habitat restoration site before fully funding the design phase of the project. Nearshore The bulk of the findings from the many new studies on marine nearshore habitat and fish uses issues reinforce or put more certainty behind previous findings and/or assumptions versus providing new information that would generally change the Salmon Plan’s nearshore programs, priorities, or projects associated with the marine nearshore environments. Somewhat unusual, is that most of the recent literature for Puget Sound is based on data collected along various areas of WRIA 9’s marine shoreline, which provides greater certainty about the applicability of the findings to the WRIA. Figure 7 below summarizes many of the findings from work over the last five to ten years (Dethier et al. 2016) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 25 Figure 7. Temporal and spatial scales at which different types off impacts of armoring can be detected. Impacts in dashed boxes are hypothesized but not thoroughly demonstrated. Speed of responses following restoration (armor removal) may follow the same temporal and spatial patterns (Modified from Dethier et al. 2016). The primary recent findings include:  Armored versus not armored shorelines. a. Importance of vegetated riparian areas near the marine shoreline for Chinook salmon has been verified via diet analysis within Elliott Bay. The research showed Chinook salmon rearing along developed shorelines with riparian vegetation had more terrestrial insects in their diet than Chinook rearing along developed shorelines without riparian vegetation had far fewer terrestrial insects in their stomachs (Toft et al. 2007). b. Differences in predominately armored versus unarmored drift cells have shown impacts to sediment processes (Dethier et al. 2016) that create skinnier beaches, beaches with fewer drift logs, and beaches with fewer prey species, etc. However, there has not been as much work to look for a direct link to Chinook salmon. c. Rice 2006 showed that armored beaches get more sunlight (due to less riparian vegetation being present), which in turn causes higher air temperatures, which in turn leads to hotter substrate temperatures, which in turn leads to reduced humidity. At a minimum, this combination of environmental changes leads to reduced forage fish egg survival on armored beaches compared to unarmored beaches. The environmental changes likely lead to many other similar biological responses, but they have not been studied yet. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 26 d. Recent report showed that vegetated shorelines significantly contribute to the detritus on adjacent beaches versus it all being marine derived, helping drive the detrital food web (Dethier et al. 2016, Heerhartz). This further reinforces the importance of marine riparian areas. e. Toft et al. 2014 showed that the beach restoration at Seahurst Park had mixed results in how quickly the site’s biological community re-established in density and richness compared to a nearby restoration site. The higher beach invertebrate community most quickly recovered to close to reference conditions, while the invertebrate community at the mid tidal elevations was much slower to respond. It is not clear if the slower response was caused by long term armoring impacts or by the beach nourishment restoration action. f. Before and after monitoring of the Olympic Sculpture Park (Toft et al. 2013) showed: increased densities of larval fishes, increased densities of juvenile salmon, increased observance of juvenile feeding behavior, and had different invertebrates, and higher invertebrate taxa richness than nearby armored shorelines. All of these positive changes in habitat condition or use occurred on a site that is highly constrained, has high public use, and is surrounded by a highly urbanized environment. g. Munsch et al. 2016 found smaller juvenile salmon preferentially utilized low gradient shorelines, which were mostly unarmored, while larger juvenile salmon were associated with armored shorelines with deeper water and higher gradient transitions. h. Munsch et al. 2014 found that fish assemblages were different for seawall versus created beach sites in Elliot Bay. They found that chum and pink salmon were correlated with the beach sites at high tide while chum, pink and Chinook salmon were correlated with beach sites at low tides. They also found similar results to past studies that found most fish species avoided the heavily shaded areas under the piers in downtown Seattle. i. Munsch et al. 2015a found that for the diets of juvenile Chinook that insects were more abundant in smaller juvenile Chinook, while crab larvae were more abundant in larger juvenile Chinook. Chum salmon were found to preferentially consume harpacticoid copepods which had greater taxa richness at the beach habitats, but also found that they selected planktonic prey species predominately associated with armored shores. j. Munsch et al. 2015b found that fish species that are strongly associated with the bed of Puget Sound were impacted by the changes caused by shoreline armoring. They found fewer flatfish species associated with rocked/armored shorelines, while they found more lingcod associated with the armored shorelines. The flatfish results were similar to the results of Toft et al. 2007, where they found the densities of flatfish were reduced by shoreline armoring. k. Recent Puget Sound data has shown shoreline armoring impacts bird species, reducing the likelihood of song birds and shorebird presence, while increasing the frequency of gulls and crows. The results are similar to findings in California (Dugan et al. 2008). This information shows that there is a multi-species benefit to the removal of shoreline armoring (Heerhartz 2013).  Beamer et al. 2013 looked at fry migrant Chinook use of non-natal streams along the marine shorelines in north of WRIA 9. While they did not directly sample streams in WRIA 9, they did find four factors that appeared to determine whether fry migrant Chinook would use non-natal streams: distance from a Chinook bearing stream/river; watershed area greater than 45 hectares; stream gradient less than 6.5%; and absence of a culvert at the mouth of the creek. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 27  A 2014 Report has shown that new unpermitted armor has offset many of the restoration gains by the WRIA as of 2014, and many repairs to armoring are not going through the permit process (Higgins 2014).  New surveys by WDFW show that forage fish spawn close to year round within the South Central Basin (unpublished data WDFW), combined with previous work on the importance of marine riparian vegetation for forage fish survival point to increased importance of riparian vegetation in WRIA 9, especially in south facing shorelines (Rice 2006).  A new population of herring was found spawning in small numbers in Elliott Bay, near the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park in 2012. It is not clear what the parent stock is for this new spawning aggregation, or how long they have been spawning in Elliott Bay (Stick et al 2014). Given herring are an important food source for salmon, understanding this new population would be advantageous so it can be protected and enhanced. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions :  Using the approach by Beamer et al. 2013, an analysis should be done of coastal streams throughout WRIA 9 to help prioritize which streams are most likely to support non-natal use by fry migrant Chinook so that those areas can be prioritized for future funding.  Findings by Munsch et al. 2016 point to the need to provide shallow water edge habitats in the marine environment, especially for the younger fry migrants that are smaller and in greater need of shallow habitats. Given the lower survival rates of the fry life history type noted in other sections above, providing this shallow water habitat like the pocket beach at the Olympic Sculpture Park should be a higher priority closer to the Duwamish where small salmonids first transition to the marine environment.  Future beach nourishment projects, like Seahurst Park, should be evaluated in a similar fashion as in Toft et al. 2014 to see if lower tidal elevations also experience slow recovery of invertebrate populations. Designs and monitoring should be implemented in a way to help differentiate the original impact of the shoreline armor versus the nourishment actions.  Undertake more spring and summer spawner surveys of forage fish in order to better understand how important riparian areas are to forage fish spawning in the WRIA 9 area are, especially for south facing beaches.  The issue of a high percentage of marine shoreline actions like bulkhead repairs and tree clearing being unpermitted, needs to be addressed or restoration gains will continue to offset by new impacts.  Continue to focus on restoring sediment recruitment and transport processes. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 28 References by Section General & non-Green River specific 1. Bowerman, Tracy, M. Keefer, C. Caudill, 2016. Pacific Salmon Prespawn Mortality: Patterns, Methods, and Study Design Considerations. Fisheries, Vol. 41, No12. 2. Bryant, Mason D., 2000. Estimating Fish Populations by Removal Methods with Minnow Traps in Southeast Alaska Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20: 923-930. 3. Feyrer, Fredrick, T. Sommer, and W. Harrell. 2006. Importance of Flood Dynamics versus Intrinsic Physical Habitat in Structuring Fish Communities: Evidence from Two Adjacent Engineered Floodplains on the Sacramento River, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26:408-417. 4. Harza 1995. Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of Springbrook, Mill and Garrison Creek Watershed for the City of Kent. Bellevue, Washington. 5. Henry, R. E., T.R. Sommer, C. R. Goldman, 2010. Growth and Methylmercury Accumulation in Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and Its Floodplain, the Yolo Bypass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:550-563. 6. Henning, Julie, 2004. An evaluation of fish and amphibian use of restored and natural floodplain wetlands. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 7. Jeffres, C. A., J. J. Opperman, and P. B. Moyle. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environmental Biology of Fishes 83:449-458. 8. King County, 2005. WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report-Scientific Foundation for Salmonid Habitat Conservation. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee, by King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 9. Kubo, J., 2017. Green River Temperature and Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee, by King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 10. Lestelle, L.C., McConnaha, W.E., Blair, G., Watson, B., 2005. Chinook salmon use of floodplain, secondary channel, and non-natal tributary habitats in rivers of western North America, Report prepared for the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vashon, WA and Portland, OR. 11. Moyle, P. B., P. K. Crain, and K. Whitener. 2007. Patterns in the use of a restored California floodplain by native and alien fishes. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 5 12. Price, David M., T. Quinn, and R.J. Barnard, 2010. Fish Passage Effectiveness of Recently Constructed Road Crossing Culverts in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30.5: 1110-1125 13. Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 14. Ruggerone, G.T. and D. E. Weitkamp 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., and Parametrix, Inc. Seattle WA. 15. Sommer, T., B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001a. California's Yollo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries 26:6-16. 16. Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, and M. L. Nobriga. 2005. Habitat use and stranding risk of juvenile Chinook salmon on a seasonal floodplain. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1493-1504. Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, A. M. Solger, B. Tom, and W. Kimmerer. 2004. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 29 Effects of flow variation on channel and floodplain biota and habitats of the Sacramento River, California, USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:247-261. 17. Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001b. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333. 18. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1998. Final Feasibility Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle District. 19. WRIA 9 ITC, 2012. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Seattle WA. Upper Green 1. Patterson et al. 2016 (DRAFT). Upper Green River Post-AWSP Habitat Monitoring: 2012/2013 Report. Tacoma Public Utilities – Water Division, Tacoma, WA. 2. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2007. Upper Green River Baseline Habitat Monitoring: 2005/2006 Report. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. 3. Winans, G. A., M. Baird, J. Baker, 2010. A Genetic and Phenetic Baseline before the recolonization of Steelhead above Howard Hanson Dam, Green River, Washington. Middle Green 1. Anderson, J. H. and P. C. Topping, 2017. Draft Juvenile Life History Strategies and freshwater productivity of Green River Chinook Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee, Seattle WA. 2. Booth, D.B., J.B. Lando, E.A. Gilliam, T.E. Lisle, 2012. Investigation of fine sediment and its effect on salmon spawning habitat in the Middle Green River, King County, Washington. 3. Patterson, T., L. Sievers, R. Lamb, J. Lowry, and G. Volkhardt. 2015. 2011 RFM-02A Middle Green River Juvenile Salmonid Use Study. Tacoma Public Utilities Water Division, Tacoma Washington. 4. Konrad, C., H. Berge, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen and J. Guyenet. 2011. Channel dynamics in the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936 to 2002. Northwest Science 85:1-14. 5. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2013. Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonid Habitat in Relation to Streamflow in the Middle Green River, Washington, Draft 2010 Data Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 6. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2006. Juvenile salmonid use of lateral habitat in Middle Green River, Washington, final data report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 7. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2013. Middle Green R. Habitat, Large Woody Debris Monitoring 8. R2 Resource Consultants (R2) 2014. Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River, Washington 2011/2012 monitoring results 9. Topping, P. C. and J. H. Anderson, 2014. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation: 2013 Annual Report. Lower Green 1. Gregersen, C. 2017. Draft 2014 Juvenile Salmonid Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle WA. 2. Lucchetti, G., K. Higgins, and J. Vanderhoof, 2014. A salmon-based classification to guide best management practices for agricultural waterways maintenance. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 3. McCarthy, S., C. Gregersen, K. Akyuz, L. Brandt, and J. Koon. 2014. Reddington levee setback project year 1 monitoring report. Water and Land Resources Division, King County. Seattle, Washington AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 30 4. McCarthy, S., C. Gregersen, K. Akyuz, L. Brandt, and J. Koon. 2014. Reddington levee setback project year 1 monitoring report. Water and Land Resources Division, King County. Seattle, Washington 5. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014. Lower Green/Duwamish River habitat Assessment. Duwamish 1. Campbell, Lance. 2017. New Otolith Study by WDFW from 2016 CWM grant. Results likely available late spring. 2. Cordell, J., J. Toft, A. Gray, G. Ruggerone, and M. Cooksey. 2011. Functions of restored wetlands for juvenile salmon in an industrialized estuary. Ecological Engineering 37:343-353. 3. Cordell, J., J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and A. Gray. 2006. Fish Assemblages and Patterns of Chinook Salmon Abundance, Diet, and Growth at Restored Sites in the Duwamish River. In 2005 Juvenile Chinook Duwamish River Studies. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. David, A.T., P.A.L. Goertler, S.H. Munsch, B.R. Jones, C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, E.R. Howe, A.Gray, M.P. Hannam, W. Matsubu, and E.E. Morgan. 2016. Influences of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors and Tidal Restoration on Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages in West Coast North American Estuarine Wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts, 39: 1491 5. ICF International, 2010. Duwamish River Navigation Maintenance Dredging FY 2010: Water Quality Monitoring and Salmonid Report. Final Report; Seattle WA. 6. King County 2013. Draft. Juvenile Chinook Migration, Growth and Habitat Use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliot Bay Nearshore. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 7. Meador, J. P. 2014. Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71:162-180. 8. Morely, S., J. Toft, and K. Hanson. 2012. Ecological Effects of Shoreline Armoring on Intertidal Habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. Springerlink.com. 9. Oxborrow, B., J.R. Cordell, and J. Toft, 2016. Draft: Evaluation of Selected U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Habitat Restoration Projects, 2016. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. 10. O’Neill, Sandra M., A. J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West, 2015. Toxic Contaminants in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. 11. Ostergaard, E., D. Clark, K. Minsch, S. Whiting, J. Stern, R. Hoff, B. Anderson, L. Johnston, L. Arber, and G. Blomberg. 2014. Duwamish Blueprint: Salmon Habitat in the Duwamish Transition Zone. Prepared by the Duwamish Blueprint Working Group for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Seattle, WA. 12. Ruggerone, G. T. and E. Jeanes. 2004. Salmon utilization of restored off-channel habitats in the Duwamish Estuary, 2003. Draft. Prepared for Environmental Resource Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. and R2 Consultants, Inc. Seattle, Washington 13. Ruggerone, G., T. Nelson, J. Hall, E. Jeanes, J. Cordell, J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and Ayesha Gray. 2006. 2005 Juvenile Chinook Duwamish River Studies. Habitat Utilization, Migration Timing, Growth, and Diet of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Duwamish River. Seattle, WA 14. Ruggerone, G. T. and E. C. Volk. 2004. Residence time and growth of natural and hatchery Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary and Elliott Bay, Washington, based on otolith chemical and structural attributes. Report to Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and Port of Seattle. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 31 15. Simenstad, C., C. Tanner, C. Crandell, J. White, J. Cordell. 2005. Challenges of habitat restoration in a heavily urbanized estuary: evaluating the investment. Journal of Coastal Research. 40:6-23. 16. Toft, Jason D. and J.R. Cordell, 2017. Densities of Juvenile Salmon at Restored Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary Transition Zone, 2016, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. 17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2013. Duwamish River Fish Sampling Effort January-February 2013. Nearshore 1. Beamer, E.M., W. T. Zackey, D. Marks, T. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non-natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, WA. 2. Duffy, E. J. and D. A. Beauchamp. 2011. Rapid growth in the early marine period improves the marine survival of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Puget Sound, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:232-240. 3. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175:106-117. 4. Dugan, J.E., Hubbard, D.M., Rodil, I.F., Revell, D.L. & Schroeter, S. (2008). Ecological effects of coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Mar. Ecol., 29, 160-170 5. Heerhartz, S.M., Dethier, M.N., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Ogston, A.S., 2014. Effects of shoreline armoring on beach wrack subsidies to the nearshore ecotone in an estuarine fjord. Estuary and. Coasts 37, 1256e1268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9754-5 Publication: Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. 6. Heerhartz, S.M., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Dethier, M.N., Ogston, A.S., 2015. Shoreline armoring in an estuary constrains wrack-associated invertebrate communities. Estuary and Coasts. 7. Heerhartz, S.M. 2013. Shoreline armoring disrupts marine-terrestrial connectivity across the nearshore ecotone. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, PhD dissertation. 8. Higgins, K. F. 2014. WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring Compliance Pilot Project, King County Department of Natural Resources. Seattle WA. 9. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, and E.E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of Seawalls and Piers on Fish Assemblages and Juvenile Salmon Feeding Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:814-827 10. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2015a. Effects of seawall armoring on juvenile Pacific salmon diets in an urban estuarine embayment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 535: 213- 229. 11. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2015b. Effects of shoreline engineering on shallow subtidal fish and crab communities in an urban estuary: A comparison of armored shorelines and nourished beaches. Ecological Engineering, V 81, 312-320. 12. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. Fine scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish community: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol 557: 1-15. 13. Rice, C.A. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and Coasts 29(1):63-71. 14. Sitck, K.C., A. Lindquist, and D. Lowry. 2014. 2012 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia WA. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) 32 15. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 465-480. 16. Toft, J.D., A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R. Cordell, E.E. Flemer. 2013. Ecological responses and physical stability of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline. Ecological Engineering, 57, 97-108. 17. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, and E.A. Armbrust. 2014. Shoreline armoring impacts and beach restoration effectiveness vary with elevation. Northwest Science 88:367-375 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE C-1 ROGER TABOR An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County Science and Technical Support Section i January 2018 AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Kollin Higgins for contributing references on juvenile Chinook ecology and providing feedback on report drafts. Elissa Ostergaard provided early feedback on the report outline and partial draft. Matt Goehring reviewed two full drafts of the report and Deborah Lester, Debra Williston, and Jeff Stern provided valuable comments on the draft final report. Many thanks to the WRIA 9 ITC members for contributing helpful feedback throughout paper development. CitationKing County. 2018. An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by Jenée Colton, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 1 Green River Temperature and Salmon Technical Briefing for the Implementation Technical Committee By Josh Kubo February 27, 2017 WRIA 9 Technical Briefing Rationale  Warm water temperatures influence salmonid survival in WRIA 9  Three areas in the Green River watershed have temperature TMDLs (completed or are still in process of completion): Middle and Lower Green River, Soos Creek, and Newaukum Creek  The WRIA 9 Forum recently adopted a new conservation hypothesis (All-7) that focuses on improving water temperature and reducing chemical contamination. This briefing documents the scientific basis for that decision, discusses known human impacts to water temperature, and discusses key actions that can improve water temperature. Water Temperature Drivers and Cold Water Refugia Factors influencing Stream Temperature (2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 21, 35, 37, 42, 71, 75, 89, 94, 99)  Climatic drivers (e.g., solar radiation, air temperature, precipitation, and windspeed) o Heat gains and losses from short-wave solar radiation (sun), long-wave atmospheric radiation (air temperature), and precipitation o Air temperature is the dominant factor explaining long-term stream temperature trends and inter-annual variability, except during the summer when discharge accounts for approximately half of the inter-annual variation in stream temperatures (e.g., during a dry year with exceptionally low flow, water is warmer) o Green River example:  Analyses indicate that air temperature appears to be the primary driver of water temperature in the Green River (20,44)  Stream morphology (e.g., dimension, pattern, profile, and bed materials) and topographic characteristics (e.g., aspect and confinement) o Friction created by water flowing over the bed increases water temperature and direct conduction from the stream bed can heat but usually cools water o Green River examples: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 2  Increase in daily temperature ranges (fluctuations between min and max) from Flaming Geyser State Park (RM 43.1) to just above Soos Creek (RM 33.4) is likely due to the relatively shallow water depth throughout this reach (Figure 1) (44)  Smaller than typical increases in maximum temperatures in the Green River gorge (~RM 48-58) are likely due to topographic shading (44)  Narrowing of the daily temperature range and minimal increase in maximum temperatures from Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) are likely associated with alluvial deposits from historical connection to the White River (Figure 2) (44) Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Min-Max Temperatures USGS/WDFW River Mile 0102030405060Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Water depth (m)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Water depth (m) Newaukum Creek Soos Creek Mill CreekOutlet of Howard Hanson Dam Figure 1: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the water depths estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (20, 44) Figure 2: Map showing the location of the historical confluence of the White River with the Green River (44) Historical location of the White River AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 3  Groundwater, hyporheic, tributaries, and tides o Infiltration and recharge throughout the watershed contribute to groundwater o Heat gains and losses from groundwater and tributary inputs can influence minimum and maximum temperature as well as buffer temperature fluctuations o Hyporheic exchange affects the minimum and maximum temperature, but has little effect on the daily average water temperature; hyporheic exchange doesn’t lower the average temp, however, it can lower the 7-DMax as well as the range in daily temperatures o Tidal exchange can push colder estuarine salt-water up into lower portions of rivers o Green River examples:  Narrower temperature ranges around the Green River Gorge (~RM 48-58) are likely due to inputs of cold water via tributaries and springs (e.g., Palmer Springs, Icy Creek) and groundwater (20,44)  Narrow temperature ranges and minimal increases in maximum temperatures below Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) are likely due to increased hyporheic exchange along this portion of the river (Figure 3) (20,44) Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Min & Max Temperature USGS/WDFW River Mile 0102030405060Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Hyporheic Exchange Flow (%)-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Hyporheic Exchange Flow Newaukum Creek Soos Creek Mill CreekOutlet of Howard Hanson Dam Figure 3: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the hyporheic exchange flow estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (20, 44) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 4  In the Middle Green, primary diffuse flow (flows from ungauged tributaries and groundwater) occurs from RM 55 to RM 32 (Figure 4) (20,44)  Large temperature ranges at downstream locations in the Duwamish River are likely due to fluctuations from warmer upstream water temperatures and cooler estuarine water(44)  Riparian corridor conditions o Riparian tree canopy buffers heat exchange between the river and solar-atmospheric radiation (heating caused by sun and warm air)  The effectiveness of shade provided by trees increases with the height of the trees, the width of riparian corridor, and the density of the planted riparian areas  Contiguous shade from wide riparian corridors (as compared to segmented or narrow corridors) is most effective at keeping water from warming from solar radiation o Wide riparian corridors support microclimate conditions that insulate stream temperatures from atmospheric radiation  Microclimate conditions from wide riparian corridors are most effective at insulating water from warmer air temperatures  A continuous buffer of at least 150 feet wide with trees ~104 feet tall and 90 percent canopy density is necessary to prevent temperature increases o The absence of insulating and buffering influences will cause streams to rapidly trend away from groundwater temperature and toward atmospheric temperatures; where insulating and buffering influences are strong, downstream temperature trends are reduced or eliminated o Green River examples:  Downstream increase in maximum water temperatures below Howard Hanson Dam is primarily due to the lack of riparian shade (44) Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Min-Max Temperatures USGS/WDFW River Mile 0102030405060Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Diffuse Inflow (cfs)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Diffuse TMDL model inflow Newaukum Creek Soos Creek Mill CreekOutlet of Howard Hanson Dam Figure 4: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the estimated diffuse water inputs (ungauged tributaries and groundwater) estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (20, 44) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 5  Shade deficit (difference between mature riparian shade and current conditions) exists throughout the Middle and Lower Green River riparian corridor, below Howard Hanson dam to the Green River George, and from below the gorge around Flaming Geyser State Park to Tukwila (Figure 5) (20,44)  Priority areas for riparian plantings along the banks of the Green River, based on steep increases in maximum temperatures, include reaches downstream of Howard Hansen to ~RM 58 and from ~RM 48 to Newaukum Creek.  Geographic priorities for revegetation, in order of the most to least important, are: the mainstem Middle Green River and Lower Green River; Soos and Newaukum Creeks and their tributaries; the Duwamish River; tributaries to the Middle Green River, Lower Green River and the Duwamish; the Upper Green River; and finally, the marine nearshore, and nearshore drainages (98) Cold-water refugia for salmonids (52, 72, 86, 91)  Cold-water refugia are characterized as being at least 2°C colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters  Cold-water refuges provide areas that maintain temperature conditions beneficial for cold-water species such as salmonids; these areas provide physiological and ecological benefits  Permanent shifts in stream temperature regimes can render formerly suitable habitat unusable for native species  Fish may use cold-water refuges at various temporal and spatial scales o Basin scale: cold water refugia driven by elevation, topography, geology, channel slope, and interactions with surface and subsurface hydrology o Segment and reach scale: cold water refugia driven by tributary confluences, bounded alluvial valley segments (vertical hyporheic exchange), relic floodplain channels (lateral hyporheic exchange) Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Min & Max Temperature USGS/WDFW River Mile 0102030405060Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Effective Shade Deficit (%)0 20 40 60 80 100 Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Effective Shade Deficit Newaukum Creek Soos Creek Mill CreekOutlet of Howard Hanson Dam Figure 5: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the estimated Effective Shade deficit determined as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (20, 44) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 6 o Channel habitat unit scale = cold water refugia driven by tributary confluences, side-channels, vertical and lateral hyporheic exchange, diel and temporal variation  Cold water refugia can be eliminated by activities such as building levees and revetments along channels that block hyporheic exchange; urban development that prevents water infiltration, lowers groundwater tables, and removes trees  Potential cold water refugia in the Green River (below Howard Hansen Dam): o Green River gorge (~RM 48-58) (topographic shading and groundwater inputs) o Tributaries, confluences, and side-channels: Duwamish Tributary (RM 6.4), Palmer Springs (RM 56.3), Resort Springs (RM 51.3), Black Diamond Springs (RM 49.5), Icy Creek (RM 48.3), Crisp Creek (RM 39.6), Lones Levee Channel (RM 37.5), Coho Channel (RM 36.9) (Figure 6) (44) o Groundwater and hyporheic exchange zones: RM 55 - RM 32 in the Middle Green; areas around alluvial deposits between Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) (Figure 3) (44) o Reaches downstream of Howard Hansen where hypolimnetic withdrawals bring colder water into the mainstem Green River  Potential cold water refugia in the Green River (above Howard Hansen Dam): o North Fork Green (RM 65.5), Charley Creek (RM 65.9), Gale Creek (RM 67.9), Smay Creek (RM 76.3), and Sunday Creek (RM 85.9) Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature July 4, 2015 USGS/WDFW River Mile 020406080Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mainstem 7DMax Water Quality Standard Potential Lethality Threshold Tributary 7DMax Howard Hanson Dam SundayCk SmayCk GaleCk CharleyCk NFGreen CohoChnl Crisp Creek (40d) LonesLeveeChnl Newaukum Creek (44a) Soos Creek (54a) Mill Creek (41a) Duwamish (13a) Figure 6: Plot of 7-DMax water temperature on July 4, 2015 at Green River mainstem and selected tributary and side channel locations (20, 44) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 7 Table 1: Temperature Impacts on Chinook Life Stages Life Stage Impaired and Detrimental Temperature Range Potential Temperature-related Impacts Citations Adult Upstream Migration  Migration = average >15°C , maximums >18-20°C, 7-DMax >20°C  Complete blockage = 21-22°C  Disease susceptibility = average >17.5°C, 7-DMax > 15-19°C  Instant mortality = 32-33°C  Increased metabolic demand  Delayed migration  Increased disease exposure  Direct lethality 1, 11, 15, 24, 25, 26, 29, 41, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 79, 78, 80, 84 Adult Pre- spawning  Disease susceptibility = average >13-14°C, maximums >17-18°C  Gamete development = average >13-16°C  Increased susceptibility to disease (e.g., Ichthyophthirius multifillis, Ceratomyxa shasta, columnaris disease)  Increased disease virulence  Decreased immune system condition  Reduced gamete quality and quantity 12, 14, 23, 24, 26, 55, 56, 57, 76, 78, 80 Adult Spawning  Gamete viability = average >13-16°C  Spawning = average >12-13°C , 7-DMax > 12-14°C  Mortality = 7-DMax 21-25°C, maximum 24-25°C  Reduced fertilization success  Reduced embryo survival to emergence 14, 22, 24, 56, 57, 75, 74 Egg  Incubation = average >8-10°C, maximum >13-15°C  Reduced embryo success, hatching-emergence, condition, and survival  Increased abnormalities and mortality  Altered metabolic rates, metabolic energy deficits 14, 23, 31, 32, 39, 56, 57, 65, 81, 95 Juvenile rearing and outmigration  Growth = average >13-15°C, 7-DMax > 14-17°C, maximum > 17-19°C  Rearing = average >16°C, 7-DMax > 15-18°C  Disease susceptibility = average >14-17.5°C  Feeding = average >18-20°C  Smoltification = average >15.5°C, 7-DMax > 15-16°C  Migration = average >18-22°C  Mortality = average >23°C  Reduced growth and feeding rates  Reduced competitive advantage with warm-water species  Reduced survival  Increased susceptibility to disease  Altered development and migration timing  Accelerated onset of smoltification and desmoltification 3, 7, 14, 23, 26, 46, 54, 55, 56, 57, 81, 87, 96, 99 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 8 Department of Ecology Sub-lethal and Lethal Temperature Thresholds  Water temperature is a key aspect of water quality for salmonids, and excessively high water temperature can act as a limiting factor for the distribution, migration, health and performance of salmonids (23, 24, 56, 57, 76)  Washington Department of Ecology established water temperature standards for salmon habitat at various stages of their life history in Chapter 173-201A of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)  Thresholds for sub-lethal impacts: 7-DMax (7 day average of the daily maximum temperatures) o Salmon and Trout Spawning = 13°C 7-DMax (September 15th to July 1st) o Core Summer Salmonid Habitat = 16°C 7-DMax (June 15th to September 15th) o Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, Migration = 17.5°C 7-DMax (September 16th to June 14th)  Thresholds for acute lethal impacts and barriers to migration: 7-DMax and 1-DMax (1 day average of the daily maximum temperatures) o Salmon acute lethality = 22°C 7-DMax and 23°C 1-DMax o Salmon barriers to migration = 22°C 1-DMax (3°C downstream differences)  Exceedances above the aforementioned thresholds indicate likely sub-lethal and lethal impacts to salmonid  If a water body is naturally warmer than or within 0.3°C of the standard/threshold for that water body, human caused increases (considered cumulatively) must not increase that temperature by more than 0.3°C Temperature Conditions in the Green River in 2015 (Following section based on King County 2016) The spring and summer of 2015 was abnormally warm and dry, with low snow pack due to a very warm winter. King County compiled water temperature data along the Green River from seven different entities in order to characterize water temperatures. According to climate change scenarios, we expect future years to look more like the spring and summer of 2015 than averages from the last 20 years.  Precipitation and air temperature: o 2015 had average levels of fall and winter precipitation, but record warm temperatures led to winter rain rather than snow at higher elevations (snow drought) o 2015 air temperature frequently exceeded the 90th percentile (1949-2015) on several occasions from January through July 2015 by as much as 5 oC; most notable were substantial excursions above the 90th percentile in June and July  Instream flow: o 2015 snowpack was low in the upper watershed; however, winter flows were not unusually low and summer flow targets set in the Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan for extremely dry weather were met or exceeded  Water temperature: o Water temperature in 2015 was similar to the 90th percentile (2001-2015) through late May; water temperatures were much higher than typical from late May through the beginning of July o 2015 peak daily maximum temperatures were observed in late June (compared to typical occurrence in July and August) o The relatively rapid rise in 7-DMax temperature between the outlet of Howard Hanson Dam and Kanaskat (approximately 6 miles downstream) was likely due to a lack of riparian cover o Relatively small increase in maximum temperature in the gorge is likely due to topographic shading and input of cold water via tributary springs AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 9 o Increase in the diurnal range from Flaming Geyser State Park to Soos Creek is likely due to the relatively shallow water depth through this reach coupled with the lack of riparian shade o Narrowing of the temperature range below Soos Creek to Mill Creek is likely due to increased hyporheic exchange (potential for large alluvial deposits)  2015 Compared to 2006 and 2003 o 2006 precipitation, snowpack, and air temperature were relatively typical of historic conditions; mainstem flows in 2006 were not unusually low o Water temperatures observed in 2006 were closer to 2001-2015 average conditions o The maximum 7-DMax temperatures observed downstream of the Green River gorge were consistently higher in 2015 compared to 2006 and 2003 o System potential shade model predictions illustrate that even with extensive amounts of additional shade along the entire river, water temperatures would still likely exceed criteria under critical flow and weather conditions  2015 stands out as having the highest 7-DMax temperatures below the gorge – higher even than the “worst case” existing condition shade model Potential Temperature-related Impacts to Chinook in the Green (Following section based on King County 2016)  7-DMax temperatures exceeded the relevant temperature standard throughout the mainstem – upstream and downstream of Howard Hanson Dam (exception being at the outlet of the dam up until late summer where discharge of cool hypolimnetic bottom waters from the pool behind Howard Hanson Dam cool mainstem temperatures)  The 7-DMax observed in July 2015 exceeded the 22 °C potential lethal criterion at almost every mainstem location sampled from Flaming Geyser State Park below the Green River gorge to the most downstream station in the Duwamish River  Green River Water Temperature Exceedances (Table 2) o Consistent exceedance of 7-DMax Salmon Core Summer Habitat criterion (mid-June to mid-September); 2015 had exceedance as early as late May o Consistent exceedance of 7-DMax Salmon Spawning Habitat criterion (mid-June to mid-September); 2015 had exceedance as early as late May o Occasional exceedance of 7-DMax Potentially Lethal criterion AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 10 Table 2: Department of Ecology salmon and trout designated aquatic use designation, respective 7-DMax temperature criteria, and 2015 temperature trends. Use designation and temperature criteria based on Table 200 and 602 of WAC 173-201A-602. Location Along Green River Use Designation 7-DMax (°C) 2015 Temperature Trends Mouth to Black River (RM 0-11) Salmon/trout migration and rearing  Migration  Rearing 17.5 17.5  7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/trout rearing and migration criterion until about September 2, 2015  7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/trout 22oC lethal criterion for several days at the end of June and early July and the most downstream stations exceeded lethal criterion in July and again at the beginning of August Black River to Mill Creek (RM 11-23.8) Salmon/trout migration, spawning, and rearing  Migration  Rearing  Spawning  Incubation 17.5 17.5 13 13 Mill Creek to Flaming Geyser State Park (RM 23.8-42.3) Salmon/trout core summer habitat  Migration  Rearing  Spawning  Incubation 16 16 13 13  7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/trout core summer habitat criterion  7-DMax temperatures exceeded the salmon/trout spawning and incubation criterion through July 1st and again at the end of the summer  7-DMax temperatures from RM 34.8-41.2 (below gorge) exceeded the salmon/trout 22oC lethal criterion for several days at the end of June and beginning of July; no observed exceedances from RM 23.8-33.4 Flaming Geyser State Park to headwaters (RM 42.3-85.9) Salmon/trout core summer habitat  Migration  Rearing  Spawning  Incubation 16 16 13 13  7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/trout core summer habitat criterion  7-DMax temperatures exceeded the salmon/trout spawning and incubation criterion at the beginning and end of the summer  7-DMax temperatures exceed the salmon/trout 22oC lethal criterion for a few days at RM 70.2 Green River and Sunday Creek: all waters above confluence Char  Rearing  Spawning  Incubation 12 9 9  7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the char spawning and rearing habitat criterion Smay Creek and West Fork Smay Creek: all waters AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 11  Green River Chinook life stages likely impacted by high water temperatures (Figure 7 & Table 3) o Parr rearing (core summer criterion) o Yearling rearing (core summer criterion) o Adult upstream migration (migration/spawning/incubation criterion) o Early spawning and incubation (spawning/incubation criterion) Figure 7 (adapted from King County 2016): Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured from 2001-2014. State standards for designated uses are noted by the orange line and potentially lethal impacts are indicated by the red line. State standards for designated uses include core summer salmonid habitats (July 1 – September 15) as well as spawning and incubation periods (September 16 – July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook life-stages included below. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 12 Table 3: Locations across the Green River of potential temperature-related impacts on Fall Chinook life stages. Life Stage Potential Temperature-related Impacts Location in Green River Adult Upstream Migration  Increased metabolic demand  Delayed migration  Increased disease exposure  Direct lethality  Migration Inhibited: RM 0 – RM 46  Blockages: RM 0 – RM 44  Disease: RM 0 – RM 48  Lethality: RM 0 – 23.8, 34.8-41.2, 70.2 Adult Pre-spawning  Increased susceptibility to disease (e.g., Ichthyophthirius multifillis, Ceratomyxa shasta, columnaris disease)  Increased disease virulence  Decreased immune system condition  Reduced gamete quality and quantity  Migration Inhibited: RM 0 – RM 46  Blockages: RM 0 – RM 44  Disease: RM 0 – RM 48  Lethality: RM 0 – 23.8, 34.8-41.2, 70.2 Adult Spawning  Reduced fertilization success  Reduced embryo survival to emergence  Mainstem spawning: Middle Green RM 25.4 – RM 60.8  Tributaries: Soos Creek, Newaukum Creek Egg  Reduced embryo success, hatching-emergence, condition, and survival  Increased abnormalities and mortality  Altered metabolic rates, metabolic energy deficits  Mainstem spawning: Middle Green RM 25.4 – RM 60.8  Tributaries: Soos Creek, Newaukum Creek Juvenile rearing and outmigration  Reduced growth and feeding rates  Reduced competitive advantage with warm-water species  Reduced survival  Increased susceptibility to disease  Altered development and migration timing  Accelerated onset of smoltification and desmoltification AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 13 Potential Climate Change Impacts and Trends to Water Temperature Conditions  Climate Change impacts: higher air and water temperatures, lower summer flows, altered precipitation and hydrologic regimes, and increased magnitude/frequency of winter peak flows (4, 22, 37, 52, 53)  Summer periods of high temperatures and low flows o Summer flows have been trending lower for many decades resulting in decreased available habitats (48, 50, 77, 88) o Most models predict summer warming will exceed warming in other seasons (52, 53, 64) o At a summertime warming range of 2-5.5°C, there is potential for loss of 5 to 22% of salmon habitat by 2090 (69) o Significant increases in water temperatures and thermal stress for salmon statewide will occur with climate warming (52, 53) o Nearly 40-50% reduction in salmon cold-water habitat could occur with climate warming (19); Disrupting migration as fish hold in cold-water refuges (27, 41, 90) o Competitive interactions will be increasingly skewed towards species with warmer temperature tolerances (17,59) o Yearling likely sensitive due to increased exposure to the highest water temperature conditions in summer (4)  Changes in precipitation and hydrologic regimes o Changes in precipitation and temperature associated with regional warming in the PNW will alter snowpack and hydrologic regimes (22, 30, 49, 82) o Green River Watershed: significant reduction in snow water equivalence predicted to start in the 2020’s; increased winter precipitation and decreased summer precipitation; higher runoff in cool season and lower runoff in warm season; altered timing of flows (22) o Shifting of watershed hydrographs from transient rain-snow and snow-dominant to rain-dominant (22) o Increased flood magnitude and frequency during incubation can decrease survival rates by scouring redds, crushing eggs, mobilizing gravels, and depositing fine sediments on redds (18, 7, 36, 61, 79) o Warmer cold season temperatures and warmer annual minima may shift biological processes (e.g. altered growth rates and food availability) ; warming trends will reduce the time between spawning and juvenile hatching (37); snowmelt driven freshets have advanced 2-3 weeks in last 50 years (73, 88) o Possible desynchronization of juvenile hatching and emergence from optimal periods for flows and food availability (6) o Reduced availability of slow-water habitats, which can flush rearing juveniles downstream from preferred habitats and decrease freshwater survival rates (47) o Accelerated temperature regime during springtime can result in either earlier emigration (caused by more rapid development to the smolt stage) or less success in smoltification (caused by high temperature, desmoltification, or inhibitory effects) (56) Human alteration to river thermal regimes: o Dams: reduced thermal and flow variability, potential for hyporheic exchange to act as a temperature buffer is reduced by flow regulation, altered sediment dynamics, alter thermal dynamics from storage reservoirs (68, 70, 72, 93)  Howard Hanson Dam has a large, deep reservoir with hypolimnetic withdrawals releasing colder water during the summer and warmer water during late summer, fall, and winter AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 14 o Water withdrawals: reduced in-stream flows result in reduced assimilative capacity of streams, draw hyporheic water away from the stream (33, 60, 66, 72) o Channel engineering and connectivity (e.g., straightening, bank hardening, diking, and disconnection of surface-groundwater, side-channel, and floodplain exchange): decreases the interaction of stream channels with floodplain and alluvial aquifer, hyporheic areas, and reduces habitat variability (drive streambed hyporheic flow) (40, 72, 97)  Primarily Lower Green (King County maintains over 30 miles of levees and revetments on the Green/Duwamish); lower sections of the Middle Green. o Removal of vegetation (upland or riparian): reduced insulating properties (reduces convective heat exchange), limited blocking of solar radiation and trapping of cool air temperature, altered infiltration and hydrologic dynamics (35, 56, 6, 98)  High priority areas with degraded riparian conditions include the Middle Green (RM 32 – 64), Lower Green (RM 11 – 32), Soos and Newaukum, Duwamish River (RM 0 – 11), small tributaries to Middle and Lower Green (e.g., Burns, Crisp, Mill, Mullen, Springbrook, Brooks creeks), etc. o Land use (e.g., impervious related development): altered hydrologic regime, decreased infiltration and recharge, altered exchange between reach and alluvial aquifer, reduced storage/higher winter flows and reduced summer recharge (10, 12, 67, 83) o Climate Change: increased air and water temperature, reduced snow storage (influencing summer low flows), altered precipitation and flow regime (frequency and timing of events), reduced rearing and suitable habitats availability, altered temperature-specific ecological timing across salmon life stages (4, 19, 22, 37, 48, 52, 53, 63) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 15 Strategies for Cooler Water Temperatures  Protect riparian forested areas as buffers to air and solar radiation warming water.  Plant wide, contiguous riparian buffers of tall trees where possible. Priority areas include the six miles immediately downstream of Howard Hanson Dam, etc. (from above), and priorities listed in the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy.  Purchase conservation easements or fee simple acquisition of riparian areas in order to protect and maintain native trees along channels.  Protect existing cold water refugia from urban development, tree removal, and bank armoring.  Protect and restore areas known to contribute to groundwater recharge.  Restore areas of hyporheic exchange to cool water by setting back levees and taking other actions to reconnect channels to the historic floodplain.  Work with the ACOE to consider options for pulling cooler water from the reservoir behind Howard Hanson Dam, especially in late summer.  Reduce water withdrawals from the watershed, and encourage use of reclaimed water instead.  Encourage low impact development practices that reduce impervious surfaces, and lot sizes, maintain forested areas and wildlife corridors, and promote stormwater infiltration and treatment.  Retrofit developed areas to infiltrate and treat stormwater and plant trees to promote groundwater recharge, bolster summer stream flows, and cool stormwater runoff. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 16 References 1. Alabaster, J, S,. 1988. The dissolved oxygen requirements of upstream migrant Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. J. Fish Biol 32:635-636. 2. Arismendi, I., S. L., Johnson, J. B. Dunham, and R. Haggerty. 2013. Descriptors of natural thermal regimes in streams and their responsiveness to change in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Freshwater Biol, 58: 880- 894. DOI: 10.1111/Fwb.12094. 3. Baker, P.F., T.P. Speed, and F. K. Ligon. 1995. Estimating the influence of temperature on the survival of Chinook salmon smolts (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha) migrating through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta of California. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 52:855-863. 4. Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R. N. Palmer, K. K. Bartz, H. Imaki, and E. Korb. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proc of the Natl Acad of Sci of the U.S.A 104:6720- 6725. 5. Beschta, R. L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands: 25-28. 6. Brannon, E. L., M. S. Powell, T. P. Quinn, and A. Talbot. 2004 Population structure of Columbia River basin Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Rev Fish Sci 12:99–232. 7. Brett, J.R. 1958. Implications and assessments of environmental stress. pp 69-83 in P.A. Larkin (ed.) The investigation of fish-power problems, Vancouver, Institute of Fisheries, University of British Columbia. 8. Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman , J. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol Appl, 7: 1188-1200. 9. Brown, G. W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resour Res 5:68–75 10. Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas, 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289- 309. 11. Bumgarner, J., G. Mendel, D. Milks, L. Ross, M. Varney, J. Dedloff. 1997. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation. 1996 Annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hatcheries Program Assessment and Development Division. Report #H97-07. Produced for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cooperative Agreement 14-48-0001-96539. 12. Caissie, D., 2006. The Thermal Regime of Rivers: A Review. Freshwater Biology 51:1389-1406. 13. California Department of Water Resources. 1988. Water Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) with emphasis on the Sacramento River: A Literature Review. Northern District Office Report. Red Bluff, California. 42 p. 14. Clarke, W.C., and T. Hirano. 1995. Osmoregulation. In: Groot, C., Margolis, L., Clarke, W.C. Eds.., Physiological Ecology of Pacific Salmon. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 317–377. 15. Cooke, S. J., S. G. Hinch, A. P. Farrell, M. F. Lapointe, S. M. R. Jones, J. S. Macdonald, D. A. Patterson, M. C. Healey, and G. Van Der Kraak. 2004. Abnormal migration timing and high en route mortality of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, British Columbia. Fisheries 29:22–33. 16. Constantz, J. 1998. Interaction between stream temperature, streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine streams. Wat. Res. Research, 34: 1609-1615. 17. DeStaso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Trans Am Fish Soc 123: 289–297. 18. DeVries, P. E. 1997. Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and implications for scour studies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1685–1698. 19. Eaton, J. G., and R. M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnol Oceanogr 4l:109-1115. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 17 20. Ecology. 2011. Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 11-10-046. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1110046.html 21. Ebersole, J. L., P. J. Jr.Wigington, S. G. Leibowitz, R.L. Comeleo, and J. Van Sickle. 2015. Predicting the occurrence of cold-water patches at intermittent and ephemeral tributary confluences with warm rivers. Freshwater Science, 34: 111-124. DOI: 10.1086/678127. 22. Elsner, M. M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J. Deems, A. F. Hamlet, J. Vano, K. E. B. Mickelson, S. Y. Lee, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim. Change 102, 225e260. 23. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Biological evaluation of the revised Washington water quality standards. U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA. 24. Farrell, A. P., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, D. A. Patterson, G. T. Crossin, M. Lapointe, and M. T. Mathes. 2008. Pacific salmon in hot water: applying aerobic scope models and biotelemetry to predict the success of spawning migrations. Physiol and Biochem Zool 81(6):697-708. 25. Fish, F. F., and M. G. Hanavan. 1948. A report upon the Grand Coulee fish-maintenance project 1939-1947. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Science Report 55. 63 pp. 26. Fryer, J.L., and K.S. Pilcher. 1974. Effects of Temperature on Disease of Salmonid Fishes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Ecological Research Series. EPA-660/3-73-020. 114pp. 27. Goneia, T. M., M. L. Keefer, T. C. Bjornn, C. A. Peery, D. H. Bennett, and L. C. Stuehrenberg. 2006. Behavioral thermoregulation and slowed migration by adult fall Chinook salmon in response to high Columbia River water temperatures. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:408–419. 28. Greene, C. M., D. W. Jensen, E. Beamer, G. R. Pess, E. A. Steel. 2005. Effects of environmental conditions during stream, estuary, and ocean residency on Chinook salmon return rates in the Skagit River, WA. Trans of the Am Fish Soc 134:1562–1581 29. Hallock, R. J., R. F. Elwell, and D. H. Fry. 1970. Migrations of adult kind salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the San Joaquin Delta as demonstrated by the use of sonic tags. California Dept Fish Game Fish Bull 151. 92 pp. 30. Hamlet, A. F., and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Production of temporally consistent grid. 31. Healy, T. 1979. The effect of high temperature on the survival of Sacramento River chinook (king) salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, eggs, and fry. California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch, Administrative Report No. 79-10. 7 p. 32. Heming, T.A. 1982. Effects Of Temperature On Utilization Of Yolk By Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) Eggs And Alevins. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 39:1:184-190. 33. Hibbs, B., and J. Sharp. 1992. Impact of high capacity wells on flows of the lower Colorado River. New Waves 5:3– 4. 34. Holmes, R. M. 2000. The importance of ground water to stream ecosystem function. Pages 137–148 in J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholland (eds.). Streams and ground waters. Academic Press, San Diego. 35. Holtby, L. B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:502–515. 36. Holtby, L. B., M. C. Healey. 1986. Selection for adult size in female coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:1946–1959 37. Isaak, D. J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler. 2011. Climate change effects on stream and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980–2009 and implications for salmonid fishes, Clim. Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0326-z. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 18 38. Johnson, S. L. 2003. Stream temperature: scaling of observations and issue for modeling. Hydrol Proc 17:497– 499. 39. Johnson, H.E., and R.F. Brice. 1953. Effects of transportation of green eggs, and of water temperature during incubation, on the mortality of Chinook salmon. Prog. Fish-Culturist 15:104- 108. 40. Jurajda, P. 1995. Effect of channelization and regulation on fish recruitment in a flood plain river. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10:207–215. 41. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, B. High. 2009. Behavioral thermoregulation and associated mortality trade-offs in migrating adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): variability among sympatric populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1734–1747. 42. Keery, J, A. Binley, N.Crook, and J. W. N. Smith. 2007. Temporal and spatial variability of groundwater–surface water fluxes: Development and application of an analytical method using temperature time series. J Hydrol, 336: 1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.003. 43. Kiffney, P. M., C. M. Greene, J. E. Hall, J. R. Davies. 2006. Tributary streams create spatial discontinuities in habitat, biological productivity, and diversity in mainstem rivers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 63: 2518-2530. DOI: 10.1139/f06-138. 44. King County. 2016. Green-Duwamish River 2015 Temperature Data Compilation and Analysis. Prepared by Curtis DeGasperi, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. 45. Knowles, N, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the Western United States. J Clim 19:4545–4559. 46. Kurokawa, T. 1990. Influence of the date and body size at smoltification and subsequent growth rate and photoperiod on desmoltification in underyearling masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou). Aquaculture 86: 209- 218. 47. Latterell, J. J., K. D. Fausch, C. Gowan, S. C. Riley. 1998. Relationship of trout recruitment to snowmelt runoff flows and adult trout abundance in six Colorado mountain streams. Rivers 6:240–250. 48. Leppi, J. C. , T. H. DeLuca, S. W. Harrar, S. W. Running. 2011. Impacts of climate change on August stream discharge in the Central-Rocky Mountains Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0235-1. 49. Lettenmaier, D. P., A. W. Wood,R. N. Palmer, E. F. Wood, E. Z. Stakhiv. 1999. Water resources implications of global warming: a U.S. regional perspective. Clim Change 43(3):537–579. 50. Luce, C. H., Z. A. Holden. 2009. Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest United States. Geophys Res Lett 36:L16401. doi:10.1029/2009GL039407. 51. Major, R. L., J. L. Mighell. 1967. Influence of Rocky Reach Dam and the temperature of the Okanogan River on the upstream migration of sockeye salmon. Fish Bull 66(1):131-147. 52. Mantua, N.J, I. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Clim Change, 102: 187-223. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9845-2. 53. Mantua, N.J., I. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet. 2009. Chapter 6 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 54. Marine, K. R., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1998. Effects of Elevated Water Temperature on Some Aspects of the Physiological and Ecological Performance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha): Implications for Management of California’s Chinook Salmon Stocks. Stream Temperature Monitoring and Assessment Workshop, 12-14 January 1998. Sacramento, CA. Forest Science Project, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 55. Materna, E. 2001. Issue Paper 4: Temperature Interaction. Prepared as part of U.S. EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. EPA-910-D-01-004. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 19 56. McCullough, D., S. Spalding, D. Sturdevant, and M. Hicks. 2001. Issue paper 5 summary of technical literature examining the physiological effects of temperature on salmonids : prepared as part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Seattle, WA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 57. McCullough, D. A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to Chinook salmon. Water Resour Assess, U.S. EPA 910-R-99-010, 291 pp., Seattle, WA. 58. Mcdonald, J. S., M. G. G. Foreman, T. Farrell, I. V. Williams, J. Grout, A. Cass, J. C. Woodey, H. Enzenhofer, W. C. Clarke, R. Houtman, E. M. Donaldson, and D. Barnes. 2000. The influence of extreme water temperatures on migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during the 1998 spawning season. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2326 117 p. 59. McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, F. T. Barrows, J. H. Selong, R. J. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:1313–1326. 60. Meier, W., C. Bonjour, A. Wüest, and P. Reichert. 2003. Modeling the effect of water diversion on the temperature of mountain streams. J Environ Eng 129:755–764. 61. Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, D. Schuett Hames, T. P. Quinn. 1996. Streambed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1061–1070. 62. Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. J Am Water Resour Ass 41:813–834. 63. Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86:39–49. 64. Mote, P. W., and E. P. Salathé Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s future in a changing climate. Climate Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9848-z. 65. Murray, C.B. and T.D. Beacham. 1987. The development of chinook and chum salmon embryos and alevins under varying temperature regimes. Can. J. of Zoology 65:11:2672-2681. 66. National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 452 pp. 67. Nelson, K. C., M. A. Palmer. 2007. Stream temperature surges under urbanization and climate change: data, models, and responses. J Amer Water Resources Ass 43:440–452. 68. Olden, J. D., R. J. Naiman. 2009. Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. Freshw Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02179.x 69. O’Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 46 pp. 70. Poff, N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M. Acreman, A. Apse, B. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G. Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O'Keeffe, J. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme, and A. Warner. 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55:147–170. 71. Poole, G. C. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biol, 47: 641-660. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00922.x. 72. Poole, G. C., C. H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environ Manage, 27: 787-802. DOI: 10.1007/s002670010188. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 20 73. Regonda, S. K., B. Rajagopalan, M. Clark, J. Pitlick. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the Western United States. J Clim 18:372–384. 74. Rice, G. 1960. Use of coldwater holding facilities in conjunction with king salmon spawning operations at nimbus hatchery. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 60-3. Region 2, Inland Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 75. Rice, S. P., M. T. Greenwood, C. B. Joyce. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal organization of macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 58: 824-840. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-58-4-824. 76. Richter, A., S. A. Kolmes. 2005. Maximum Temperature Limits for Chinook, Coho, and Chum Salmon, and Steelhead Trout in the Pacific Northwest. Rev in Fish Sci, 13:1,23-49. DOI: 10.1080/10641260590885861. 77. Rood, S. B., J. Pan, K. M. Gill, C. G. Franks, G. M. Samuelson, A. Shepherd. 2008. Declining summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: changing seasonal hydrology and probably impacts on floodplain forests. J Hydrol 349:397– 410. 78. Schreck, C. B., J. C. Snelling, R. E. Ewing, C. S. Bradford, L. E. Davis, C. H. Slater. 1994. Migratory behavior of adult spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette River and its tributaries. Oregon Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Project Number 88-160-3, Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 79. Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, L. Kishimoto. 2003. 2002 Skagit River wild 01 chinook production evaluation annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia 80. Servizi, J. A. and D. W. Martens. 1991. Effect of Temperature, Season, and Fish Size on Acute Lethality of Suspended Sediments to Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:493-497. 81. Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 127 pp. 82. Snover, A. K., A. F. Hamlet, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2003. Climate change scenarios for water planning studies: pilot applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84(11):1513–1518 83. Somers, K.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.B. Grace, B.A. Hassett, E.B. Sudduth, S. Wang, and D.L. Urban. 2013. Streams in the Urban Heat Island: Spatial and Temporal Variability in Temperature. Freshwater Science 32:309-326. 84. Stabler, D. F. 1981. Effects of altered flow regimes, temperatures, and river impoundment on adult steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. MS thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 84 pp. 85. Steel, E. A., C. Sowder, and E. E. Peterson. 2016. Spatial and temporal variation of water temperature regimes on the Snoqualmie River network. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1-19. DOI: 10.1111/1752- 1688.12423. 86. Steiger, J., M. James, and F. Gazelle. 1998. Channelization and consequences on floodplain system functioning on the Garonne River, SW France. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 14:13–23. 87. Stefansson, S.O., B. Th. Björnsson, L. O. E. Ebbesson, and S. D. McCormick. 2008. Smoltification. In: Finn, R.N., Kapoor, B.G. (Eds.), Fish Larval Physiology. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp. 639–681. 88. Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. J Clim 18:1136–1155. 89. Sullivan, K., and T. N. Adams. 1991. The physics of stream heating: 2) An analysis of temperature patterns in stream environments based on physical principles and field data. Weyerhaeuser Company Technical Report 044- 5002/89/2. 90. Sutton, R. J., M. L. Deas, S. K. Tanaka, T. Soto, R. A. Corum. 2007. Salmonid observations at a Klamath River thermal refuge under various hydrological and meteorological conditions. River Res Appl 23:775–785. 91. Torgersen, C. E., J. L. Ebersole, and D. M. Keenan. 2012. Primer for identifying cold-water refuges to protect and restore thermal diversity in riverine landscapes, US Environmental Protection Agency Report 910-C-12-001, Seattle, Washington, 78 pp. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 21 92.Velsen, F. P. J. 1987. Temperature and incubation in Pacific salmon and rainbow trout: compilation of data on median hatching time, mortality, and embryonic staging. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 626:58p. 93.Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:105–119. 94.Webb, B.W., D.M. Hannah, R.D. Moore, L.E. Brown, and F. Nobilis, 2008. Recent Advances in Stream and River Temperature Research. Hydrological Processes 22:902-918. 95.Webb, B. W, and Y. Zhang. 1997. Spatial and seasonal variability in the components of the river heat budget. Hydrol Proc 11:79–101. 96.Wedemeyer, G.A., R.L. Saunders, and W.C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental Factors Affecting Smoltification and Early Marine Survival of Anadromous Salmonids. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42:6:1-14. 97.Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. E, McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves, and J. R. Sedel. 1994. Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-326. 98.WRIA 9 Revegetation Work Group. 2016. Re-Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). Written for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. 99.Zaugg, W.S., and H.H. Wagner. 1973. Gill ATPase Activity Related to Parr-Smolt Transformation and Migration n Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Influence of Photoperiod and Temperature. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 45B:955-965. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE D-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 1 WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Technical briefing for the update to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. Authored by Jessica Engel, Kollin Higgins and Elissa Ostergaard with input by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee. July 2017 Introduction In the twelve years since the adoption of the 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (Plan), there have been many successes and challenges for the salmon recovery effort in our local watershed, and the greater Puget Sound. With each recovery project planned and implemented, we understand more about the complexity of this undertaking. One of the most pressing environmental concerns affecting the long-term success of salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish Watershed is the impacts of climate change. Climate change science was not incorporated into the 2005 Plan, because future climate scenarios were unclear. However, climate change has been the focus of intense research, both global and regional, over the last decades. The research from the Puget Sound region, especially from the University of Washington’s Climate Impact Group (CIG), has been informative. The clear message from this research is that we must prepare for the current and future impacts of climate change and incorporate what we know about climate change into salmon recovery actions. Climate change will directly impact salmon recovery work done in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. CIG and others predict that Pacific Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bringing warmer, wetter falls, winters, and springs. Floods will be more intense and more frequent. As winters become warmer and wetter, snow will melt from the mountains earlier and more quickly. The decrease in amount and earlier disappearance of the snow pack will exacerbate drought-like summer low flow conditions in currently snow- dominated areas of the watershed. Hotter air temperatures will increase water temperature in both rivers and the ocean. Nearshore and estuary areas will be impacted by sea level rise, food web alteration and ocean acidification. A changing climate will exacerbate typical climate variability causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. This was observed in summer of 2015 when a warm, wet winter with extreme low snow pack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon (DeGasperi 2017). The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reported adult Chinook salmon dying in the stream just below the Soos Creek hatchery (H. Coccoli, pers. comm.), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data indicated higher than typical numbers of female Chinook with high egg retention (pre-spawn mortality) (Draft WDFW data 2017) . The true impact of 2015 will not be understood for several years. We do know that impacts from climate change are occurring, will continue and get worse, and will affect all life stages of Pacific salmon (Mauger et al. 2015). While we know the climate is changing, the magnitude and precise timing of those changes are less certain. This issue briefing is for planners, citizens, policy makers and restoration practitioners involved in salmon recovery to understand the expected impacts and help prioritize restoration and protection actions that will help mitigate the effects of climate change. For this paper, we rely on the science in the CIG State of Knowledge report, which predicts climate change impacts into mid-century. This document is intended to highlight the best available AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 2 science about climate change and the ways salmon and their habitat will be impacted in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. The key actions from this report are recommendations for restoration priorities that build resilience for salmon as well as the larger ecosystem, rather than a list of specific prioritized habitat restoration projects. References to the relevant literature are included; readers may refer to those for more information on topics of interest. Climate variability, expected changes, and impacts to salmon The Puget Sound’s diverse landscape and climate have driven adaptation and biodiversity in our local flora and fauna. The Pacific Northwest climate naturally varies seasonally as well as year to year between cool and hot, wet and dry. We are familiar with the natural variability in our atmospheric weather and oceanic patterns, but ocean conditions also vary on inter-annual and decadal scales. Year to year variability is generally associated with the familiar El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which affects ocean temperatures as well as global precipitation and temperature. Longer term decadal patterns are often described by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; see section 6 for more information), a pattern defined by variations in sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific (NWFSC, NOAA https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm). The Puget Sound region is already experiencing some of the ways climate change will exacerbate and prolong naturally occurring stressful environmental conditions. The rate of current greenhouse gas emissions will make these extreme conditions more common in coming decades. We have already seen higher than normal air temperatures; by mid-century, annual average air temperatures are projected to rise between 2.3 and 3.3 degrees Celsius (C) (4.2 – 5.9 degrees Fahrenheit), exacerbating surface water warming. Models used to inform the Climate Impact Group’s State of the Knowledge Report show a decline in summer precipitation and increases in precipitation during fall, winter and spring. The region’s snowpack is expected to decrease with warmer, wetter winters. The decline in snow pack has been observed through the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) snow telemetry monitoring (SNOTEL). In 2015, the water derived from snow melt was recorded well below the 30 year median from December to July. However, the data from NRCS show that overall precipitation in the Green/Duwamish watershed was average in 2015, indicating that in this year precipitation shifted from snow to rain (www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/) (Figure 1). The data from NRCS and other sources show that typical snow- dominated elevations are shifting to more rain and less snow, and that headwater areas typically dominated by rain-on-snow events will become rain-dominated. This suggests that our region will experience more precipitation as rain, less snow, more frequent and severe rain-driven flooding events, and more very low summer flows (Mauger et al. 2015). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 3 Figure 1. Plot of cumulative snow water equivalent and precipitation for 2015 water year at the Stamped Pass SNOTEL site compared to historic data (from King County 2017 Climate change will challenge the survival of salmon in our watershed. Pacific Northwest salmon populations have declined dramatically over the last several decades, and climate change impacts are expected to further degrade salmon numbers in the years ahead, affecting salmon life histories, feeding, migration, growth, and health. Thus it is urgent that we implement projects and policies that restore and protect areas to improve our basin’s hydrologic patterns and habitat functions that support salmon in their various life stages. Salmon recovery advocates in the basin must implement restoration and protection actions that remain successful under a changing climate. Climate effects should influence the way WRIA 9 partners approach recovery now and in the future. Projected climate changes and their impacts to salmon are summarized in Figure 2, which shows the anticipated timing of climate impacts seasonally and their effects on the associated salmonid life stages in fresh water and estuarine areas. Table 1 shows each climate impact’s effects on salmon - as well as the primary areas of the basin where each effect will be felt. Together, the table and figure can be used to understand, in brief, how and where projected climate impacts will affect salmon in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 4 Figure 2. Salmonid life stages and impacts of climate change (adapted from Beechie et al., 2012.) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 5 Table 1. Anticipated climate effects, impacts to salmon and critical geographic areas of occurrence. Climate impact Salmon impact Primary geographic area Hydrology Shifting timing of life cycle transitions; scouring/smothering redds; stranding redds and juveniles; loss of thermal and flood refugia; less complex habitat; migration barriers due to extreme low and/or high flows Upper Green, tributaries and nearshore drainages, especially where it is currently snow- dominated in winter will have the greatest impacts – Soos, Newaukum, Mill, Mullen creeks (and other lower elevation tributaries) will be impacted primarily by increased winter rain intensities and lower flows as they are not directly affected by mainstem flow management or snow. Impacts to the Middle and upper Lower Green spawning reaches may be somewhat mitigated by water management at the HHD. Temperature Can be lethal above 22 degrees C; sub- lethal effects above 17 C include developmental abnormalities, altered growth rates, non-fertilization of eggs; altered food web; altered migration timing; altered predator/prey relationship; reduced disease resistance Temperature will be a concern for the whole watershed. However, the mainstem is generally warmer than the tributaries and will likely to remain so into the future. Stormwater runoff Increased peak flows and reduced summer base flows causing channel scour and incision, channel and habitat degradation for fish as well as benthic invertebrates, resulting in an altered food web, and compounding other hydrologic effects. Increased erosion could cause an increase in mobilized fine sediments, which in addition to degrading habitat for salmon by filling in gravels and smothering redds, may carry toxic contaminants. Increased water pollution may cause chemical contamination of juvenile salmon and their prey, food web alteration and pre-spawn mortality. Existing developed areas generally do not meet today’s stormwater control standards; runoff generally is directed quickly via pipes to streams and Puget Sound without treatment. Hydrologic effects are primarily to tributary streams and direct drainages to Puget Sound. Infiltration reduces pollutant concentrations and slows the flows into streams, reducing potentially harmful peak flows. Frequent, intense peak flows could result from a combination of increased urban density and more intense winter storms. Some toxic pollutants may increase due to increased storm runoff in combination with increases in population, particularly those that are detected year-round. Sedimentation Lethal conditions, smothering of interstitial spaces in redds and choking of gills; interference with migration cues; decreased resistance to disease; altered /decreased habitat Upper Green, Middle Green Sea level rise Shifting habitat range; loss of estuarine habitat; altered food web; could create passive gains in habitat depending on The Puget Sound nearshore and the Duwamish River. Lower lying areas and armored shorelines in the Central Puget Sound watershed nearshore AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 6 nearby infrastructure constraints, elevation, and vegetation gradients (West Point to Federal Way and Vashon-Maury Island) and Duwamish estuary are most at risk to habitat shifts/loss Ocean acidification and increased temperature Altered food webs; decreased food availability; decreased ocean survival; diminished dissolved oxygen affecting metabolism; altered migration pattern Puget Sound, Salish Sea, and Pacific Ocean Hydrology Climate Impacts on Winter Hydrology Stream flows in winter will be affected in the following ways:  More winter precipitation will fall as rain and less as snow.  Upper areas of the watershed will have less snowpack, which will change the runoff pattern dramatically. Instead of having moderate runoff events in winter and again in spring, there will be much more runoff in winter and much less in spring (Figure 4 and 4). This will affect water temperatures as well, especially in spring and early summer.  More intense rainstorms in winter will cause higher winter peak flows.  Winter peak flows are expected to increase by 28%-34% by the 2080s (Mauger et al. 2015).  Average annual rainfall is projected to increase slightly (but the increase will be small relative to natural variability) (Mauger et al. 2015). Figure 3. Streamflow is projected to increase in winter and decrease in spring and summer in all WRIA 9 drainages, with the biggest changes occurring in “mixed rain and snow” basins. Results are shown for a typical warm, lowland basin (left), and a typical upper elevation basin with substantial area near the current snow line. Adapted from Hamlet et al. (2013) Green River and upper elevation tributaries Nearshore and lowland tributaries AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 7 Figure 4. Less snow and more rain in winter is projected to cause higher peak stream flows in winter and less stream flow in spring. This pattern becomes more pronounced over time. Source: University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, PS State of Knowledge Report (Mauger et al. 2015).. Climate Impacts on Summer Hydrology Summer stream flows are expected to change in the future as follows:  Diminishing snowpack will lead to lower river flows earlier in the year and extending through summer.  Decline in summer rain (22% less summer rain likely by 2050’s (Mauger et al. 2015)).  Less summer rain will extend the duration of low flow impacts such as warmer stream temperatures, streams disconnected from floodplains and lakes, changes from year-round to seasonal flow over more area, and less available habitat.  Lower water during summer will result in less complex habitat for fish because the channel edge will no longer be next to edge vegetation, which fish use as cover. Salmon Impacts  The change in hydrologic patterns from climate change will likely have both episodic and catastrophic impacts to the survival rate of salmonid populations.  Hydrologic disruption will alter the timing and magnitude of high and low stream flows and the corresponding temperatures. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 8 Winter Impacts on Salmon  More frequent winter floods will increase the risk of redd scouring and flushing early hatched fry down into lower river and salt water habitats, reducing incubating egg and fry survival rates respectively. This impact will occur throughout spawning reaches, but especially in spawning reaches with levees that focus flood energy and limit floodplain connectivity. These risks can be reduced or increased on the mainstem by flow management choices made at the Howard Hanson Dam. Risks can be reduced by capturing flood waters above the dam. Risks can be increased, especially when flows are kept artificially high (above scour velocities) for longer periods than natural to reduce water levels in the reservoir to make room for incoming storms. CIG is undertaking further analysis of climate change impacts on the Green River that takes into account the effects of the Howard Hanson Dam. This section should be revisited after that analysis is completed.  In tributaries, increased winter flows can bring increased sediment loads that smother redds, and reduce a juvenile salmon’s ability breath, reducing survival. In the mainstem Green River below Howard Hanson Dam, sedimentation rates are expected to be low because a large amount of the coarse sediment is captured above the dam in the reservoir.  High winter flows will decrease slower water habitat available for juvenile fish in some areas. In others, it will increase juvenile salmon access to off-channel, floodplain habitats for rearing. High flows may also cause benefits by causing channel migration, which could create new slow water habitats. In such cases, stranding of juveniles could occur.  Lack of slower water habitat increases the risk of flushing juveniles rearing in the freshwater out to estuary or ocean too soon.  Higher peak flows are expected to increase bank erosion, creating wider bank full widths for local area streams, especially in snow dominated areas. This will exacerbate existing undersized culverts (Wilhere et al. 2016). Summer Impacts on Salmon  Reduced water levels early and higher water temperatures could disrupt or modify juvenile chinook migration, and salmon and steelhead adult migration and spawning.  Less water will limit the amount of spawning habitat available.  Declining snowpack will reduce duration and volume of spring snow melt.  Decreased spring and summer flows and warmer water will be the result of dry summers and high air temperatures, as we saw in summer 2015 (Figure 5) (DeGasperi 2017).  Earlier low flows can disconnect stream habitats and strand juvenile fish and prevent access to spawning areas.  The concentration of fish in a few areas due to low flows, can increase the spread of disease, food competition and predation. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 9 Figure 5. Stream temperatures measured along the length of the Green River from above the Howard Hanson Dam reservoir to Tukwila at River Mile 7.9 on July 4, 2015. Temperatures are well above state temperature standards for the 7-day average daily maximum, and reached lethal levels in all subwatersheds. From (DeGasperi 2017). Local context The majority of the basin will feel the effects of higher winter flows due to either reductions in snow fall or increases in rain intensity. Increases in the length of time of summer low flows will likely affect portions of the upper Green subwatershed most, as well as the mainstem Green River below the dam. The effects on the mainstem below the dam may be mitigated to a limited extent by water management of the reservoir. Reaches that are leveed, even partially, and disconnected from their floodplains will exhibit the largest impacts in frequency and intensity of winter flows. The Lower Green has a high proportion of leveed banks, and the Middle Green River has discontinuous levees. In the Lower Green the floodplain has been largely disconnected, with only about 20% of its historic floodplain area still accessible during a 100-year flood event (Figure 6). Even the less frequently leveed spawning reaches in the Middle Green River will be less hospitable to salmon with these hydrologic changes. Green River Mainstem Longitudinal Profile 7-Day Average Maximum Temperature USGS/WDFW River Mile 0102030405060Temperature (oC)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 July 4, 2015 TMDL 7Q10 Existing Shade TMDL System Potential Shade Water Quality Standard Potential Lethality Threshold July 24, 2006 Newaukum Creek Soos Creek Mill CreekOutlet of Howard Hanson Dam AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 10 Figure 6. Length of banks with levees and revetments managed by King County Flood Control District in each subwatershed area along the main stem Green and Duwamish Rivers, and the amount forested and unforested. Data from King County GIS (does not include all flood facilities). Lower summer flows will affect most streams and rivers. These conditions will reduce the amount of habitat area available, allow for quicker increases in water temperature, and the loss of the late spring/early summer increase in flows from snow melt may cause younger fish to leave the system earlier due to warm water and less habitat area, resulting in lower overall productivity. Small tributaries in the Green River valley, Duwamish tributaries, and nearshore drainages will likely go dry or become disconnected from the mainstem or Puget Sound more frequently. Technical Recommendations ● To address low summer flows, groundwater, and low volume storm events, implement low impact development practices and green stormwater infrastructure, including runoff dispersion and infiltration, where soil conditions allow and where it will not increase risks of landslides or flooding downslope. Increasing infiltration can replenish groundwater and maintain stream flows during warm, dry weather. ● Install and/or retrofit stormwater management infrastructure to address the increased runoff volume from current and future development and projected climate change. ● Research and implement innovative restoration practices (e.g., beaver introduction, wetland restoration, stormwater management programs, policies and technologies) where appropriate to dampen the effects of shifting hydrology. Work toward resilience by encouraging natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. ● Identify how habitat boundaries, such as floodplains, are changing. Protect shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change advances. Protect habitat outside current habitat boundaries. Secure land that will be inundated by increased flooding and sea level rise. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 11 ● Headwaters are critical to providing cool, plentiful water. Monitor land use closely to minimize impacts to hydrology. In particular, where headwater streams are disconnected from their floodplains, work on reconnection to restore processes of water storage. ● Restore floodplain areas that provide flood storage and slow water during frequent, “ordinary” flood events (e.g., those that occur every one to five years) by reconnecting the floodplain (e.g., removing/setting back levees). This will be important above and adjacent to spawning grounds to counter the increased risk of higher flows scouring spawning areas. ● Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries. ● Culverts have a life span of 50 to 100 years. Design new and replaced culverts to accommodate expected flows in 50 to 100 years so new fish passage barriers are not created. ● Work with water supply and dam operators like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Public Utilities to use reservoirs to ameliorate hydrologic impacts, especially during low flow periods. ● Undertake an evaluation of water rights in the basin. Consider creating a follow up program to acquire water rights to rededicate back to the river, and support efforts to retain sufficient flows for fish. ● Support expanding outreach programs that reduce water usage in order to have more water available for streams and rivers (e.g. basic education, incentives for residences to upgrade to low flow devices, improve efficiency of irrigation systems). ● Consider placing more importance on increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve hyporheic exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures. ● Studies have shown that young tree stands (<100 years) can decrease summer base flows by almost half. Work with forestry managers and researchers to investigate longer stand rotations and selective logging to improve basin hydrology (Perry and Jones 2016). Temperature Climate Impacts  Water temperatures will be affected by the air temperature anticipated increase by 4 to 5 degrees F by 2080 (Figure 7) (Mauger et al. 2015, Mauger 2016),  Increased air temperatures keep streams from cooling down as they used to over evenings or seasons. Over the last century, the frost-free season has lengthened by 30 days, with nighttime temperatures increasing by 1.1 degrees C (Mauger et al. 2015).  Globally, fifteen of the last sixteen years have been the warmest years on record (NOAA 2016) (Mauger et al. 2015)  Warmer temperatures will accelerate snow melt in the summers and decrease snow accumulation in the winters. Streams will not have a source of cool water in spring in the upper portions of the watershed.  During low flow periods, groundwater will likely have a greater influence on streams as a water source and temperature regulator (King County, 2016, unpublished raw data). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 12 Figure 7. Projections of how changes in air temperature produced by climate models will affect stream temperatures in the Green River Basin (Mauger 2016, based on NoRWeST data). Salmon Impacts  Warm water temperatures in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters can cause lethality and many sub-lethal effects that can reduce productivity for many life history stages of salmon  Water temperatures above 23 degrees Celsius can kill salmonids within a few seconds to hours (Ecology, 2000).  Warm water impacts on adult salmon: o Adult salmon avoid swimming through water warmer than 16 degrees Celsius, which can disrupt their migration for spawning. o Water at 21-22 degrees Celsius can block migration, resulting in pre-spawn mortality. o When salmonids hold and migrate in higher temperature water, there is an increase in sub-lethal effects such as egg abnormalities (e.g., odd number of eyes) or outright mortality (Richter and Kolmes 2005). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 13  Sub-lethal effects of warmer stream temperatures can lead to lower growth, reduced fitness and survival of juvenile salmonids as follows: o Warm water decreases the supply of oxygen available to fish, disrupts metabolism, and increases susceptibility to toxins (Crozier 2015). o Dissolved oxygen decreases in warm water, creating “dead zones.” Even if fish can leave these zones, some important food sources cannot move and will die, decreasing salmon food supply. If the fish cannot escape the “dead zones,” they too can die. o Warmer temperatures can reduce preferred insects and their availability, causing weight loss. o Slight increases in water temperatures increase juvenile metabolism rates, sometimes causing them to stop feeding even if food is available. o Warmer temperatures increase susceptibility to sediment toxicity (Servizi and Martens 1991). o Warmer temperatures early in the year can disrupt the smoltification process and change how and when juveniles outmigrate from the system.  By 2080 it is expected that in the Green River the number of river miles exceeding salmonid thermal tolerances (>18°C) will increase by 70 miles (Figure 7). Local Context Increased water temperatures are already a problem in many areas of the watershed, and are expected to worsen.  In extreme low-flow, hot summers, tributaries including Crisp Creek (RM 39.6), Icy Creek (RM 48.3), Palmer Springs (RM 56.3), Resort Springs (RM 51.3), Black Diamond Springs (RM 49.5), Lones Levee Channel (RM 37.5), Coho Channel (RM 36.9), and the Duwamish tributary at RM 6.4appear to maintain cooler temperatures, but some can still exceed state 7 day average temperature standards (DeGasperi 2017).  Many major tributaries to the Green River, while cooler than the Green River, regularly exceed state water temperature standards, including Soos, Newaukum and Mill Creeks, largely due to lack of riparian buffers (DeGasperi 2017).  Cold water refugia not associated with tributaries or side channels include the Green River Gorge due to topographic shading, groundwater and hyporheic exchange zones from RM 55-32 in the Middle Green, and areas around alluvial deposits between Soos Creek (RM 33.4 and Mill Creek (RM 23.8).  Above Howard Hanson Dam, cold water refugia may include the North Fork Green, Charley Creek, Gale Creek, Smay Creek and Sunday Creek (DeGasperi 2017).  The reservoir above Howard Hanson Dam becomes thermally stratified during the summer, with cooler, dense water at the bottom and warmer water near the surface. Water is released from approximately 40 feet above the bottom of the reservoir, and therefore, the Green River immediately downstream of the spillway is cooler during the summer and warmer in late summer and fall than it was at the same point prior to dam construction (DeGasperi 2017). Technical Recommendations ● Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water. Protect cool headwater streams and other cold water refugia (at least 2 degrees Celsius colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters). Locate groundwater sources and seeps and protect natural processes AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 14 that create critical habitats like wetlands, tidal flats, marshes and estuaries; this will help ensure that water can be stored, recharged, and delivered at a moderated pace and temperature. ● Protect and restore the Green/Duwamish tributaries that are cooler than the mainstem river and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. Emphasize opening access to floodplain tributaries, including small stream systems. Continue work to moderate mainstem temperatures by setting back levees and softening bank revetments, and planting trees. ● Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. ● Monitor land use changes, particularly tree removal and new development, to quantify and mitigate for impacts to temperature. ● Undertake an evaluation of water rights in the basin. Consider creating a follow up program to acquire water rights to rededicate rights back to the river. ● Look at creating/expanding outreach programs that reduce residential/commercial/industrial potable water usage in Tacoma in order to have more water available for streams and rivers (e.g. basic education, incentives for residences to upgrade to low flow devices, improve efficiency of irrigation systems) ● Evaluate the impacts of water withdrawals for irrigation and cooling, and determine if other sources can be used, including reclaimed water. ● Investigate the relative contribution of runoff from paved surfaces on water temperatures, and where appropriate, ● Increase the use of low impact development practices in both developed and developing areas, including reducing impervious area, infiltrating or dispersing runoff, and planting trees to minimize the impact of urban areas on stream temperatures (Herb et al. 2008, Jones et al. 2012, Van Buren et al. 2000). ● Promote and fund the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy (Ostergaard et al. 2016) to increase the rate of planting and protecting riparian buffers to help stabilize in-stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load. ● Work with the ACOE to further explore work done by WEST (2011) regarding how water is passed from the reservoir to downstream habitats to determine whether the outlet could be redesigned to release cooler water. Ocean Conditions Climate Impacts Salmon spend much of their lives in the North Pacific feeding from the ocean’s food web. Natural variations in climate cycles strongly influence ocean conditions. One of these cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). PDO is a climate index based on multi-decadal patterns in sea surface temperatures (NWFSC 2015). As an indicator, PDO has warm and cool phases. Over the past century, these phases oscillated irregularly over a period of 10-40 years with more recent short-term (3-5 year) events (NWFSC 2016). These phases are correlated with Northwest climate and ecology and variations in northeast Pacific marine ecosystems. Specifically, PDO is correlated with patterns in atmospheric pressure, prevailing winds, currents, coastal upwelling impacts, winter land-surface temperature and precipitation and stream flow, as well as historic salmon landings from Alaska to California (Mantua et al. 1997). These warm and cool phases are linked to composition, abundance, and distribution of plankton communities, the basis of the ocean food web. PDO is hypothesized to alter the source of ocean water off the West Coast. In cooler AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 15 phases, northerly winter winds bring cold water and boreal zooplankton communities from the Gulf of Alaska south into the California Current. Northerly winds cause coastal upwelling which generally brings cold, salty, nutrient-rich water to the surface. These conditions increase phytoplankton production that support zooplankton communities dominated by cold-water, lipid-rich copepods. These conditions are correlated with good salmon survival. When the PDO shifts to a warm phase, warm southwesterly winds result in more water from the warmer, fresher, North Pacific Current and its associated tropical and sub-tropical warm water lipid-depleted copepods. These conditions are correlated with poor salmon survival for populations in the lower 48 states. While regional climate in the Pacific Northwest is driven by these natural variations in climate and ocean conditions in the Pacific, we don’t know how climate change will affect these variations. Climate change is expected to increase ocean temperatures in the northeast Pacific by 1.8C by 2040 (Mauger et al. 2015), which experts hypothesize will result in a 1-4% increase in marine mortality for salmon from Puget Sound to California. Weather patterns in 2014 and 2015 caused +2-4C temperature anomalies over a large area of the northeast Pacific Ocean labeled “The Blob,” which may be a precursor of extreme climatic variations that will become more common in the future. Salmon returns in 2015 were some of the worst on record, and fish that did return to freshwater experienced high mortality from blob-related drought and subsequent warm and low stream flows in freshwater habitat (Peterson et al. 2015). Salmon Impacts  While it is clear that PDO cycles affect salmon survival, the impacts of climate change on the natural variations in PDO cycles that determine ocean conditions are not known, and the effect of ocean conditions on salmon is not well understood.  The ways in which salmon are impacted will depend on the life stage in the ocean ecosystem, how long they spend in the ocean, and other ocean variables like plankton communities. Further study is important to understand how climate change will affect salmon, and might be already doing so. Local Context and Technical Recommendations Effects of ocean conditions will be felt most strongly in Pacific Ocean, but may also be seen in the Puget Sound nearshore within WRIA 9. Stormwater Runoff Climate Impacts  Increases in predicted rainfall events will increase flow volumes from areas not retrofitted to new stormwater standards accounting for climate change impacts. In some cases, this could also increase pollutant discharges from stormwater runoff or groundwater leaching through contaminated areas into rivers and streams, particularly for those pollutants that are detected in stormwater year-round, such as PAHs, phthalates and pesticides (Hobbs et al. 2015). Some of these issues may be addressed by new stormwater standards being implemented with new and redevelopment.  Stormwater can also increase the peak flows during storm events, scouring stream beds and banks, adding to sediment loads due to channel and bank erosion, and flushing out habitat forming debris. Salmon Impacts  Stormwater impacts to salmon are varied and can cause both lethal and sub-lethal conditions. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 16  Toxics from stormwater can cause mutations in salmonid eggs and rearing juvenile salmonids, harm brain and heart development, and cause direct mortality (McIntyre et al. 2015).  Stormwater washes in excess sediment and nutrients that can cause dissolved oxygen to decrease, creating hypoxic conditions for both fish and macroinvertebrates, disrupting the food chain (McIntyre et al. 2015).  A direct, observable impact of untreated stormwater is pre-spawn mortality, when adult coho die before they are able to spawn (Spromberg et al. 2016). Local Context Stormwater affects urban and suburban areas that drain to small streams and tributaries, such as Miller and Walker creeks, Longfellow Creek, Soos Creek, Newaukum Creek, and Mill Creek, as well as urbanized areas along the Lower Green like Kent, Auburn, Renton and Tukwila. As detailed in a recent stormwater retrofit analysis of WRIA 9, most developed areas in the watershed did not initially have any stormwater controls, and the early stormwater control methods and requirements have generally been deemed inadequate by today’s standards in terms of improving water quality and impacts to stream hydrology. These areas are not yet retrofitted to minimize stormwater runoff (King County 2014). Cities and businesses are already implementing municipal and individual stormwater management permits (known as NPDES, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) to manage stormwater on new and redeveloping areas, control pollution sources at businesses, and track and eliminate illicit discharges into the storm system. In addition, treating and retaining stormwater on developed areas before it runs off into streams and rivers will reduce fish exposure to chemicals and stressful hydrologic and water quality conditions (Spromberg et al. 2016). Technical Recommendations ● Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions (See King County (2014) for one possible approach). ● Conduct small-scale subwatershed stormwater infiltration feasibility studies and prioritize potential retrofit projects, looking for cost savings where capital projects are already planned (e.g., Miller-Walker Stormwater Retrofit Implementation Plan (HDR Engineering 2015)). ● Incentivize public-private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on private properties and road right-of-ways. ● Infiltrate road and parking lot runoff wherever possible, prioritizing the areas with the highest use. Partner with Washington State Department of Transportation to develop and implement a plan to retrofit state highways throughout the basin. Use the Miller-Walker Basin as a case study to determine the amount of retrofit needed to improve hydrologic and water quality conditions. Sedimentation Climate Impacts  Heavier rains will increase landslide potential across the basin, including marine bluffs.  Heavier rains will also increase stream flows, which can increase erosion and move more sediment downstream.  Increased sediment loads can affect sedimentation rates in estuary and delta areas.  Increased fine sediments may temporarily cause spawning gravels to fill in, smothering incubating eggs. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 17  Increased flows on the mainstem may be dampened by HHD operations, depending on flow rate decisions. Sediment is already decreased in the mainstem basin due to the amount of sediment trapped behind the dam; gravel supplementation is continuing in order to maintain spawning habitat in the Middle Green River. Salmon Impacts  High levels of suspended solids can kill salmonids by burying redds after spawning and potentially harm juvenile fish by decreasing dissolved oxygen or smothering their gills.  Suspended sediments also cause chronic sub-lethal and behavioral effects including; reduced foraging capabilities, stunted growth, stress, lowered disease resistance and interference with migration cues (Bash 2001). Local Context More frequent rain events will likely bring sedimentation impacts from landslides on the hillslopes throughout the watershed. There existing issues with increased sediment inputs above HHD due to historic logging practices (e.g. dense road network on steep slopes). The high rains will likely increase the rate of landslides and sedimentation in this area. While anadromous salmon don’t have access at this time, creating access to the upper watershed is a high priority action in the Plan. Sedimentation in the upper basin will not impact the Middle and Lower Green River areas in the near term because the reservoir acts like a large sediment retention pond. However, there will likely be some increased sedimentation issues in the Middle and Lower Green caused by bank erosion and inputs from local streams. The off channel habitat creation projects in the Lower Green are at a higher risk than other project types if sedimentation increases. At this time, it is not clear if the increased sediment load will be substantial enough to degrade the resilience of restoration projects. The increased rain events will also likely increase the rate of landsliding and beach feeding along the marine shorelines of WRIA 9. Most drift cells within WRIA 9 have experienced shoreline armoring that has cut off significant amounts of beach feeding bluffs over the last 100 years (WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee 2012). While the exact effects are not known at this time and it will likely be drift cell specific, increased sedimentation/beach feeding rates may actually improve beach conditions by offsetting historic armoring that starved beaches. Technical Recommendations ● Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load. ● Protect intact buffers to reduce sediment load and minimize erosion. ● Study and understand sedimentation changes in mainstem and nearshore areas. Coastal Effects to the ocean environment are harder to predict and quantify than freshwater effects, but there will be impacts to salmon survival. The most notable changes expected in Puget Sound’s coastal and marine ecosystems are sea level rise and ocean acidification. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 18 Sea Level Rise Climate impacts  Sea level in Puget Sound rose 20 centimeters from 1900-2008 and sea level rise (SLR) will continue, though it is hard to predict exactly how much.  The State of the Knowledge report projects sea level will rise 0.6 meters by 2100 (The Nature Conservancy and Climate Impacts Group 2016).  Beach habitats and infrastructure along Puget Sound shorelines are already being impacted by SLR. Nearshore  Increases in SLR means that extreme high water levels will increase and in response flood events will become more frequent. This means that damaging storms will occur more frequently because storms will occur at higher water levels (Mauger et al. 2015).  A 1ft increase in water surface elevation means an order of magnitude increase in high water events—so a 100 year event turns into a 2 year event (Mauger et al. 2015)  Sea level rise will have a myriad of effects on the marine nearshore, including increased bank/bluff erosion, landslides and “coastal squeeze.” A study in the San Juan islands estimated that toe of bank erosion caused by SLR would likely double existing bluff erosion rates.  Combined with toe of bluff erosion, the predicted 22% more rain in the winter will increase the risk of destabilizing nearshore slopes and increase landslides that are triggered from upslope mechanisms.  While sediment supply is critical to a productive and healthy nearshore environment and increased beach feeding through landslides may benefit beach habitats, increased landslides could heighten the demand for new bulkheads and enlarging existing bulkheads, further degrading this important process.  Coastal squeeze is a phenomenon that occurs in response to SLR. Marine shorelines that are unarmored have beaches and beach habitats that migrate inland in response to SLR. Armored shorelines not only restrict the natural migration of beaches, the beach habitats slowly get squeezed out of existence (Figure 8). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 19 Figure 8. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (from Coastal Geologic Services). Estuary  SLR may convert existing estuarine habitats into predominately salt water habitats and convert some fresh water habitats (e.g. wetlands) into estuarine habitats.  In the tidally influenced areas of the Duwamish River (up to approximately River Mile 11), SLR may convert shallow water mudflats to deep water, tidal habitats and marsh areas to mudflats. Marsh areas may be flooded, and as they move upslope on steep banks, become increasingly narrow edge habitats over time.  Sea level rise may move salt wedge further upstream into areas that are currently freshwater.  SLR will likely begin to flood low lying upland areas, creating a need to decide if the areas should be ‘defended’ against SLR with levees and other infrastructure or if the areas should be converted to wetland/estuarine habitats. Salmon impacts  According to the CIG State of the Knowledge report, sea level rise will increase the area of salt marsh and transition marsh, shifting the ranges of habitat used by salmon. However, given that the Duwamish estuary and Central Puget Sound nearshore are highly developed with docks, bulkheads, tide gates and culverts, it will likely lose marsh and mudflat area and types from coastal squeeze.  Increased erosion from sea level rise and landslides is already bringing requests for more and bigger bulkheads along the nearshore to protect existing development; additional sea level rise will likely increase these requests (Kollin Higgins, pers. comm.).  Additional bulkheads will cut off the sediment supply needed by forage fish, a key salmonid prey. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 20  The amount of shallow water habitats heavily used by juvenile salmon in late spring early summer in the nearshore will decrease due to coastal squeeze within the largely armored shorelines of WRIA 9 Local Context Impacts of SLR and coastal squeeze will be focused in the Duwamish estuary and along the Central Puget Sound nearshore. Technical Recommendations ● Identify areas most at risk of losing estuarine habitat, such as mudflat and marsh, by mapping elevations and monitoring the habitat over time. ● Include a diversity of elevations in estuary projects to allow for shifting boundaries of intertidal and subtidal habitats into the future. ● Undertake an evaluation of upland areas within the Duwamish most at risk of inundation through SLR, in conjunction with the communities, businesses, and other stakeholders, to look for opportunities to transition low-lying upland habitats to aquatic habitats in ways that provide economic, social justice, and environmental equity benefits (Figure 9). ● Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change continues. ● Protect habitat outside current habitat boundaries that will become future estuarine habitat. ● Improve regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas. ● Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs. ● Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing infrastructure if necessary, to allow marine shoreline migration, bluff erosion and/or estuarine marsh migration. ● Work with partners to understand vulnerability of estuary infrastructure under SLR, including levee maintenance and drainage needs, transportation corridors and wastewater facilities. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 21 Figure 9. Map showing projected areas of inundation due to sea level rise in the Duwamish subwatershed, between the 1st Ave S. and South Park bridges (City of Seattle 2012). Ocean Acidification – Climate Impacts  Ocean acidification is projected to increase 150-200% by 2100 based on current CO2 emission scenarios (The Nature Conservancy and the Climate Impacts Group 2016).  Warmer air temperatures will likely cause sea surface temperatures to increase as well (Mauger et al. 2015).  Together these factors can have a wide range of impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 22 Salmon Impacts  Ocean acidification is expected to change food availability for salmon during the smolt and ocean life cycle phases.  The role affected species play in supporting Puget Sound salmon raises concerns about how acidification could affect the entire Puget Sound and ocean food web (Washington Department of Ecology 2012) Technical Recommendations ● Protect and restore areas of carbon uptake – including forests, eelgrass and tidal marshes. Discussion Tremendous change is expected in the Puget Sound region over the next 20-30 years with respect to increased human population growth and climate change. The Puget Sound coastal shoreline counties account for 68% of Washington state’s population: 4,779,172 out of 7,061, 530 people (Alberti and Russo 2016). Nearly half of these people live in King County. By 2030, the Puget Sound population is estimated to exceed 5.7 million – an 18.2% increase from 2014 estimates as compared to a 12.7% national growth rate predicted in the same time frame (Alberti and Russo 2016). This rapid and extensive growth has direct implications to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. With the growing demand for homes, clean drinking water, transportation systems, agricultural products, and strong economies, addressing the impacts of climate change for threatened salmonids is increasingly complex. Where and how people live in Puget Sound, including the patterns of development and transportation systems, and economic development all contribute to salmon survival, and hopefully, recovery in the Puget Sound. Climate change gives urgency to actions that can help mitigate known future effects, in particular, planting riparian trees for shade. It also gives more urgency to fish passage through Howard Hanson Dam, to open up this extremely large and higher elevation area for spawning and rearing. To address these competing forces, planning and implementing salmon recovery actions needs to become more complex, interdisciplinary, and integrated. We need solutions that benefit many interests and sectors. Salmon recovery and climate change information needs to be incorporated into local jurisdiction comprehensive plans, shoreline master programs, critical areas ordinances. We also need additional enforcement of existing land use regulations, particularly with riparian buffers and nearshore bulkheads. Efforts to address the impacts of climate change are already underway in many of the WRIA 9 jurisdictions. This work will need to continue and accelerate to keep ahead of the pace of population growth and climate change. Conclusions Different salmon species and their life history types are varied. Over the centuries, species have evolved with slight differences across the species and within salmonid types to better withstand and adapt to habitat, climate and ocean conditions. The Plan has identified recovery actions that address viable salmonid population (VSP) criteria, such as life stage diversity, abundance, productivity, and spatial structure. By addressing these criteria, we hope to give salmon the best chance for recovery. Climate impacts will directly affect these VSP criteria. For instance, water temperatures across the basin will likely increase, making some areas inhospitable to salmon, and AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 23 causing dire conditions for unique life history types such as yearling Chinook. Climate impacts could potentially decrease suitable summer habitat, impacting the spatial diversity in the system, or increased winter scouring could affect population abundance and ultimately productivity. The summer of 2015 shed light on what could be expected in years to come. Along with large-scale strategies at a global, national and state level to dampen these impacts, work must be done at a basin level. For salmon recovery, restoration and protection actions must amplify the species’ natural ability to adapt. To give salmonids the best chance of survival, we must continue implementing the Plan strategy of restoring and protecting river processes that can adapt and create resilient habitat. The proposed actions above and summarized in Table 2 and 3 are not new. For the most part they are described in other Green/Duwamish planning documents. What has changed is the urgency and need to change the rate of implementing these actions. We must think beyond direct habitat needs (which are still important), to decrease the intensity of climate impacts likely in 10, 20, and 50 years. Table 2. Summary of technical recommendations that could be taken for each climate impact Climate impact Technical Recommendations Hydrology ● Implement low impact development practices and green stormwater infrastructure in urban areas. ● Work with water supply and dam operators to use reservoirs to ameliorate hydrologic impacts, especially during low flow periods. ● Evaluate water rights in the basin, and support efforts to retain sufficient flows for fish. ● Support expanding outreach and incentive programs that reduce water usage. ● Consider increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve hyporheic exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures. ● Work with forestry managers and researchers to investigate longer stand rotations and selective logging to improve basin hydrology. ● Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. ● Protect habitat uphill of current floodplains and beaches so habitats can shift and adapt. ● Monitor land use in headwater areas to minimize impacts to hydrology. ● Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters. ● Remove and properly size barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 24 Climate impact Technical Recommendations Temperature ● Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water. ● Protect and restore tributaries and other areas that are cooler than the Green River and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. ● Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. ● Monitor land use changes, particularly tree removal and new development, to quantify and mitigate impacts to temperature. ● Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help stabilize in-stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load by promoting and funding the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy. ● Reduce summer water use by encouraging more potable water conservation in Tacoma and reclaimed water for irrigation and cooling where water is being withdrawn from the Green River. ● Increase the use of low impact development practices and GSI. ● Work with ACOE to determine whether colder water could be released from HHD. Stormwater ● Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions. ● Incentivize public-private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on private properties and road right-of-ways. ● Infiltrate road and parking lot runoff wherever possible, developing partnerships and prioritizing areas of highest use. Sedimentation ● Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load. ● Protect intact riparian buffers. ● Study and understand sedimentation changes in mainstem areas. Sea level rise ● Identify how habitat boundaries, such as nearshore and estuaries, are changing. ● Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change continues. ● Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries. ● Improve regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas. ● Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs. ● Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing infrastructure if necessary to allow marine and estuary shoreline migration and bluff erosion. ● Evaluate upland areas in the Duwamish subwatershed at risk of inundation, and work with community partners transition to aquatic habitat while providing other benefits. Ocean acidification and increased temperature ● Protect and restore areas of carbon uptake, including forests, eelgrass and tidal marshes. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 25 Table 3. Summary of strategies and actions and what climate impact they address Strategies and Actions Climate Impact Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. Hydrology, Temperature Encourage natural processes and novel restoration practices such as beaver reintroduction in appropriate areas to help moderate flows and temperature. Hydrology, Temperature Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries so habitats can shift and adapt. Hydrology, Seal level rise Monitor land use in headwater areas closely to minimize impacts to hydrology. Hydrology, Temperature Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters. Hydrology, Temperature Remove and resize barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect side channels, and protect pools. Hydrology, Temperature Reduce summer water use by encouraging more potable water conservation in Tacoma and reclaimed water for irrigation and cooling where water is being withdrawn from the Green River watershed. Hydrology, Temperature Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water (e.g., replant riparian forests, remove levees). Temperature, Sedimentation Protect and restore Green River tributaries that are cooler than the mainstem river and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. Temperature Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. Hydrology, Temperature, Sedimentation Increase the rate of implementation of riparian buffer restoration to help stabilize in-stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load. Temperature, Sedimentation, Stormwater Runoff Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those action Stormwater Runoff Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored due to climate change. Sea level rise Improve regulatory protection on in all unarmored marine areas. Sea level rise Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs Sea level rise Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing infrastructure if necessary in order to allow marine and estuary shoreline migration and bluff erosion. Sea level rise AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 26 References Alberti, M. and Russo, M. (2016) Puget Sound Trends: A Synthesis of the Drivers Shaping the Future of our Waters, Prepared by the Urban Ecology Research Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Bash, J.C.B.S.B. (2001) Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids, Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. City of Seattle (2012) Sea Level Rise Map, pp. The projections and scenarios are based on a 2012 National Research Council report (“Sea-Level rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future”). Water levels account for the National Tidal Datum Epoch 1983-2001 (NTDE 2083-2001). The base digital elevation model (DEM) used in the analysis was produced using a 2001 Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium study, which notes a vertical accuracy, or margin of error, of 2011 foot (NAVD2088). Finally, “breaklines” were not applied; therefore some objects such as piers may not be accurately depicted., Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA. Crozier, L. (2015) Impacts of Climate Change on Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: A review of the scientific literature published in 2014, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, Seattle, WA. DeGasperi, C.L. (2017) Green-Duwamish River 2015 Temperature Data Compilation and Analysis King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. Hamlet, A.F., Elsner, M.M., Mauger, G.S., Lee, S.-Y., Tohver, I. and Norheim, R.A. (2013) An Overview of the Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project: Approach, Methods, and Summary of Key Results. Atmosphere-ocean. Toronto ON 51(4), 392-415. HDR Engineering, I. (2015) Miller-Walker Basin Stormwater Retrofit Planning Study, Implementation Plan, Seattle, WA. Herb, W.R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O. and Stefan, H.G. (2008) Thermal pollution of streams by runoff from paved surfaces. Hydrological Processes 22(7), 987-999. Hobbs, W., Lubliner, B., Kale, N. and Newell, E. (2015) Western Washington NPDES Phase 1 Stormwater Permit: Final Data Characterization 2009-2013, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Jones, M.P., Hunt, W.F. and Winston, R.J. (2012) Effect of Urban Catchment Composition on Runoff Temperature. Journal of Environmental Engineering 138(12). King County (2014) Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources Inventory Area 9: Comprehensive Needs and Cost Assessment and Extrapolation to Puget Sound, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. Mantua, N.J., Hare, S.R., Zhang, Y., Wallace, J.M. and Francis, R.C. (1997) A Pacific Interdecadal Climate Oscillation with Impacts on Salmon Production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78(6), 1069-1079. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 27 Mauger, G.S., Casola, J.H., Morgan, H.A., Strauch, R.L., Jones, B., Curry, B., Isaksen, T.M.B., Binder, L.W., Krosby, M.B. and Snover, A.K. (2015) State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound, Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Washington, Seattle. Mauger, G.S. 2016. Presentation to the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee on October 26, 2016. Seattel WA. McIntyre, J.K., Davis, J.W., Hinman, C., Macneale, K.H., Anulacion, B.F., Scholz, N.L. and Stark, J.D. (2015) Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere 132, 213-219. NWFSC (2015) Pacific Decadal Oscillation, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NWFSC (2016) Ocean ecosystem indicators of salmon marine survival in the Northern California Current, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Ostergaard, E., Blanco, J., Coccoli, H., Cummins, A., Kahan, J., Knox, M., Koon, J. and Stanton, T. (2016) Re-green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Working Group for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, Seattle, WA. Perry, T.D. and Jones, J.A. (2016) Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology, n/a-n/a. Peterson, W.T., Fisher, J.L., Morgan, C.A., Peterson, J.O., Burke, B.J. and Fresh, K. (2015) Ocean Ecosystem Indicators of Salmon Marine Survival in the Northern California Current, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Richter, A. and Kolmes, S.A. (2005) Maximum temperature limits for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead trout in the Pacific Northwest. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13(1), 23-49. Servizi, J.A. and Martens, D.W. (1991) Effect of Temperature, Season, and Fish Size on Acute Lethality of Suspended Sediments to Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(3), 493-497. Spromberg, J.A., Baldwin, D.H., Damm, S.E., McIntyre, J.K., Huff, M., Sloan, C.A., Anulacion, B.F., Davis, J.W. and Scholz, N.L. (2016) Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(2), 398-407. The Nature Conservancy and Climate Impacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate Impacts and Innovation in Puget Sound. Conservation, P.S. (ed), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The Nature Conservancy and the Climate Impacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate Impacts and Innovation in Puget Sound. J. Morse, J.I., L. Whitely Binder, G. Mauger, and A.K. Snover (ed), p. 24, The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 28 Van Buren, M.A., Watt, W.E., Marsalek, J. and Anderson, B.C. (2000) Thermal enhancement of stormwater runoff by paved surfaces. Water Research 34(4), 1359-1371. Washington Department of Ecology (2012) Ocean Acidification in Washington State: From knowledge to Action. WEST (2011) Development of a CE-QUAL-W2 Model for Howard A. Hanson Reservoir, Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Wilhere, G., Atha, J., Quinn, T., Helbrecht, L. and Tohver, I. (2016) Incorporating Climate Change into the Design of Water Crossing Structures, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (2012) WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005-2011, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE E-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE E-2 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Nearshore Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight (sum to 100%) Indicator of potential benefits Details How to assign values to input column Evaluation level 1 - Identify the best places to do work Project size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part of habitat project--not entire parcel Specify number of acres Assumes most other benefits are positively correlated with size Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, or unarmored. Specify number of linear feet (in 100’s; ex 200 ft = 2) Location Is the site in a high-value location?Feeder bluff located in the first third of the drift cell (4 pts) Feeder bluff elsewhere (2 pts) Pocket estuary/ stream mouth (2 pts) Priority in revegetation strategy (1 pt) Adjacent to or inholding of existing public land/easements (1 pt) Drift cell condition What percentage of the drift cell sediment sources are currently “intact”? 0-25% (0 pts) >25-75% (3 pts) >75% (2 pts) Evaluation Level 2 -Identify the projects that can generate the most lift Expected post-project benefits 75 Immediate habitat lift (rearing and forage fish/ intertidal) Bulkhead removal (or stream bank armor for stream mouths) Length of bulkhead removal; Linear feet (in 100’s) *If soft shoreline armoring to replace it, add “1” to input cell Fill removal Acres of potential fill removal Pocket estuaries If project restores the hydrology and extent of a pocket estuary (3 pts) Overwater structures If removing (3 pts) If upgraded to non-creosote and light-transmitting (_ pts) Long-term habitat lift (process- restoration) Feeder bluff restoration Percent of sediment sources restored of the drift cell by the project after restoration is eventually completed Riparian restoration (partial includes view corridors or relatively skinny widths) 100 ft wide or greater buffer (3 pts) Partial buffer improvement (_ pts) CAPITAL PROJECT EVALUATION TEMPLATE AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE E-3 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Duwamish Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight (sums to 100%) Indicator of potential benefits Instructions How to assign values Evaluation Level 1 Project size Assumes most benefits are positively correlated with size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part of habitat project--not entire parcel Number of acres Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, or unarmored. Creek scores = count only one bank. Linear feet (in 100’s) Location Is the site in a higher value location?River Mile 1.0-4.3 (1 pt) River Mile 4.3-5.5 (2 pts) River Mile 5.6-10 (4 pts) Evaluation Level 2 Expected post-project benefits (optional) 75 Immediate habitat lift (mostly substitution and creation) BANK TREATMENTS: Estimate the change in the length of enhancement (100’s of feet) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Wood for habitat (does not include soft armoring) (*0.2 pt) Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-165 ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt ) REARING HABITAT CREATION: Estimate the excavated area that will be wetted during Jan-June (at least) Number in acres Change in length of erodible shoreline that can generate sediment and wood Number of linear feet Hydrologic lift/ connectivity Will the project allow increased inflow to the site? Will it notch, move, remove a flood-containment levee or flap-gate, or lower the ground surface (e.g., through fill removal or other excavation) so that it floods more readily? If yes, specify number of acres of reconnected floodplain or inundated area AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE E-4 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Lower Green Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight (sums to 100%) Indicator of potential benefits Instructions How to assign values Evaluation Level 1 Project size Assumes most other benefits are positively correlated with size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part of habitat project--not entire parcel Specify number of acres Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, or unarmored. Linear feet (in 100’s) Location Is the site in a high value location?Within 1 km of a completed or underway restoration site (1 pt) Associated with a stream mouth/wetland (2 pts) In spawning areas (closeness to rearing habitat need for fry) (1 pt) Used as a creek modifier, to reduce scores of coho projects Likelihood of chinook use (range from 1.0 to 0.1) Evaluation Level 2 Expected post- project benefits (optional) 75 Immediate habitat lift (mostly substitution and creation) BANK TREATMENTS: Estimate the change in the length of enhancement (100’s of feet) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Wood for habitat (this does NOT include soft armoring) (*0.2 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-165 ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt) REARING HABITAT CREATION: Estimate the excavated area that will be wetted during Jan-June (at least) Backwater acres Side channel acres Hydrologic lift/ connectivity Will the project increase flooding of the site? E.g. Will it notch, move, remove a flood-containment levee or flap-gate, or lower the ground surface (e.g., through fill removal or other excavation) so that it floods more readily? If yes, specify acres of reconnected tributary If yes, specify acres of reconnected floodplain Change in length of erodible shoreline that can generate sediment and wood Linear feet (in 100’s) Used as a creek modifier, to re-duce scores of coho projects Likelihood of chinook use (range from 1.0 to 0.1 pt) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE E-5 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update ROGER TABOR Middle Green Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight (sums to 100%) Indicator of potential benefits Instructions How to assign values Evaluation Level 1 Project size assumes most other benefits are positively correlated with size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part of habitat project--not entire parcel Specify number of acres Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, or unarmored. (creek only count one bank) Linear feet (in 100’s) Location Is the site in a high value location? Associated with a stream mouth/ wetland (1 pt) Within the severe CMHZ (1 pt) Adjacent to an existing restoration project (1 pt) Priority in the revegetation strategy (1 pt) Used as a creek modifier, to reduce scores of coho projects Likelihood of chinook use (range from 1.0 to 0.1 pt) Value guidance--all mainstem areas, lower five miles of Soos or Newaukum (1 pt) River floodplain portion of other creek (0.5 pt) Mostly headwater/coho areas (0.1 pt) (Continued on next page) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE E-6 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight (sums to 100%) Indicator of potential benefits Instructions How to assign values Evaluation Level 2 Expected post-project benefits (optional) 75 Immediate habitat lift (edge improvements, new rearing habitat) BANK TREATMENTS: Estimate the change in the length of enhancement (100’s of feet) Creek remeander (*1 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Wood for habitat (*0.2 pt)Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100’s) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-16 5ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt) REARING HABITAT CREATION or CONNECTION: Estimate the area that will be wetted more frequently during Jan-June (at least) Number of acres Length of shoreline armoring or levee that is being removed or set back farther from the river. Linear feet (in 100’s) Creek only Area of increased floodplain connectivity or quality Number of acres Long-term habitat lift (process-restoration) Measure total project area within likely new boundary protections; assume that roads are generally permanent boundaries (with rare exceptions) - include FPP areas as being within possible boundary protections. Number of acres Location Used as a creek modifier, to reduce scores of coho projects Likelihood of chinook use (range from 1.0-0.1 pt) Value guidance--all mainstem areas, lower five miles of Soos or Newaukum (1 pt). River floodplain portion of other creek (0.5 pt) Mostly headwater/coho areas (0.1 pt) Middle Green Evaluation Criteria, continued AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE F-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan October 2020 Alternate Formats Available 206-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Prepared for: The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Submitted by: Kollin Higgins, on behalf of the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Funded in part by: The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section i October 2020 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee members that contributed to this report over the last seven years. It may not have been timely, but it has finally been completed. Citation King County. 2020. WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan. Prepared by Kollin Higgins, Chris Gregersen, Matt Goehring, and Elissa Ostergaard, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section ii October 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................. iv 1.0 Background and Purpose .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Planning Process and Structure .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 How This Plan Was Developed ..................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Types of Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Implementation Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Effectiveness Monitoring ...................................................................................................................10 4.1 Project Monitoring...........................................................................................................................10 4.1.1 Routine Monitoring ...................................................................................................................11 4.1.2 Project Monitoring-Enhanced ...............................................................................................20 4.2 Cumulative Habitat Conditions ...................................................................................................23 5.0 Validation Monitoring .........................................................................................................................28 5.1 Population Status-Viable Salmonid Population Parameters ...........................................28 5.2 Ongoing Research and Data Gaps ..............................................................................................30 6.0 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................32 7.0 References ...............................................................................................................................................34 Figures Figure 1. Three primary types of monitoring are used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary ............................................................................. 5 Figure 2. WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork. .................................................. 7 Tables Updated habitat plan targets for 2028. ............................................................................... 3 Routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations by project type and subtype. .......................................................................................................................13 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section iii October 2020 Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by project type and subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced monitoring. ...................................................................................................................................22 Summary information on what, how, and when cumulative habitat conditions should be tracked. ...............................................................................................25 Viable Salmonid Population parameters, and who and how they are being measured in WRIA 9. ................................................................................................................29 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section iv October 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) incorporates years of effort to create a monitoring plan that is both robust but simple to implement. The first version of this plan was drafted in 2013 by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) but was purposefully left as a draft to allow time for regional efforts to create standardized monitoring processes. As part of the larger WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan update, it was decided to finalize this MAMP, though not all of the regional monitoring efforts have been completed at this time. This plan focuses on tracking and evaluating large capital habitat restoration projects and does not address smaller routine habitat projects like basic revegetation, or noncapital projects like stewardship or education. This MAMP breaks the broad topic of monitoring into three main components: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. The implementation monitoring section is focused on tracking large capital project implementation to see if the habitat plan goals and targets are being reached and if not, why and what can be changed to meet those targets. The effectiveness section of the MAMP is broken into two broad categories, including project effectiveness and cumulative habitat conditions which is also known as status and trends monitoring. Additionally, the project effectiveness section is broken into two components: routine and enhanced project monitoring. Routine project effectiveness monitoring focuses on if the project is performing as we expected it to. It is expected that all project sponsors of large restoration projects receiving money through the WRIA will undertake the routine monitoring called for in the MAMP. The questions and metrics for routine monitoring focused on relatively simple and inexpensive physical metrics. The enhanced monitoring components address harder and more expensive to answer questions around if and how Chinook use restoration project sites. This type of monitoring should only be done on a limited number of projects and it is expected that the WRIA would use its funding resources to help implement this type of monitoring. The second half of effectiveness monitoring, cumulative habitat conditions, looks beyond what habitat has been created and attempts to evaluate larger habitat trends throughout the five subwatersheds. This is where we see if the sum of all the activities are having a net gain or lift in habitat conditions, or if the improvements made in the name of salmon recovery are being offset by ongoing development or redevelopment. These cumulative habitat condition metrics are centered around the updated Salmon Habitat Plan recovery strategies and build off of the 2012 WRIA 9 Status and Trends report. Some of the data is being collected by other entities, but some of it will need to be collected and or funded by the WRIA. It is recommended that the WRIA spread out the effort to undertake a status and trends report by collecting and analyzing some metrics every year while reporting the findings once every five years. Validation monitoring is composed of tracking Chinook Viable Salmonid Population parameters as well as validating assumptions or data and knowledge gaps in the Salmon Habitat Plan. The majority of the data used to evaluate Chinook salmon population metrics AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section v October 2020 is collected by the co-managers. One of the most important parts of evaluating the Chinook salmon numbers is the juvenile outmigrant trap, which has been in place for over twenty years. The WRIA has been contributing roughly a third of the funding for the trap, and given the data’s importance to measuring salmon recovery efforts, the ITC recommended that the WRIA should continue to do so until a broader Puget Sound funding source for smolt traps can be secured. Additionally, the WRIA has used this category of monitoring to undertake applied research studies that will help validate assumptions that went into forming the Salmon Habitat Plan. These studies have greatly improved our knowledge of how Chinook use the system and have helped to elevate and prioritize additional actions for the WRIA to undertake. The ITC recommends that the WRIA continue to fund these types of studies into the future. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section vi October 2020 This page intentionally left blank. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 1 October 2020 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Since the listing of Chinook salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, local and regional entities have been working together to understand the reasons for their decline and take action to recover the species. The 2005 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, “Making our Watershed Fit for a King” (hereafter called “Salmon Habitat Plan”) calls for habitat protection, programs, and projects to benefit Chinook and other salmonids in Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9). Monitoring the implementation of the plan, the quality of habitat, and the status of salmonid populations is the only way to know whether we are moving towards the goal of recovery. The Salmon Habitat Plan cites monitoring as integral to implementation and identifies the need for a comprehensive monitoring strategy and sustained monitoring effort. A monitoring and adaptive management plan is also called for in the Implementation Guidance for the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (2006). When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approved the Puget Sound Salmon recovery plan, it required each watershed to develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan (Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy’s Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, 2006). The WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) began working on this Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) in 2011. The work was put on hold while the Puget Sound-wide monitoring and adaptive management framework was being developed by the Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT) During that delay, the ITC researched and wrote the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005–2010 (February 2012). The Status and Trends report documented the progress made during the first five years of implementation of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, identified key monitoring gaps, and formed the foundation for this MAMP. A draft of the MAMP was completed in 2013 and approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, with the intent to finalize in a year or two once regional guidance was complete. Consistent regional guidance has taken longer than anticipated and the 2013 draft was updated in 2020 to coincide with a broader Salmon Habitat Plan update. It should be noted that this MAMP focuses on monitoring the actions in the Salmon Habitat Plan recommended to improve habitat conditions. It does not address monitoring of other limiting factors such as hatchery, harvest, or ocean conditions. It is possible that even if the Salmon Habitat Plan is fully implemented, the other limiting factors could limit our ability to reach recovery. The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan is intended to: • Serve as a framework for prioritizing monitoring actions and funding by the WRIA 9 WEF; • Provide guidance for adaptively managing implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan; • Promote collaboration among various entities collecting data in the basin; and • Provide guidance for tracking net gains and losses in salmon habitat. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 2 October 2020 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS AND STRUCTURE 2.1 How This Plan Was Developed This MAMP was developed in stages over seven years and represents multiple aspects of the salmon recovery planning effort. The 2013 draft MAMP focused on evaluating progress towards 2005 habitat goals and targets (implementation monitoring), if built projects are performing as expected (project effectiveness monitoring), and Tier one conservation hypotheses (validation monitoring) that are integrated throughout the Salmon Habitat Plan. If the plan is implemented as intended, projects are successful at improving habitat and we should eventually see an improvement in Chinook salmon Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters of productivity, diversity, spatial structure, and abundance. The updated 2020 MAMP includes the same topic areas, but includes recently updated Salmon Habitat Plan targets. The goals of the Salmon Habitat Plan were originally spelled out in the plan itself and in the Implementation Guidance for the Salmon Habitat Plan. The goals were updated in 2019 and are now found in Chapter 3, Table 2, and a shortened version in Table 1 below. The WRIA 9 ITC wrote a 5-year Status and Trends Report in 2012 with a focus on the highest priority (Tier 1) conservation hypotheses and interim plan goals. The Status and Trends report evaluated eleven of the eighteen conservation hypotheses and goals, for which monitoring data existed, and could be analyzed with existing or minimal resources. Gaps in ability to monitor plan progress were identified and resulted in 58 monitoring and adaptive management recommendations. Those recommendations are incorporated into this plan. This monitoring and adaptive management plan was written by WRIA 9 staff with extensive input from the ITC in 2013 and 2020. It relies heavily on previous work, including, the 2012 Status and Trends report, (WRIA9 ITC 2012), and several white papers written for the 2020 plan update (King County 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, and 2018). Once the MAMP is approved by Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF), the recommendations of the MAMP will be implemented annually through the WRIA processes and funding decisions. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 3 October 2020 Updated Habitat Plan Targets for 2028. Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Conditions Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (by 2028) Nearshore Shoreline Armor 65% of shoreline in natural condition 59 mi. of shoreline armored. Remove 3,000 ft. (<1% improvement): achieve a net reduction Marine Riparian Vegetation 65% characterized by riparian tree cover. 21.8 mi. is dense trees; 14.8 mi. is patchy trees] Revegetate 60 ac. and/or 3.25 mi. (~3.5% gain) of shoreline Shoreline Conservation No condition stated 9.5 mi. of adjacent upland protected as natural lands Protect 2 mi. of shoreline Duwamish Shallow Water Habitat 173 ac. in the transition zone (RM 1-10) 5.8 ac. as of 2014 has been restored Create 40 ac. of shallow water habitat between RM 1-10 Riparian Forest 65% of each bank of the river has > 165 ft. trees (586 ac. total) 69 ac. of 165 ft. buffer contains trees. Revegetate 170 ac. (~29% of 165 ft. buffer) 9.8 mi. of streambank Lower Green Off Channel Habitat 2.8 mi. side channels; 450 ac. wetlands; 5039 ac. floodplains Not assessed in a way to accurately state. Side Channels A: High flow (above bankfull) 550 ft. B: Low flow (below bankfull) 3740 ft. Floodplain Tributaries: 3080 ft. Backwater: 75 ac. Floodplain Wetland: 66 ac. Other 100-yr. Floodplain: 99 ac Riparian Forest 75% of each bank of the river to >165 ft. wide (828 ac. total) 222 ac. of 165 ft. buffer has trees. Revegetate 250 acres/8.52 mi. of high priority, unforested shoreline Large Woody Debris 1705 pieces per mi. (21 key pieces) 2004: 54 pieces/mi. 2014: 48.5 pieces/mi. Achieve 425 pieces/mi Bank Armor No new, decreasing amount 2014: 42 mi. are KC maintained facilities. The other 14.5 mi. are a combination of semi- armored roads acting like levees and natural banks Set-back 1 mi. of levee AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 4 October 2020 Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Conditions Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (by 2028) Middle Green Floodplain Connectivity / Lateral Channel Migration Floodplain subject to lateral channel migration represents 65% of historical conditions 2017: 1751 ac. or 55% of historic floodplain connected; 45 ac. restored (including riparian) from 2005-2014 Reconnect 200 ac of floodplain as measured by area subject to lateral channel migration Riparian Forest > 65% of Channel Migration Zone and up to 165 ft. wide where possible 2009: 50.5% of the Channel Migration Zone forested Revegetate 175 acres (8% of CMZ) Large Wood Debris 10 jams/mi. 2015: 3.8 jams/ mi. Achieve 5 jams/mi. Bank Armor No new, decreasing amount 2004=25% 2009=24% Set back 1 mi. of revetment/levee Middle Green Tributaries Soos Creek Riparian Forest 65% revegetated to 165 ft. 2015: 150ft. riparian buffer is 4200 ac., 1626 ac. is forested Revegetate 700 ac. or 11.7 mi. streambank Newaukum Creek Riparian Forest 65% revegetated to 165 ft. 2015: the 150 ft. riparian area is 4088 acres, 960 acres of which is forested Revegetate 900 ac. or 14.0 mi. streambank Upper Green Fish Passage Fish passage provided at Howard Hanson Upstream passage facility complete. Downstream passage not complete Provide downstream passage at HHD Bank Armor No new, decreasing t 2009=15% armored Remove/set back 0.5 miles 2.2 Types of Monitoring Monitoring for this plan was broken into three types. Terminology may differ from other regional efforts to create salmon recovery adaptive management plans, but they have been agreed to by WRIA 9 for the purposes of this plan. The three are: Implementation: Did we implement the plan’s projects, programs and policies as intended? Effectiveness: Did the projects perform as expected and have all the activities combined improved habitat conditions as expected? Validation: What overall effects have habitat plan implementation actions had on the Green River Chinook salmon VSP parameters, and are the assumptions within the plan accurate? AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 5 October 2020 We can adapt management strategies by learning the answers to the above questions and adjusting plan priorities and activities as needed. This plan is organized by the type of monitoring, as described above, and as shown in Figure 1. For each type of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, and validation), we identify what is being done, gaps, and propose activities or guidelines. Figure 1. Three primary types of monitoring are used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary This plan also prioritizes monitoring activities in order to develop a long-term funding strategy for WRIA 9 salmon recovery funds. The routine project effectiveness monitoring guidelines are intended to be implemented by project sponsors under existing funding of restoration projects, a combination of grant and jurisdiction funds. It is strongly recommended that these guidelines are followed for consistent and scientifically defensible measurement of the effectiveness of projects, both at meeting goals for the particular site, and overall habitat and VSP goals. The funding and projects components of implementation monitoring will be undertaken by both WRIA staff and project sponsors. Program implementation will need to be monitored periodically by WRIA staff. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 6 October 2020 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING 3.1 Plan Implementation Implementation of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan should influence Chinook salmon productivity and recovery in the watershed. While there are strategies in the Salmon Habitat Plan that describe programs and policies, and projects, this document does not directly address policies and programs. This section focuses on if the projects we are implementing are meeting habitat plan targets as described in Table 1. Knowing the status of the projects called for in the Salmon Habitat Plan, as well as the quantity and quality of habitat, will be important as the WRIA 9 stakeholders evaluate the effectiveness of recovery actions to date and update the Chinook recovery plan. To adaptively manage plan implementation, the ITC will review the status of the goals in Table 1. The ITC will use the adaptive management decision framework (see Figure 2) to evaluate and prepare recommendations to the WRIA 9 Forum of Governments (Forum) of Salmon Habitat Plan projects, polices, or programs that need to be initiated or accelerated in order to get the implementation timeline back on schedule. The framework includes three primary steps or questions. Question one asks if the target been achieved or on target to be achieved? If no, question two asks does the strategic assessment or new research change our understanding of the current context? Question three asks if the metric we are using to evaluate progress is the correct metric or if we need to update the metric. These questions are evaluated against a set of factors limiting implementation, which would also provide guidance for potential changes in course to address the lack of progress. These limiting factors include habitat losses offset gains, insufficient funding, lack of opportunities or landowner willingness, insufficient funding or capacity, and information gaps. The type of limiting factor helps set context around the recommended adaptive management action. The Forum will consider the ITC recommendations and make commitments of staff or other resources to take action to remedy obstacles to implementation. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 7 October 2020 Figure 2. WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork. 3.2 Project Implementation Detailed information about how projects are constructed, including the amount and type of each habitat created and the cost is needed in order to assess overall plan implementation. Previous efforts to describe progress of plan implementation were very challenging because there were no consistent expectations or regular reporting requirements. As part of the 2020 Salmon Plan update there will be a standard project status reporting mechanism and schedule so that information is reported to the WRIA in a timely manner to better track implementation of plan goals. Within three months of project completion, project sponsors will be required to report on final project outcomes and future stewardship activities by filling in the Project Completion Close Out form, which will automatically get submitted to the WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator. This data will be entered into the Habitat Work Schedule at http://hws.ekosystem.us/ to ensure the data is available to the public. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 8 October 2020 Adaptive Management Process for Project Implementation An important component of project implementation is the comparison of the final design plans to the as-built completion plans created immediately after construction is complete. As-builts are project design drawings of the restoration project that are created shortly after construction and describe what was actually constructed versus what was on the design plans. An as-built can be created by modifying the existing design plans based on changes known to have occurred during construction or by undertaking a new site survey, which would be more costly, but is recommended if there has been a large amount of earth moving. The importance of having an as-built cannot be overstated. Without an as-built it is generally not possible to reliably track the physical changes occurring at any site. As-builts should be created as soon as possible, preferably before the upcoming flood season so the as-built conditions are not conflated with changes created by flood flows. Projects that get SRFB money for construction are now required to provide an as-built (see Appendix D-4: Construction Deliverables, RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants). As-built plans allow comparison to the project as approved by the ITC, WEF, and funding agencies, as well as documentation of the amount of different habitats that were built as part of the project in order to accurately track our progress towards the implementation goals and targets. The following are adaptive management roles and actions for project sponsors, the ITC, and the Forum. Project Sponsor Action: Submit an as-built drawing to WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator. Compare final design to as-built drawings/designs. If the as-built does not represent the permitted final design, project sponsor should describe why in the Project Completion Close Out Form submitted post completion. The Habitat Project Coordinator will evaluate if the extent of changes needs to be reviewed by the ITC or the Project subgroup. ITC actions: Review project sponsor analysis and make recommendations as needed. The ITC will respond based on type of issue, including the potential outcomes noted below: 1) Site condition different than anticipated (e.g. more contaminated soils, buried riprap, bedrock, etc.). 2) Recommend the project sponsor increase future project budgets to undertake more site reconnaissance in design/feasibility, and/or include a higher contingency. 3) Recommend that ALL sponsors of a specific project type or within a geographic area undertake a higher level of site reconnaissance than normal in design/feasibility. (implicitly assumes that ITC will support higher project costs of this nature) 4) Contractor error o Request the project sponsor work with contractor to have the contractor take corrective actions to address problems found. o Recommend project sponsor increase future project budgets to include more construction oversight. 5) Other-ITC respond as necessary. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 9 October 2020 Forum actions: The Forum will consider ITC recommendations and may assign or procure other resources to advance efforts to expand the current project or propose another project concept to enhance or address omitted project elements. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 10 October 2020 4.0 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING 1 4.1 Project Monitoring Monitoring to determine project effectiveness has been somewhat inconsistent, and frequently includes only required permit conditions. Typically, most local and state permits only require monitoring plant survival over three to five years after the project has been implemented. For most WRIA 9 projects, this level of monitoring does not provide enough information to understand if the project has successfully created and maintained the type of habitat anticipated from the project. Additionally, much of the other monitoring in the basin has similarly been started after the restoration was done, without proper controls or reference sites making conclusions from the monitoring less reliable. Monitoring plans should specifically address the goals and objectives of the particular project. The ITC encourages project proponents to start creating monitoring plans when they reach the 30% design phase. This would allow for pre-project monitoring to begin prior to implementing the project, if appropriate. Additionally, the ITC recommends when possible using a Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring design, as it provides a solid scientific basis for the results. The ITC can provide assistance in developing aspects of the monitoring plan if the sponsor needs assistance The project effectiveness recommendations in the MAMP build on the Implementation Guidance Report (WRIA 9 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Workgroup and Anchor Environmental LLC 2006). That report provided general recommendations for the types of projects or issues that sponsors should monitor, but it did not provide detailed recommendations. This created variability in how project sponsors have monitored restoration projects, which has led to challenges in how to summarize effectiveness. The new recommendations are more detailed with the intent of promoting uniformity in how project success is described and reported back to the WRIA and other funding partners. For this report, project effectiveness was broken into two types: routine and enhanced. It is expected that routine monitoring will be done on all projects as existing sponsor funds allow and should satisfy permit conditions as well as provide basic information about whether the project continues to function as intended. Routine monitoring includes very little biological monitoring, but rather relies mostly on physical habitat measurements to document performance and changes. For instance, routine monitoring of riparian vegetation should include evaluating the percentage of aerial cover that is occupied by non-native invasive plant species. Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring is more intensive and will be focused on projects with less certainty of success and higher expense. These are discussed in more detail in the next section below. 1 This section pertains to high priority capital habitat restoration projects that the WRIA contributes funding to and does not include education, stewardship or revegetation only projects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 11 October 2020 As of 2020, each restoration funding source treats monitoring requirements differently. The SRFB recently created a pathway where the Lead Entity could use up to 10% of its annual SRFB allocation for monitoring projects, though using these funds for monitoring is not generally encouraged. Instead, the SRFB funds its own monitoring program that monitors a subset of projects throughout Washington. There are generally several WRIA 9 projects being monitored by the SRFB each year. While the WRIA 9 recommended indicators and metrics do not perfectly match the SRFB’s metrics, project sponsors should explore ways to collaborate with SRFB monitoring efforts when possible. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) through the Green River Ecosystem Restoration Projects (ERP) not only requires monitoring of their projects, they also provide up to a 65% match to undertake the monitoring. Currently, the ACOE roughly allocates $20,000 a year for three years of post-construction monitoring. However, this amount could be increased to closer to $100,000 a year if the local sponsor had the ability to provide the 35% match. The ability to leverage monitoring funds on ERP projects would likely make them ideal for enhanced monitoring (discussed below). Projects that receive funding through the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) are able to fund monitoring of projects through the program. Furthermore, the ESRP is currently one of the few grant programs that funds “learning projects.” This program could be a source of funding for enhanced monitoring efforts in the estuary and marine shoreline as well as for exploring research priorities that are included in the Validation Monitoring section of this report. Additionally, the WRIA directs some of its grant funding (e.g. Cooperative Watershed Management) towards monitoring and research needs. 4.1.1 Routine Monitoring Routine monitoring helps determine if the project is performing the way it was intended. For example, if a backwater habitat is built to function as rearing habitat, the recommendations suggest monitoring the number of days the habitat is inundated during the Chinook juvenile outmigration (January through June) as well as if the amount of physical habitat available changes over time. The recommended indicators and metrics were specifically chosen to be generally affordable and straightforward to implement. The primary indicators and metrics are typically focused on physical attributes of the site versus biological. By giving simple and inexpensive recommendations, it is believed that project sponsors will be able to undertake the recommended monitoring. If project sponsors do not undertake the recommended monitoring voluntarily, it may be necessary to create minimum monitoring requirements as a condition for receiving funding through the WRIA. It is expected that all projects will establish photo points and provide an as-built drawing. Photo-points are an extremely useful way of visually communicating the change that is (or isn’t) occurring at a site. Without an as-built drawing it is generally not possible to reliably track the physical changes occurring at any site. Projects that get SRFB money for construction are now required to provide an as-built. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 12 October 2020 The monitoring recommendations for a particular project are in Table 2 below and broken into categories of project type and subtype, project objectives, and physical and biological monitoring questions with indicators and metrics for each The project type typically follows the nomenclature used by the SRFB monitoring program, while the project subtype more closely follows the terminology from the WRIA 9 Plan. The next column includes the primary project objective or objectives for that subtype. Defining the specific project objective helps clarify what the physical and biological questions should be. Generally, each project subtype has one primary objective. When there is more than one potential objective, each objective was noted by a bulleted letter that corresponds to bullets in following columns. The next two columns include the physical and biological questions along with the metrics and indicator that should be used to evaluate the specific question. In each of the two columns the questions are broken into primary and secondary questions. It is intended that the project sponsor’s monitoring plan should at a minimum answer the primary questions. While the secondary questions would help refine how project success is described and reported, including is entirely up to the discretion of the project sponsor. Where the overall project includes more than one project subtype (e.g., planting combined with a levee setback), the project sponsor would answer the primary monitoring questions associated with each project subtype. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 13 October 2020 Routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations by project type and subtype. Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Planting Revegetation of riparian area, including conifer under- planting Establish vegetation (to provide multiple benefits i.e. shade, leaf litter input, food, bank stability) N/A 1) How much aerial coverage was created by end of year 5? >50% aerial cover of native species after year 5 2) What is the area of non- native, invasive plant coverage after 5 years compared to year 0? <20% nonnative vegetation at end of year 3; <10% nonnative vegetative cover after year 5 If on a creek (not on Green River), has the project affected instream temperature during summer months? Compare temperature upstream, within, and downstream of project area in years 0, 3, 5, 10. If conifer underplanting, what is the aerial cover after 5 years? >50% increase in aerial canopy cover of conifers after year 10. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 14 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Invasive control To control non– native, invasive plant species and allow for native plants to naturally recruit or grow in their place. (This assumes no replanting is done at the same time and that eradication is not possible) N/A What is the area of non-native, invasive plant coverage after 5 years compared to year 0? <10% nonnative vegetative cover after year 3 Instream habitat enhancement LWD installation a) Bank protection b) Habitat/pool creation, (stream vs. river) c) Recruit LWD to jams d) Floodplain interaction- forcing channel to migrate, split, aggrade, etc. a) Has bank been protected from erosion/channel migration? % adverse eroding bank year 0 versus year 3/after high flows b) Have habitat conditions improved within project reach? Stream-change in mean residual pool depth between year 0 and year 3? River- Compare amount (ft2) of edge habitat available before and in years 1, 3, and 5. Compare via GPS and velocity meter, mapping edge habitat as 1.5 ft/sec or less, using a modified Beechie et al 2005 for habitat types-bank edge (unarmored, bio- revetment, armored, bar edge, side channel edge, and backwater b) Is the wood structure providing cover? % of wood structure in contact with flow of 1200 cfs in years 0 versus year 3. b) Did fish use respond to LWD presence? If evaluating for only 1 year: Higher relative abundance of target species in LWD/treatment habitat than in control habitat representative of pre-project conditions If using BACI: Increased difference between abundance of target species in LWD/treatment versus control habitat after project than between pre-project LWD/treatment location versus control habitat before project. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 15 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) c) Has the number and/or size of jams increased over time? Compare # LWD pieces in jams and ft2 in years 0, 5, and 10 d) Is channel more dynamic? Compare amount (ft2) of edge habitat available before and in years 1, 3, and 5. Compare via GPS and velocity meter, mapping edge habitat as 1.5 ft/sec or less, using a modified Beechie et al 2005 for habitat types-bank edge (unarmored, bio- revetment, armored, bar edge, side channel edge, and backwater Instream habitat enhancement Spawning Gravel Supplementa- tion Enhance/ increase spawning habitat or quality where modifications have limited natural gravel recruitment. Has gravel remained in or moved to the places intended for the time expected? 1) Compare substrate size distribution (longitudinal trends in d16, d50 and d84) between years -1, 0, 3, 5 Is placed gravel as stable as reference reach? Compare scour depth of placed gravel with reference reach of naturally recruited gravels under the same flow conditions. Has gravel remained useable for spawning over time or has it become embedded with fines or moved into other reaches? 1) %embeddedness of spawning gravel years 0, 3, 5, 10 Has redd spatial distribution changed with supplementation? Compare redd distribution by river mile, in years 0, 3, 5 and 10. NOTE: redd presence is not recommended as a metric because it is not a guarantee of redd success, and documenting redd success is risky to eggs and fry. Fish passage Fish passage Provide fish access to habitat that they currently do not Do target species and/or life history phase have access to new habitat? WDFW Fish passage and design criteria are met years 0, 3, and 5 NOTE: purposefully avoided using biological presence as a metric as absence of fish does not prove lack of access. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 16 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) by removing artificial barriers. Shallow water/Edge Habitat Pocket estuaries AND Duwamish Transition zone vegetated marsh and mudflat (marsh = +5.5 to +12 mean lower low water (MLLW), mudflat (-4 to +12 MLLW) habitat creation Create or improve high quality rearing habitat in saline or partially saline habitats. 1) Has the amount of intertidal habitat remained stable? Compare representative elevation profiles from as- built to years 3 and 5. Quantify ft2 of intertidal habitat available in 2 ft. gradations from -4 to +12 MLLW. 2) Has substrate type remained as intended? Compare as-built (year 0) to year 3, and 5 conditions 1) How much aerial coverage of vegetation was created by end of year 3 and 5 (minus mudflat areas)? > 50% aerial cover by end of year 3, >80% aerial cover by end of year 5 2) Are juvenile Chinook using the habitat type? Number and condition factor of juvenile fish compared to a reference site during the same season, or to the project site before the project was built Shallow water/Edge Habitat Backwater habitat creation AND Green River side channel creation Create high quality, but mostly static, rearing habitat by reconfiguring the stream channel to be more hydraulically complex. 1) Is there access to the habitat when the target life stage is nearby? Use elevation of inlet/outlet compared to water levels in late winter/early spring, when juvenile Chinook need it or use time lapse cameras to describe number of “inundation” days, duration, frequency, and timing of connectivity 2) Has there been deposition or erosion of habitat? Has substrate type remained as intended? Compare as-built (year 0) to year 3 conditions 1) Are juvenile Chinook preferentially using the habitat type? If evaluating for only 1 year: Higher relative abundance of target species in treatment habitats than in control habitats representative of pre-project conditions If using BACI: Increase in difference between abundance of target species in treatment versus control habitat after project than between pre-project treatment location versus control habitat before project. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 17 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Shallow water/Edge Habitat Creek channel restoration or relocation Reconfigure or restore the stream channel to be more hydraulically complex and have a more natural channel configuration 1) Has habitat quality and quantity increased post project and been maintained over time? Between years 0, 3, and 5, changes in: mean residual pool depth, increased diversity in habitat types (e.g. pools, riffles), increased wetted area at a set flow, and increased sinuosity. 2) Has the project affected instream temperature? Compare temperature upstream, within, and downstream of project area in years 0, 3, 5, 10. 1) Are juvenile Chinook preferentially using the habitat type? If evaluating for only 1 year: Higher relative abundance of target species in treatment habitats than in control habitats representative of pre-project conditions If using BACI: Increase in difference between abundance of target species in treatment versus control habitat after project than between pre-project treatment location versus control habitat before project. Shallow water/Edge Habitat Levee or revetment Setback or removal Allow the river to migrate or gain access to a specific area of floodplain and create high quality edge/off channel habitat. 1) Has the length of unarmored bank increased? Compare length of unarmored bank between years 0, 3, 5 and 10. 2) How much slow water habitat is available at 1200 cfs? (This flow level was chosen from Anderson and Topping 2018) Compare amount( ft2) of edge habitat available before and in years 1, 3, and 5. Compare via GPS and velocity meter, mapping edge habitat as 1.5 ft/sec or less, using a modified Beechie et al 2005 for habitat types-bank edge (unarmored, bio- revetment, armored, bar edge, side channel edge, and backwater 3) How much slow water habitat is available at the 50th, and 75th percentile flow during the rearing 1) Are juvenile Chinook preferentially using the treated area? If evaluating for only 1 year: Higher relative abundance of target species in treatment habitats than in control habitats representative of pre-project conditions If using BACI: Increase in difference between abundance of target species in treatment versus control habitat after project than between pre-project treatment location versus control habitat before project. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 18 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) period (adds higher rearing flows than #2 if sponsor is able to undertake) Compare amount( ft2) of edge habitat available before and in years 1, 3, and 5. Compare via GPS and velocity meter, mapping edge habitat as 1.5 ft/sec or less, using a modified Beechie et al 2005 for habitat types-bank edge (unarmored, bio- revetment, armored, bar edge, side channel edge, and backwater 4) Has the rate of channel migration increased? Quantify migration rates before and after project using either aerial photos or GPS in field to measure bank locations and rate of migration. 5) Has the number and/or size of jams increased over time? Compare # LWD pieces in jams and ft2 year 0 to years 3, 5 and 10 6) How much high flow refuge habitat is available at 8800 cfs* Compare amount of habitat available before and after project via topographic surveys Shallow water/Edge Habitat Armor removal- marine, at feeder bluff Restore sediment delivery to beach and downdrift habitats. Has sediment delivery increased? % of treated shoreline with eroding banks in year 3, 5, 10 Has the amount of forage fish spawning gravel/habitat increased? Compare area/amount of habitat in the same season for years 0, 3, 5 and 10 Is sediment transport moving material downdrift? AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 19 October 2020 Project Type Project Subtype Project Objective Physical monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Biological monitoring questions and Indicator/metric (Primary bolded, Secondary regular font) Beach profiles for site and downdrift year 0 and year 3, and 5. Shallow water/Edge Habitat Armor removal marine, non- feeder bluff Enhance habitat quality along the shoreline margins Have basic beach habitat conditions improved? 1) Compare amount of detritus (beach wrack, drift logs, etc.) between year 0 to year 3. Has the amount of forage fish spawning gravel/habitat increased? Compare area/amount of habitat in the same season for years 0, 3, 5 and 10 2) Has beach sediment remained stable? Beach cross section profiles at same time of year for year 0, 3, 5 and 10. Shallow water/Edge Habitat Soft shoreline armoring Enhance habitat quality along the shoreline margin while still restricting the ability of the shoreline to erode. 1) Is the treated beach eroding? Annual beach cross section profiles at same time each year for 3 years 2) Have basic beach habitat conditions improved? Compare amount of detritus (beach wrack, drift logs, etc.) between year 0 to year 3. Did the benthic community recovery from burial? Has the benthic/epibenthic community shifted to a reference condition between year 0, 3, 5 and 10? *The inundated area at 8,800 cfs is an indicator of flood refuge habitat. It corresponds with the approximate flow level that is effective at causing measurable channel changes in the period after Howard Hanson Dam was installed (Konrad et al. 2011). The use of this metric assumes that inundated area at 8,800 cfs is positively related to the quantity of slow-velocity (<45 cm sec-1) flood refuge habitat. If so, maximizing area at 8,800 cfs could potentially give juvenile Chinook more opportunities to avoid displacement and injury during floods, and survive at a higher rate.AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 20 October 2020 Adaptive Management Process for Routine Project Effectiveness Monitoring Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether a project is functioning the way it was intended in the 3–10 years after the project is built. The timeframe for determining effectiveness will likely be longer for projects designed to restore processes, and shorter for projects designed to be static. The following are adaptive management roles and actions for project sponsors, the ITC, and the Forum. Project sponsor action: • Monitor project, report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5 for static projects, and years 5 and 10 for process-based projects. ITC action: • Evaluate and review project sponsor analysis—if project has shortcomings, determine if it is a result of project design or unanticipated processes that will prevent project from being sustained, with or without planned maintenance. • Evaluate options and recommend action as needed to project sponsor and/or the Forum (e.g., maintenance, modify the existing design, or initiating a new project to achieve the objective, and funding if needed). • Summarize recommendations for making future projects of this type more effective and sustainable/successful. • Recommend any additional monitoring needed to further evaluate site conditions to project sponsor. If recommended for enhanced project effectiveness, propose to Forum if approval for additional funding is needed. • If the project is successful, encourage project sponsors to present widely to various audiences (e.g., WRIAs, newsletters, conferences, web sites). Recommend similar projects and highlight the successful elements and techniques to project sponsors of projects of similar type. Forum action: Consider ITC recommendations for enhanced monitoring for specific projects, or recommended actions for maintenance, modifications of the design or new projects. Consider approving actions and/or funding. 4.1.2 Project Monitoring-Enhanced Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish are using a restoration project type. Unlike routine project monitoring, which asks whether a certain type of habitat was created and sustained, enhanced monitoring is meant to determine how fish use the habitat, and which restoration techniques work best. While we generally know enough about Chinook distribution and habitat preferences to design appropriate restoration projects, we do not have all the answers. For example, past studies have compared the relative abundance of juvenile Chinook between different control and treatment habitats, but have not looked at condition factors to determine if restoration projects are also contributing to higher growth rates (and thus survival) of juvenile Chinook. It should be noted that project types that are prioritized for enhanced monitoring should not be AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 21 October 2020 avoided, but rather, should be done and carefully evaluated. It is not suggested that this level of monitoring be done by all project sponsors. It is intended that the WRIA should at least partially financially support these types of monitoring projects. Also, as noted above, several of the project subtypes are part of the ACOE ERP program. It would be strategic to undertake enhanced monitoring efforts on ERP projects due to the ability to leverage federal dollars for monitoring. Enhanced monitoring overlaps with the research framework described below in the validation monitoring section of this report. Prioritization Framework Unlike the routine monitoring, which was focused on creating detailed recommendations, this enhanced monitoring section focused on creating a prioritization framework to rank where the WRIA should focus funding in its annual grant round (Table 3). Project subtypes for enhanced monitoring are grouped based on the subwatershed. This was done because some project subtypes have different levels of benefit or certainty based on where within the watershed they are undertaken. For example, placement of spawning gravel within the Middle Green River subwatershed is more likely to benefit and be used by spawning Chinook than material that is placed in the Lower Green River subwatershed, which historically had little available spawning habitat. Four criteria were used to evaluate the priority of action by subbasin. Each criterion was scored from 1 to 5 and summed across the four criteria. The higher the sum of the scores, the more effort the WRIA should put in to understanding the benefits of that project type within that subwatershed. Prioritization Criteria 1. What is the certainty of project benefit to Chinook? A score of 1 indicates high certainty, and a score of 5 indicates low certainty. Higher certainty indicates a strong scientific basis that the project type in that location will benefit Chinook. Where there is already a strong scientific basis, there is less need to verify the project’s benefits. 2. Is the project subtype process-based? A score of 1 indicates projects that restore riverine processes (e.g., levee setbacks) and a score of 5 represents structural projects that add relatively static habitat features. The plan generally favors process-based restoration techniques because there is greater certainty that the project will provide habitat benefits over the long term. Structural fixes tend to be engineered and more likely to fail in the long term. Thus, it is a higher priority to verify the benefits of those types of actions. 3. How common is the project type? How many of this type are we likely to do in the next 10 to 20 years. A score of 1 indicates we are not planning many of the project type in this subwatershed, while a score of 5 indicates that many are planned. Before we make future investments in a particular type of project, we should make sure they function as expected. 4. How expensive is the project type? Projects with relatively low costs receive a score of 1, and expensive projects score 5. If a project type will require the investment of large financial resources, effectiveness should be verified before many of these project types are undertaken. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 22 October 2020 The project subtypes were scored by the ITC and are presented in Table 3. The scoring methodology creates a range of scores from the lowest possible score of 4 to a maximum score of 20. The actual summed scores ranged from 7 to 17, with 7 project subtypes scoring above 13 or greater points. The highest scoring project subtype was creating shallow water habitat in the Duwamish subwatershed. This is because while we have fairly high certainty of benefit, this project subtype is generally not processed based, expensive, and the WRIA expects to build many of them over time. When the factors are combined, the score indicates we should make certain our efforts in this location are having the benefits we want. The 21 project subtypes were binned into three tiers based on natural break points that created roughly equally populated tiers. Tier 1, or projects that warrant additional monitoring the most, included projects that scored 13 points or greater. Tier 2 included six projects that scored between 10 and 12 points. Tier 3 included seven projects that scored from 7 to 9 points. Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by project type and subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced monitoring. Adaptive Management for Enhanced Project Effectiveness Projects should be evaluated with a combination of BACI or reference/control sites research designs depending on site and circumstances. Adaptive management roles and actions for enhanced project effectiveness are similar to those described above for routine project effectiveness. Subwatershed Restoration project subtype (does not include acquisition, stewardship, fish passage, and education projects) Certainty of Benefit to Chinook (1= High to 5=low certainty) Process Based? (1=process to 5 = Creation) Relevance to future projects (number likely to do in the next 10 yrs) 1-few to 5-many Relevance to future projects (likely cost over next 10 years) Low=1, high=5 sum Tier Duwamish *Shallow water habitat creation 3 5 4 5 17 Middle Green *Spawning Gravel Supplementation 3 4 4 4 15 Lower Green *Backwater (nonflow thru off-channel habitat) creation 3 5 2 4 14 Lower Green Spawning gravel supplementation 4 4 1 4 13 Marine Pocket Estuary Enhancement 5 3 2 3 13 Lower Green *Side channel (flow thru off-channel habitat) creation 3 5 1 4 13 Middle Green LWD installation 3 4 3 3 13 Marine Soft-shoreline armoring 2 4 3 2 11 Middle Green *Setback of levee or revetment 2 2 2 4 10 Duwamish Revegetation 2 1 4 3 10 Middle Green Revegetation 2 1 4 3 10 Tributaries *Revegetation 2 1 4 3 10 Tributaries *LWD installation 3 3 2 2 10 Lower Green *Setback or removal of levee or revetment 2 3 1 3 9 Lower Green *Revegetation 2 1 3 3 9 Marine Marine shoreline armoring removal-other shoreform 4 1 1 2 8 Marine Revegetation of riparian area 2 1 3 2 8 Middle Green Removal of shoreline armoring 2 1 2 3 8 Tributaries *Creek channel creation or relocation 3 2 1 2 8 Marine Marine shoreline armoring removal-feeder bluffs 3 1 1 2 7 Upper Basin Enhanced level of monitoring is not suggested until fish passage is provided N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 2 3 * denotes a project subtype that could be monitored through the ACOE Ecoystem Restoration Program AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 23 October 2020 Project sponsor or evaluator action: • Monitor fish use and report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5. ITC action: • Evaluate and review project analysis – if project has shortcomings, determine if it is a result of the specific project design, geographic location, or if it is an issue with the project type more generally. • Determine if additional fish use monitoring should occur beyond the initial phase and if additional information should be collected at the same time (e.g. water quality. • Recommend any potential corrective actions as needed to project sponsor and/or the Forum (e.g., maintenance, redesign, or initiating a new project to achieve the objective, and funding if needed). • Summarize recommendations for future projects of this project subtype to ensure we learn from additional examples of the project subtype. • If the project is successful, make sure this information is widely shared with other project sponsors. Encourage project sponsors to present widely to various audiences (e.g., WRIAs, newsletters, conferences, web sites). Recommend similar projects and highlight the successful elements and techniques to project sponsors of projects of similar type. Forum action: • Consider ITC recommendations for enhanced monitoring for specific projects, or recommended actions for maintenance, redesign, or new projects. Consider approving actions and/or funding. 4.2 Cumulative Habitat Conditions The Salmon Habitat Plan calls for a variety of actions to be taken by local jurisdictions. Some of those actions are specific restoration projects while others are regulatory or programmatic in nature, like protecting forest cover. The intent of all the actions called for in the plan is to improve the cumulative habitat conditions for fish over time. The effectiveness of all the actions is represented in the cumulative habitat conditions, which require that we know both the gains and losses to habitat parameters throughout the basin so that we can evaluate the net loss or gain of any particular habitat metric. It is recommended cumulative habitat conditions be reported on every 5 years. The WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report 2005–2011 (ITC 2012), evaluated most Tier 1 and several Tier 2 Conservation Hypotheses. While it is recommended the WRIA continue to measure the same metrics into the future, the information has been reorganized around recovery strategies that are part of the larger Salmon Habitat Plan update. In addition to the tracking the same metrics as in 2012, it is recommended that two areas be added for future status and trends evaluation. Specifically, it is recommended tracking the amount of and change in intertidal fill along the marine shoreline. Baseline data for 2005 and 2015 have been created that allow for consistent tracking of this metric. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 24 October 2020 At the time the Salmon Habitat Plan was developed, the existing water quality data did not indicate a strong effect on Chinook salmon, thus all water quality parameters were considered a moderate priority. Since the Salmon Plan was developed, three different Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies indicated temperature is a serious concern in the mainstem Green River, as well as in Soos and Newaukum creeks. The 2012 Status and Trends report recommended tracking water temperature in the mainstem of the Green River in addition to the tracking water temperatures in Soos and Newaukum Creeks. Information on how cumulative habitat conditions will be evaluated is based on work done for the Status and Trends report in 2012 and is summarized in Table 4. The table includes information on: the method to be used, who is expected to collect the data, who will likely pay for the data, how often and when the evaluation should be done, and a rough cost range for data collection, analysis, and reporting. Unlike the 2012 effort where the ITC dedicated most of a single year to collect and analyze data for the report, it is the intent that some of the data and metrics in Table 4 will be collected and analyzed each year, rather than all the information being collected and analyzed at one time. This will spread the costs and time requirements across a five-year period, which will make the overall undertaking more manageable and affordable with limited resources. It is recommended that the ITC continue to annually coordinate with other entities conducting monitoring in the watershed and evaluate opportunities to leverage other monies and make recommendations to the WEF as to which opportunities to pursue. For example, the ACOE undertakes large wood survey of thirty miles of the Middle Green River every few years. This effort could be leveraged by paying the ACOE consultant to collect the same data in the Lower Green and Duwamish. Having the same data collection methods and same surveyors reduces startup costs and improves data consistency and the ability to reliably analyze trends throughout the river. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 25 October 2020 Summary information on what, how, and when cumulative habitat conditions should be tracked. Habitat Metric Recovery Strategy Evaluated in 2012? Method Who collects data: who pays for data collection How often/when? Cost to WRIA? Low>2k; med= 2k to 25k, high>25k River, marine, and large stream riparian vegetation condition Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors yes Photo interpretation of Middle Green CMZ, the banks of the Lower Green, Soos and Newaukum Creeks, and 200ft landward along the Nearshore (use nearshore field surveys supplement with aerial photos) County or regionally consortium for photos. WRIA would pay for analysis. Every 5 years dependent on availability of aerial photographs and staff (last done in 2009). County wide photos available every other year (odd years). HIGH ~1.5 weeks per area, 5 areas to be analyzed (Data for Soos and Newaukum needs to be redone, Nearshore might need to be adjusted) Habitat forming high flows Protect, Restore & Enhance In-stream Flows & Cold Water yes Evaluation of # of days per water year that daily average flow exceeds 8829cfs Available USGS data: Not WRIA Every 5 years (last done in 2009). Analysis/write up in 2016. LOW Several days of staff time Riverbank and marine shoreline armoring Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat & Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity yes Boat based surveys of banks ITC or consultant; WRIA ~ Every 5 years Marine banks last surveyed in 2018, on schedule to do in 2021. Lower Green last surveyed in 2014. Middle Green has not been comprehensively surveyed since 2004. MED-Marine HIGH-Freshwater Marine intertidal fill Protect, Restore & Enhance Marine Shorelines no Aerial photo and LiDAR comparison. Baseline data for 2005 and 2015 completed. Map/define shoreline edge and compare and contrast to baseline to identify filled or restored areas waterward of OWHM ITC: WRIA Every 5 years. Update could be done based on 2019 or 2021 aerial photos. MED to LOW. Feeder bluff condition by drift cell Protect, Restore & Enhance Marine Shorelines yes Primary analysis relies on shoreline armor data to determine impact of changes in shoreline armoring on sediment processes ITC or Consultant; WRIA ~Every 5 years. Relies on data from All 6 being updated. LOW Several days of staff time to evaluate and write up. Shallow water habitat amount/condition in the Duwamish. Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat yes Evaluate area of shallow water habitat created for net gain and linear feet of shoreline bank restored. Combine project reporting data with aerial photo analysis of losses and potential natural gains similar to analysis for nearshore fill. ITC or consultant: WRIA Last evaluation of newly created habitat done in 2009. Limited baseline of shoreline condition established in 2004. No baseline of shallow water habitat amount exists. HIGH River aquatic habitat condition/complexity (wood and pools) Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives & Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat yes Habitat data needs to be collected in the field. Metrics include pieces of large wood and number of wood jams per mile, pools per mile, pool % by length, avg residual pool depth, dominant pool forming factor, % pools formed by wood. ITC, ACOE, TPU, consultant: WRIA (Lower Green and Duwamish), ACOE (Middle Green), and TPU (Upper Green) Baseline data in Lower Green last collected in 2014. Baseline data for wood in the Middle Green last collected in 2019. Baseline data in Upper Green was last collected in 2019 HIGH Benthic Invertebrate condition of streams throughout watershed Protect, Restore, & Enhance Sediment & Water Quality yes General watershed health will be evaluated by analyzing trends in benthic index of biotic integrity scores. King County and various jurisdictions independent of salmon recovery for lower basin. Upper basin: WRIA Compile data every 5 years. Previous analysis only included subbasins flowing into the Mainstem Green River. Future analyses should include direct nearshore drainages (data is available for many) and possibly the upper Green River every other year. MED—below HHD, 1 week of analysis- write up MED-Upper basin (no data currently, baseline would need established) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 26 October 2020 Habitat Metric Recovery Strategy Evaluated in 2012? Method Who collects data: who pays for data collection How often/when? Cost to WRIA? Low>2k; med= 2k to 25k, high>25k Forest and impervious cover throughout the basin Protect, Restore, & Enhance Sediment & Water Quality yes Use Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) land cover data to evaluate forested conditions. Use CCAP data modified for impervious surface conditions. NOAA collects land cover data. WDOE has modeled impervious surface based on CCAP data. CCAP data is collected every 5 years. 2016 was the last year data was collected LOW. Several days of staff time. Chinook Salmon passage up and downstream of Howard Hanson Dam. Restore and Improve Fish Passage no This requires minimal tracking and no analysis. Once fish passage is provided there will be many opportunities to leverage required monitoring by TPU and ACOE None Once a year check in on status of downstream fish passage facility. none Number of days river, Soos and Newuakum Creeks violate State water temperature standards Protect, Restore, & Enhance Sediment & Water Quality no Use continuous temperature data collected at mainstem sites located at the Koss and Upper Green River sites above the reservoir and two sites below the reservoir. Compare number of days the Green violated State standards King County restarted collecting data in 2013 for two sites below reservoir. Tacoma collects data above the reservoir. Compile and evaluate data every 5 years. LOW 1 to several days to evaluate and write up data. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 27 October 2020 Adaptive Management for Cumulative Habitat Conditions The ITC will prepare a summary of environmental indicator conditions in the watershed compared to the baseline conditions every five years. The summary will classify all environmental indicators investigated as improving, staying the same, or degrading. This information will be compared to the watershed-wide implementation monitoring to gain insight on whether activities to date address the environmental indicators. If so, but the environmental indicator conditions continue to decline, then it means that habitat is being lost faster than it is being gained. The ITC will prepare recommendations of projects to conduct (or project timelines to accelerate) and policies, programs, and regulations that can be useful in stopping habitat loss and providing an overall improvement in habitat. These recommendations will include consideration of: • Are there incomplete projects in the Salmon Habitat Plan that could improve habitat conditions in ways that would appear in environmental indicator monitoring? • Does it appear that un-enforced regulations are contributing to the degradation and/or is there a need for additional regulations? • Are there programs in the Salmon Habitat Plan that could improve conditions that are not being implemented, or is there a need for additional programs? The Forum will consider the ITC recommendations and make commitments of staff or other resources to take action to implement more projects or programs, enforce regulations, or develop new policies, programs, or regulations to address the issue(s). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 28 October 2020 5.0 VALIDATION MONITORING 5.1 Population Status-Viable Salmonid Population Parameters The central question when working towards salmon recovery is, what is happening with the Chinook? Specifically, we need to know the status (abundance, productivity, distribution/spatial structure, diversity) and long-term sustainability of the Green River Chinook population. These are described by NOAA as Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters. These measures of population status tell us whether the cumulative actions of society and the Salmon Habitat Plan are resulting in improvements in population’s overall resiliency. There are factors outside the scope of the Salmon Habitat Plan that affect adult population abundance—i.e., ocean conditions, harvest rates, hatchery management, other Puget sound stock abundance (WRIAs 7, 8, 9, and 10)—so it is important to focus on aspects of the population that are predominately affected by WRIA 9 habitat actions. Table 5 shows VSP parameters, what each is intended to represent, how they will be measured, and who is collecting data associated with them. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 29 October 2020 Viable Salmonid Population parameters, and who and how they are being measured in WRIA 9. VSP Parameter What is it? What does it mean? How is it being measured? Who is measuring? Productivity The performance of fish during each life stage The natural-origin spawners will produce sufficient juveniles to grow the population over the long-term, withstand unproductive ocean cycles, and provide an abundance of returning adults without subsidies from the hatchery. Spawner surveys and juvenile outmigrants moving downstream at RM 34, since 1999. (1) Egg-to-migrant survival; (2) Median short-term population growth rate of natural-origin spawners; and (3) Recruits per natural- origin spawner; (4) 5-year average of # of parr; (5) proportion of adults from fry life history type. Green River Smolt Trap is operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and is jointly funded by ACOE, Tacoma Water, WRIA 9, and WDFW. WDFW and MIT count spawners. Otolith data for #5 would need to be paid for and collected separately from existing programs. Abundance The number of natural origin fish in a population Sufficient numbers of Chinook exist to be resilient to disturbances and variation in the environment, allow for negative feedbacks to stabilize the population size, maintain genetic diversity, and provide ecosystem benefits such as marine-derived nutrients. When the population is too small, the population is vulnerable to crashes from positive feedbacks that reduce survival as abundance declines, and may suffer from inbreeding. Number of natural origin spawners annually through spawner surveys WDFW and (MIT) collect and report the data. Data is available via WDFW’s SCORE database. NOAA’s Salmon Population Summary Database includes a Puget Sound wide uniform escapement method to generate population numbers. Spatial Structure The configuration, quality, and dynamics of salmon habitats and salmon dispersal among habitats The spatial structure is maintained by a net balance of habitat creation and destruction, natural rates of genetic exchange between populations, the presence of some room to explore (unused but suitable habitat), and by some highly productive subpopulations that can prop up less productive ones. Broad redd distribution data by river reach is collected during spawning surveys, but a metric to track this parameter has not been developed due to the large reaches the co-managers use to summarize spawners. WDFW and MIT have collected detailed redd locations in some years, but not consistently. Not currently evaluating this metric due to the coarse resolution of the data. Diversity Genetic, physical, and behavioral differences among and within populations Natural patterns of run timing, age, size, egg production, body shape, behavior and genetic diversity still dominate the population. Fish may disperse unimpeded and gene flow continues with little alteration. (1) Percent of total river-spawning adults that originated from a hatchery; (2) timing of fry and parr outmigration; and (3) proportion of older (5 and 6 years) spawners in natural-origin returns. (4) Median peak spawn timing (want to see it moving later in year and greater range) Green River Smolt Trap (see above) and adult counts by WDFW and MIT (also in NOAA’s Salmon Population Summary Database) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 30 October 2020 Gaps in VSP monitoring Spatial structure is an important VSP parameter that influences the ability of a population to adapt to habitat complexity. Chinook spawning distribution data by reach has been collected by the co-managers for several decades. In several years, an effort was made to GPS each redd location during the spawning surveys, but this is not consistently done. It is recommended that the WRIA work with the co-Managers to facilitate the collection of detailed location information so that the WRIA can create a metric to measure and track spawning patches (i.e. finer scale redd distribution). This will become more important in the future when passage is provided at Howard Hanson Dam, and spawning distribution may shift due to a doubling of the spawning habitat. Currently, smolt outmigration is measured just above the confluence with Soos Creek, at River Mile 34; there is no smolt trap lower on mainstem to determine productivity of lower river rearing habitats. While Muckleshoot Tribe maintain a smolt trap on Newaukum Creek the data for that trap is not available for analysis. The WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004) recommended an additional smolt trap at River Mile 18 after the fish passage facility is installed at the Howard Hanson dam. A smolt trap was installed at this location for a short period in 2003, but it was done for a specific research project and was not considered an ideal site for trapping (King County 2013). A new approach to tracking juveniles in the lower Green River will be undertaken in 2021 using Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT). Once the results from the PIT tagging study are complete, the ITC should evaluate if it is appropriate to fund the PIT tagging array in the long term to quantify habitat use and survival through the lower Green. The smolt trap at River Mile 34 is a high priority. The smolt trap facilitates “fish in-fish out” monitoring. In combination with spawning abundance estimates, this trap is used to measure egg to migrant survival for each brood year and to collect data on aspects of life history diversity. It is the best available measure of salmon productivity in freshwater given the range of inter-annual variability with flood events and other factors. VSP monitoring needs to be done annually without breaks due to natural variability in populations. Over long time periods, data from the smolt trap can help detect changes in productivity and life history diversity which should result from the cumulative habitat restoration being undertaken. The smolt trap funding has been in doubt at various times. The current funding approach relies on contributions from four government entities and it is unclear how long this approach will be viable. A long-term regional funding plan is needed to ensure the trap continues operating. 5.2 Ongoing Research and Data Gaps In 2004 the WRIA 9 Technical Committee created the WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework to “provide guidance about which research efforts should be implemented in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed to inform recovery planning” (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). Existing information was used to create a conceptual model of how Chinook salmon use the watershed to help organize and prioritize data and knowledge gaps for future research. Research topics were categorized into three tiers. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 31 October 2020 Topics in Tier 1 were developed in more detail within the report while Tier 2 and 3 topics were left undeveloped. Since 2004 many data gaps have been addressed or at least partially addressed through various studies. However, as is typical with research, for every question answered many more new questions are created. We now know some items originally listed as lower priorities in 2004 should actually be considered higher priorities and our list of data or knowledge gaps has expanded. There have been many reports with recommendations for additional research. Two newer reports that that compiled and described many new research needs are the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report (ITC 2012) and the plan update white paper on Chinook use, temperature, climate change, and contaminant (King County 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2018). Given the fluidity of our state of knowledge, it was not deemed appropriate to expend significant resources in updating or amending the research framework within the MAMP when it will be out of date shortly thereafter. Instead, it is recommended that the ITC still use and refer back to the research framework as it has laid out many issues in need of additional study as well as possible methods and approaches to addressing the data gap while at the same time taking into account newer information generated since 2004. For example, there are several studies recommended to improve our understanding around how fry use the estuary, but these studies do not take into account our new understanding of how contaminated substrates may be driving the very low survival. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 32 October 2020 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Adaptive management involves using monitoring results to make changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan and projects, and requires testing assumptions, and sharing what is learned with the people implementing the plan and projects. Implementing this monitoring and adaptive management plan will be the backbone of our ability to say if recovery actions are working. This plan has identified the monitoring needs for WRIA 9 as it nears the end of the first 15 years of the Salmon Habitat Plan implementation and enters the next phase of salmon recovery with the first major update to the Salmon Habitat Plan. Findings from the monitoring efforts will allow the WRIA 9 stakeholders to adaptively manage for salmon recovery with the latest information about the pace of project and program implementation, the effectiveness of projects, and their effects on the abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure of Chinook salmon. In recent years, the WEF has dedicated a proportion of its local resources to monitoring and research needs. It is recommended that the WRIA continue to do so given the need to describe if the Plans actions are leading to changes in the Chinook VSP parameters. Specifically, it is recommended that the WRIA shift the current monitoring and research grant selection process into a more formal process than it has been. This will allow the WRIA 9 ITC to review and balance the various types of monitoring needs each year. It is expected the monitoring and research grant funding will predominately be directed at, cumulative habitat condition data collection and analyses, smolt trap funding, and some amount of enhanced monitoring and new research to address knowledge gaps. Specific adaptive management actions and roles are described for each type of monitoring in the sections above and are summarized below. Implementation Monitoring Priorities In order to track how the Salmon Habitat Plan is being implemented, it is recommended that project sponsors report project funding and habitat accomplishments to the WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator within 3 months of project completion. Additionally, it is recommended that WRIA 9 staff report in writing on a biennial basis on the status of Salmon Habitat Plan implementation related the habitat targets for each subwatershed, as listed in the implementation monitoring section (chapter 3) of this plan. Project Effectiveness Monitoring Priorities The routine monitoring for projects suggested in this report were prioritized because they should be relatively easy and inexpensive to collect and frequently integrate with permit required monitoring. Routine monitoring for individual project effectiveness should be paid for by project sponsors or grants they receive for project construction, where monitoring costs are allowed. While not encouraged, project sponsors or other groups may also apply for WRIA directed grants for routine monitoring and maintenance, but a high bar should be placed by the ITC to justify why the normal expectations should be discounted. Some projects with more risk or uncertainty in outcomes should be monitored more AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 33 October 2020 intensively with funding support by the WRIA under enhanced project monitoring. It is recommended that the WRIA 9 dedicate some funding each year to enhanced project effectiveness monitoring in order to learn more about if specific project types are having the desired benefits. Opportunities to partner with the Army Corps of Engineers on enhanced project effectiveness monitoring for projects in the ERP should also be pursued whenever possible in order to leverage WRIA dollars. Cumulative Habitat Conditions For cumulative habitat conditions, the strategy recommended is to whenever possible use data from existing monitoring efforts that are already occurring, and to leverage those with the agencies or groups doing the monitoring to expand the efforts to fill any gaps. Also, in some cases, WRIA 9 staff and partners, especially from the ITC, may be able to meet monitoring needs at no extra cost to WRIA 9. Data and evaluation of cumulative habitat conditions should be undertaken each year in order to spread out the tasks and make them manageable with limited staff resources. The sum of all those conditions should be reported on once every five years. Validation Monitoring A backbone of any monitoring effort is knowing how the fish are doing. The comanagers currently collect most necessary data on adults returning to the Green River. In 2013 when the smolt trap was likely to be funded only once every 10 years due to budget constraints, the ITC recommended that the WRIA contribute to its funding. This is because the smolt trap data is at the heart of our ability to say if the changes in habitat are resulting in changes in Chinook VSP parameters. The trap has been in place for over 20 years, and data compilation and analyses from that data recently provided many valuable insights into recovery efforts (Anderson and Topping 2018). Thus, the ITC strongly recommends continuing to work with basin partners to fund the smolt trap until a more appropriate regional funding source can be found. It is suggested the ITC continue in its existing approach to ranking and funding priorities for research to fill data and knowledge gaps. Small investments in this type of work has provided useful information for the plan update, like the juvenile Chinook use of non-natal stream habitats in the Lower Green, which has raised the importance of restoring access to those habitats. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 34 October 2020 7.0 REFERENCES Anderson and Topping, 2018. Juvenile life history diversity and freshwater productivity of Chinook salmon in the Green River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 38: 180-193. Beechie, Timothy, Eric Buhle, Mary Ruckelshaus, Aimee Fullerton, Lisa Holsinger. 2006. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity, Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 4, Pages 560–572, ISSN 0006-3207, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.019. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320706000450) Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C. DeGasperi. 2011. Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 11- 10.046. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110046.html Greene, Correigh M. and Timothy J. Beechie. 2004. Consequences of potential density-dependent mechanisms on recovery of ocean-type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61:590-602. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2004. Auburn Narrows floodplain habitat restoration project: surface water Hydrology. Prepared by Kathryn Neal for King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2013. DRAFT. Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green River, Duwamish River, and nearshore of Elliott Bay, 2001–2003. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle. King County. 2017a. A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004–2016). Prepared by Kollin Higgins of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County Science and Technical Support Section 35 October 2020 King County. 2017b. Green River temperature and salmon. Prepared by Josh Kubo of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County. 2017c. WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon. Prepared by Jessica Engel, Kollin Higgins, and Elissa Ostergaard of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County. 2018. An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by Jenee Colton, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle Washington, for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Konrad, C., H.B. Berge, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen, and J. Guyenet. 2011. Channel dynamics in the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936 to 2002. Northwest Science 85: 1-14. Latterell, Josh. 2008. Baseline Monitoring Study of Restoration Effectiveness in the Green River (Mile 32): Process and Habitats in the Channel and Floodplain. King County DNRP, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wlr/sections-programs/science-section/doing-science/green-river-restoration-study.aspx Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team, R. Ponzio and K. Stiles. March 2013. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery: A Framework for the Development of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. Ruggerone, G.T. and D.E. Weitkamp. 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared for The WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., and Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA. WRIA 9 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Workgroup and Anchor Environmental LLC. 2006. Implementation Guidance for the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, Seattle WA. pp101. WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee. 2012. WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005–2010. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE G-1 ROGER TABOR Appendix G: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE G-2 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE G-2 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Recovery Strategy Subwatersheds Programs Policies Restore and Improve Fish Passage All •Fish passage barrier removal (1) Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity Lower & Middle Green •N/A (4) Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat Lower, Middle & Upper Green •Gravel and wood supplementation (2) Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors All •Regreen the Green Revegetation •Noxious/invasive weed removal •Site stewardship and maintenance (5) Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality All •Pollution Loading Assessment •Pollution Identification and Control •Creosote Removal (7) Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines Marine Nearshore •Private landowner toolbox •Shore Friendly Technical Assistance •Nearshore acquisition strategy (5) Protect, Restore and Enhance Estu- arine Habitat Duwamish •Implement Duwamish Blueprint (3) Protect, Restore and Enhance In-stream Flows and Cold Water Refugia Lower, Middle & Upper Green •Watershed management plan •Upper Green Watershed Strategy (5) Expand Public Awareness and Education All •Behavior change communication plan •Volunteer stewardship •Community science and monitoring •Shoreline workshops (2) Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives Lower & Middle Green •Farm conservation plans •Livestock program (2) Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning All •Restoration incentives •Compliance monitoring and enforcement (10) Plan Implementation and Funding All •Basin stewardship •Land Conservation Initiative •Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program (7) APPENDIX G Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Published by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update Appendices MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING City of Algona City of Auburn City of Black Diamond City of Burien City of Covington City of Des Moines City of Enumclaw City of Federal Way City of Kent King County City of Maple Valley City of Normandy Park City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Tacoma City of Tukwila Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 KCIT-DCE file: 2102_10102L_W9SHP-REPORT.indd ROGER TABOR AGENDA ITEM #6. e) 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    RESOLUTION NO. _______    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE 2021  UPDATE TO THE GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED  OR WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN,  MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING.     WHEREAS, the 2021 Update to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (“WRIA 9 Plan”) is an  addendum to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, and includes new science, revised habitat  goals and recovery strategies, an updated capital project list, and a monitoring and adaptive  management plan; and   WHEREAS, 17 local governments in WRIA 9 (“Parties”) have partnered through an inter‐ local agreement (ILA) (2001‐2006, 2007‐2015, 2016‐2025) to jointly fund development and  implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan to address shared interest in and responsibility for long‐term  watershed planning and salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound  Watershed (“watershed”); and   WHEREAS, in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit, including the  Green River Chinook salmon population, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species  Act (ESA); and   WHEREAS,  local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat‐based aspects of Chinook  survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and tribes, who are the  legal co‐managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery  management; and  AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RESOLUTION NO. _______  2  WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 partners recognize participating in the ILA and implementing  priorities in the WRIA 9 Plan demonstrates their commitment to proactively working to address  the ESA listing of Chinook salmon; and  WHEREAS, coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes,  businesses, non‐governmental organizations, landowners, citizens, and other interests are  essential to implement and adaptively manage a salmon recovery plan; and  WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Partnership serves as the Puget Sound regional organization  and lead agency for planning and implementing the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan,  approved by NOAA Fisheries; and    WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan is one of 15 watershed‐based chapters of the Puget Sound  Salmon Recovery Plan; and   WHEREAS, the City supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common priorities for  actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and distribution of  responsibility for actions and expenditures; and  WHEREAS, habitat protection and restoration actions to increase Chinook salmon  productivity trends are necessary throughout the watershed, in conjunction with other recovery  efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook salmon to viability in the  long term; and  WHEREAS, salmon recovery is interrelated with flood risk reduction, water quality  improvement, open‐space protection, recreation, economic development, and tribal treaty  rights; and   AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RESOLUTION NO. _______  3  WHEREAS, the City has a strong interest to achieve multiple benefit outcomes for people  and fish across the watershed; and  WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long‐term effort, and  focuses on a 10‐year implementation time horizon to allow for evaluation of progress and  adaptation of goals and implementation strategies; and   WHEREAS, it is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector and the public with  certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions in WRIA 9; and  WHEREAS, if insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is unlikely  Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 9 will improve and it is possible the federal government  could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an endangered species, thereby decreasing local  flexibility; and  WHEREAS, the Parties previously took formal action to ratify the 2005 Salmon Habitat  Plan; and  WHEREAS, the City ratified the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan by Resolution No. 3776, passed  October 17, 2005;   NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION I. The City hereby ratifies the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound  Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update, Making Our  Watershed Fit for a King, dated February 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated  by this reference. Ratification is intended to convey the City’s support for the following:    AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RESOLUTION NO. _______  4  1. Protecting and restoring habitat based on best available science with the  intent to achieve sustainable, resilient, and harvestable populations of naturally spawning  Chinook salmon.  2. Pursuing a multi‐benefit approach to WRIA 9 Plan implementation that  integrates salmon recovery, flood hazard reduction, water quality improvements, open space  and recreation, and equity and social justice to improve outcomes for people and fish.  3. Utilizing the WRIA 9 Plan as a source of best available science to inform local  government actions, including, but not limited to land use, shoreline, and transportation  planning/permitting.  4. Utilizing capital project concepts, programmatic actions, and policies outlined  within the WRIA 9 Plan to inform local priorities for implementation and funding via grants,  capital improvements, ordinances, and other activities. Ratification does not obligate any partner  to implement any specific actions or adhere to specific timelines for such actions.   5. Working collaboratively with local, state, and federal partners and tribes to  support and fund implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan, including monitoring and adaptive  management to address scientific uncertainty, tracking and communicating progress, and  refining strategies to ensure cost‐effective investments.    PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _____________________, 2021.        ______________________________  Jason A. Seth, City Clerk      AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RESOLUTION NO. _______  5  APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _____________________, 2021.        ______________________________   Armondo Pavone, Mayor           Approved as to form:      ______________________________  Shane Moloney, City Attorney    RES:1877:7/8/2021     AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RESOLUTION NO. _______  6                    EXHIBIT “A”  Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound  Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9  Salmon Habitat Plan Update, Making Our  Watershed Fit for a King, dated February 2021  AGENDA ITEM #6. e) MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 3 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 Alternate formats available Voice: 206-296-6519 TTY Relay: 711 For Additional Copies of this Plan: King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-6519 Recommended Citation: Water Resource Investory Area 9 (WRIA 9). 2021. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Water- shed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update. Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Approved by the Watershed Ecosystem Forum February 11, 2021. File Archive: 2102_10102L_W9SHP-REPORTt.indd King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Unit archives Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 4 Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................8 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................................10 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 1: Background ................................................................................................................................................................13 Regional Salmon Recovery Context ..........................................................................................................................................13 WRIA 9 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................................................................15 Equity and Social Justice ...................................................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed – A Snapshot .......................................17 Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle – Connecting a Diverse Watershed ...........................................23 Adult Upstream Migration/Spawning ......................................................................................................................................23 Egg Incubation/Emergence .............................................................................................................................................................23 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/Migration .................................................................................................................................24 Juvenile Estuary Rearing ....................................................................................................................................................................24 Marine Nearshore Rearing ...............................................................................................................................................................25 Ocean Migration .......................................................................................................................................................................................25 Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals .....................................................................................27 Viable Salmon Population Criteria – Current Status and Goals ...........................................................................27 Habitat Goals – Implementation Targets ...............................................................................................................................30 Chapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures ...........................................33 Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus) ............................................................................................................................................33 Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies .............................................................................................................................................49 Strategy: Restore and Improve Fish Passage ...................................................................................................................49 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity .....................................................................51 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat ...............................52 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors ...............................................................................53 Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality .......................................................55 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines .................................................................................58 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat ....................................................................................60 Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia ............................62 Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education ....................................................................................................64 Strategy: Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives .........................................66 Strategy: Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning ...........................................................................68 Plan Implementation and Funding ..............................................................................................................................................70 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 5 ROGER TABOR Chapter 7: Capital Projects ......................................................................................................................................................73 Project Prioritization ................................................................................................................................................................................74 Capital Project Information by Subwatershed. ...................................................................................................................75 Marine Nearshore Subwatershed ...............................................................................................................................76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed ..........................................................................................................................102 Lower Green River Subwatershed ............................................................................................................................118 Middle Green River Subwatershed .........................................................................................................................146 Upper Green River Subwatershed ..........................................................................................................................160 Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................................................163 Annual Funding Package.................................................................................................................................................................. 163 Salmon Recovery Funding............................................................................................................................................................... 164 WRIA 9 CWM Funding Allocation.............................................................................................................................................. 164 Outyear Project Planning (6-year CPIP)............................................................................................................................... 165 Performance Management............................................................................................................................................................. 165 Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................167 Adaptive Management Framework.......................................................................................................................................... 167 Implementation Monitoring............................................................................................................................................................ 168 Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................. 168 Validation Monitoring........................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Chapter 10: References ............................................................................................................................................................173 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. ........................................14 Figure 2. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Watershed Map............................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Land Use Designations Map ................................................................................................21 Figure 4. The Salmon Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). ...........................................................................................................................................25 Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement. .................................................................................................................................29 Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation. ..........................................................................................34 Figure 8. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a result of climate change. .............................................................................................................................................................................36 Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services). ........................................................................37 Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperaturesmeasured from 2001-2014. ........................................................................................................................................39 Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood control structures. .............................................................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 12. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2018). ...............................................43 Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience very low marine survival rates ...............................................................................................................................................................44 Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project (Ecology). ...............................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non-natal tributaries (Mike Perfetti) .......................................................................................................50 Figure 16. Healthy juvenile chinook sampled from a non-natal tributary in 2018 (Chris Gregersen) .....................50 Figure 17. The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi-benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements. ..................................51 Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re-Green the Green Strategy. .................................................................................................................................................................54 Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park ..........................................57 Figure 20. Before and after Phase II restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien ....................................................58 Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon. ........................................................................61 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 7 Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. ..................................................63 Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation. ....................................................................................................................................66 Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River. ...................................71 Figure 25. Number of Projects by Subwatershed ...........................................................................................................................................72 Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects (Map) ................................................................................................................77 Figure 27. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects (Map) ...........................................................................................................103 Figure 28. Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map) ..............................................................................................................119 Figure 29. Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map) ...........................................................................................................147 Figure 30. Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map ..............................................................................................................160 Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary ......................................................................................................................................................................................168 Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework. .........................................................................................................................169 List of Tables Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals ............................................................................................................................................28 Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. .............................................................................................31 Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ....................................................................................................................98 Table 4. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ..................................................................................................................116 Table 5. Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ................................................................................................................144 Table 6. Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects ...............................................................................................................158 Appendices Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green/Duwamish Watershed Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Uses in WRIA 9 (2004 – 2016) Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix G: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 8 Foreward On behalf of the Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Watershed Ecosystem Forum, we are pleased to present this update to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, “Making Our Watershed Fit for a King” (2005 Plan). The 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Plan Update (Plan Update) represents a renewed commitment to salmon recovery efforts in WRIA 9 and provides a science-based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years. It refines and adds key recovery strategies based on new science and ensures resources will continue to be directed to where they provide the greatest benefit for Chinook salmon. The original 2005 Plan translated science into actions. Plan implementation by multiple WRIA 9 entities in the last 15 years helped leverage over $200 million of local, state and federal funding to realign more than 2 miles of levees to reconnect floodplains, restore over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline and revegetate 500 acres of riparian habitat. While we recognize these achievements, we also acknowledge that salmon recovery is a long-term endeavor that requires continued coordinated action. Chinook salmon numbers remain critically low and human population growth and climate change are only magnifying the challenges we face in salmon recovery. Chinook salmon are an integral part of our regional identity. The Watershed Ecosystem Forum - a regional partnership of 17 local governments, state resource agencies, business interests and non- profit organizations – is collectively committed to implementing actions that will improve watershed conditions for our salmon populations. Plan implementation supports more than just salmon recovery; it supports tribal treaty rights, community flood hazard reduction, water quality improvement, open space protection, and outdoor recreation. While the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed has faced numerous challenges, we are optimistic about the future of our watershed. The downstream fish passage facility at Howard Hansen Dam, clean-up of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund sites, and a regional commitment to integrated floodplain management reflect a projected investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10-15 years. As we work towards an improved future, we are reminded of a quote from a historical planning guide for the Green River corridor: ROGER TABORAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Forward edits In third paragraph, second line, recommend inserting “and” between “business interests” and “non-profit” There are extra spaces in several places between words. That may be a graphics issue, but in case it can be fixed, I found them in the following places: i. Second paragraph, 3rd line, between “than” and “2” ii. Second paragraph, 5th line, between “is” and “a” iii. Third paragraph, 3rd line, between “collectively” and “committed” iv. Fourth paragraph, 1st line between “While” and “the” Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 9 As we look at the Green River corridor, we must say, ‘This is the way the people want it to be.’ Therefore, in each locality, someone should steadily be asking, ‘is this the way we want it to be, now and in the future?’ The ultimate condition of the Green River Basin should be the result of informed and far- sighted public decisions. River of Green, 1978 We look forward to collaborating with all our local, state, federal, and tribal partners in realizing our collective vision for this watershed and welcoming back ever stronger runs of salmon. Sincerely, Councilmember Nancy Tosta City of Burien Co-Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Councilmember Lisa Herbold City of Seattle Co-Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 10 Acknowledgements Primary Authors Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Kollin Higgins, King County Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Report Preparation GIS Analysis: Todd Klinka, King County Design: Laurel Preston, King County Watershed Ecosystem Forum Chris Stearns, Auburn Tamie Deady, Black Diamond Nancy Tosta, Burien Jennifer Harjehausen, Covington Matt Pina, Des Moines Chris Searcy, Enumclaw Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Dana Ralph, Kent Dow Constantine, King County Susan West, Normandy Park Valerie O’Halloran, Renton Erin Sitterly, SeaTac Lisa Herbold, Seattle Scott Dewhirst, Tacoma Public Utilities Allan Ekberg, Tukwila Wendy McDermott, American Rivers Katie Moxley, Boeing Company Steve Lee, Covington Water District James Rassmussen, Green/Duwa- mish Watershed Alliance Burr Mosby, King Conservation District Michelle Clark, King County Flood Control District Jeanette Dorner, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Sandy Kilroy, Port of Seattle Max Prinsen, SHADOW Jeff Dillon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Weston Brinkley, Green-Duwamish Urban Waters Partnership Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Stewart Reinbold, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Joe Miles, Washington Department of Natural Resources Implementation Technical Committee Joe Anderson, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Kerry Bauman, King County Katie Beaver, King County Elizabeth Butler, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office David Casey, City of Maple Valley Jeanette Dorner, Mid Sound Fisheries Alexandra Doty, Puget Sound Partnership Joseph Farah, City of Renton Larry Fisher, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Chris Gregersen, King County Meara Heubach, City of Kent Kollin Higgins, King County Josh Kahan, King County Katherine Lynch, Seattle Public Utilities Nathan Malmborg, US Army Corps Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle Kathryn Moxley, Boeing Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Nikolas Novotny, Tacoma Water Jessica Olmstead, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Brandon Parsons, American Rivers Mike Perfetti, City of Tukwila Dennis Robertson, City of Tukwila Patty Robinson, King County Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Rowena Valencia-Gica, City of Kent Financial Support Funding provided by the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement among 17 local government partners and Cooperative Watershed Management funds provided by the King County Flood Control District. Management Committee Chris Stearns, City of Auburn Jennifer Harjehausen, City of Covington Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Toni Troutner, City of Kent Josh Baldi, King County Susan West, City of Normandy Park Valerie O’Halloran, City of Renton Susan Saffery, City of Seattle Former WRIA 9 Leadership Bill Peloza, City of Auburn Marlla Mhoon, City of Covington Dennis Roberton, City of Tukwila Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 11 Executive Summary as Threatened. Population abundance, productivity, diversity and spatial distribution have not improved, and in some cases have continued to decline. A Strategic Assessment Update summarizes new research findings that address important data gaps identified in the 2005 Plan. New information related to habitat use and fish productivity, climate change, temperature, and contaminants supported a reassessment of functional linages between priority stressors, habitat conditions, and VSP parameters. This information serves as the foundation for the other core elements of the Plan Update. Although the Plan Update maintains existing NOAA-approved VSP goals, it introduces new 10-year habitat goals (implementation targets) that represent continued progress towards the long-term necessary future conditions for achieving a viable salmon popu- lation, as outlined in 2005 Plan. The numerical targets for key habitats serve as a benchmark for evaluating plan implementation over time and informing ongo- ing adaptive management. The Plan Update outlines a portfolio of 12 recov- ery strategies – including embedded policies and programs – to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resiliency. Successful This document updates the 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, Salmon Habitat Plan. The 2005 Plan served as the blueprint for salmon habitat recovery in WRIA 9 for 15 years. It is fitting that the Puget Sound Regional Council award- ed the original 2005 Plan a Vision 2020 Award. Al- though the Plan Update reflects over a decade of new science regarding salmon conservation and recovery since the award, the core recovery strategies and un- derlying scientific framework remain largely valid to- day and continue to provide an important foundation for salmon recovery. The Plan Update – designed to be a stand-alone document – is intended to update, not replace, the 2005 Plan. The two documents, along with the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint and the 2016 Re- green the Green, provide a science-based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions. This document provides a status update for Green River Chinook salmon using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved viable salmon population (VSP) criteria. Over 20 years have passed since the listing of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Despite significant investments and large-scale restoration projects, Green River Chinook salmon remain listed AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 12 implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capi- tal investment programs, and community outreach messaging are consistent with identified watershed priorities. An updated list of capital projects was developed in partnership with interlocal agreement member jurisdictions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. The updat- ed project list identifies 127 capital habitat projects across the five subwatersheds. Individuals projects are ranked within their specific subwatershed – not across subwatersheds. Projects are tiered based on overall benefit towards recovery and to provide con- text for the level of financial need. Tier 1 projects have significant potential to advance recovery and sub- stantively contribute to habitat goals. Tier 2 and Tier 3 have moderate and limited potential, respectively, to advance recovery and contribute to achieving habitat goals. The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines monitoring priorities intended to help evaluate progress and inform strategic adapta- tion of the recovery strategies. The MAMP establishes a framework for (1) tracking implementation goals, (2) assessing project effectiveness, (3) evaluating habitat status and trends, (4) evaluating the popula- tion status of Green River Chinook salmon, and (4) prioritizing research and monitoring investments. This framework will guide data collection to support regular assessment of progress and allow the WRIA to reassess prioritization and sequencing of recovery actions. PHOTO: ELI BROWNELL Green River Natural Area AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 13 Chapter 1: Background The 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, Making Our Water- shed Fit for a King, represented the culmination of over five years of technical reconnaissance, research, and policy development. The Plan was a local wa- tershed-based response to the federal government’s 1999 listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The 2005 Plan – which received a Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2020 Award – translated a tremendous wealth of science into discrete policy recommenda- tions and management actions necessary to sup- port recovery of natural origin Green River Chinook salmon. The 2005 Plan provided the blueprint for Chinook salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound for 15 years. It helped watershed part- ners leverage upwards of $200 million dollars of local, state and federal funding for salmon recovery. Plan implementation resulted in nearly 2 miles of levee setbacks, over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline resto- ration, and approximately 500 acres of revegetation. Despite of these accomplishments, the continued decline of Chinook salmon – both locally and region- ally – highlights the urgent need for expanding and accelerating recovery efforts. This Salmon Habitat Plan Update represents the next chapter of salmon recovery efforts in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. It provides a science-based framework for identify- ing, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years. The integration of over a decade of new science informed important refinements to recovery priorities and investment strategies outlined in the 2005 Plan. These refine- ments reflect the watershed’s commitment to adap- tive management and ensure that limited resources are directed to where they can provide the greatest benefit towards Chinook salmon recovery. Although the focus of this plan is on Chinook salmon recovery, implementation will also provide parallel benefits to other salmon and steelhead. Regional Salmon Recovery Context This addendum updates the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed chapter of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved 2007 Puget Sound Salmon Recov- ery Plan. The Green River Chinook salmon popula- tion is one of six Chinook salmon populations in the Central/South sub-basin and one of 22 remaining populations in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evo- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 14 Why does the data on salmon abundance begin to improve in 1975? The quality of data on annual salmon population runs improves starting in 1975, when the Washington Department of Fisheries (predecessor to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) initiated data collection in response to the federal court mandate to develop and share annual abun- dance of salmon returning to individual rivers in Puget Sound. Chinook Salmon Recovery Timeline Puget Sound Chinook listed as threatened species Population 2016 Seattle: 689,000 Green River 1963 Howard Hanson Dam Built Lowest number of natural origin spawners (182) recorded in the Green River 1870 1881 1890 19091906 1913 1916 1950 197519631919 2009 0k 750k 250k 150k 50k 550k 450k 350k 650k 1975WILD PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON RUN SIZE Puget Sound Wild Chinook Population Logging 1881 First splash dam built for logging in Washington Railroad 1870 Northern Pacific Railroad survey triggers land boom Harbor Island finished 1909 Much of the Duwamish Estuary filled for industry Population 1890 Seattle population 42,000 Population 1950 Seattle 465,000 Green River 1919 Private levee construction begins throughout the river Cedar River 1916 Diverted away from the Green River, into Lake Washington White River 1906 Diverted out of the Green River into the Puyallup River 201920161999 Natural spawners Green River Chinook salmon escapement 1803_8972a_Green_River_Salmon_Timeline_WRIA9.ai WRIA 9 Chinook salmon abundance goals: 1,000–4,200 27,000 returning natural origin spawning adult fish by 2025 returning natural origin spawning adults by 2055 Source: WDFW salmonid stock inventory 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1975198019851990199520002005201020152020Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 15 lutionary significant unit (ESU). NOAA ESU recovery criteria require status improvement in all populations and two to four viable populations in each of the sub-basins. The Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership), the state agency leading the region’s collective effort to restore and protect Puget Sound, serves as the regional salmon organization for the 15 lead entities within the Puget Sound, advised by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. The Partnership co-manages the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund and works in partnership with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and Recreation and Conservation Of- fice (RCO) on statewide salmon recovery issues. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board, facilitated by the RCO, is a Governor-appointed 10-person board with a primary responsibility for making grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and salmon recovery activ- ities. This salmon recovery infrastructure, and the grant and loans for habitat project implementation, is supported through state and federal funds from NOAA’s Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and the State Salmon Recovery Funding. Additionally, within Puget Sound, salmon recovery is supported by the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. WRIA 9 Organizational Structure Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 serves as a lead entity for salmon recovery under the State of Washington’s watershed-based framework for salmon recovery established under RCW 77.85. It is a watershed-based organization comprised of local, state and federal partners, non-profit organizations, business interests, and citizens. Per statute, WRIA 9 is mandated to “compile a list of habitat projects, establish priorities for individual projects, define the sequence for project implementation, and submit these activities as the habitat project list. The com- mittee shall also identify potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources.” The 17 local governments within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) formalized a partnership under an interlocal agreement (ILA) (WRIA 9 ILA) in 2000. The initial ILA (2000–2005) funded a strategic, science-based assessment of the watershed and a long-term, com- prehensive recovery plan for the Green River Chinook salmon population. Following approval of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, the local government partners forged a 10-year ILA from 2007–2017 intended to guide plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ongoing commitment to watershed-based salmon recovery was renewed in 2017. The current ILA extends through 2025. The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF) serves as the advisory body for plan implementation and adaptive management. It is comprised of elected officials from the ILA partners and other watershed stakeholders. The Management Committee serves as the executive committee to the WEF. It directs work plan development and manages the ILA budget. The Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) is a technical- and policy-focused subcommittee that supports plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ITC defines monitoring and research prior- ities, interprets new technical information as it relates to salmon recovery, and provides science-based recommendations to WEF. Equity and Social Justice Salmon recovery efforts within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound watershed overlap with numerous communities experiencing deeply entrenched social, economic, and environmental inequities. Race and place influence opportunity and quality of life. People of color, immigrants, and low-income residents experience inequities in access to key determinants of equity – including access to parks and natural resources. Although best available science drives project identification and prioritization, equity and social justice (ESJ) issues should be care- fully considered. Applying an ESJ lens to habitat pro- jects can help ensure salmon recovery efforts align with ESJ initiatives and do not inadvertently reinforce existing inequities. Integrating residents and commu- nity-based organizations into project design can help build community support and achieve multi-benefit outcomes that advance equity in the watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 16 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 17 Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed – A Snapshot The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed spans 575 square miles of diverse landscape, ranging from an industrial waterfront to preserved old growth forest. This section provides a high-level over- view of the five subwatersheds (Upper Green, Middle Green, Lower Green, Duwamish, and Nearshore) that serve as an overarching framework for salmon recovery. It also provides context for the strategies and actions outlined in subsequent chapters. For a more comprehensive review, please refer to the Chapter 3 of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. The Upper Green Subwatershed extends up- stream of Howard Hanson Dam, river mile 64.5, and represents approximately 45 percent of the Green/ Duwamish River watershed. Historically, the Upper Green provided important spawning and freshwater rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. It encompasses between 78-165 miles of suitable instream habitat, although fish passage has been blocked by a combi- nation of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam and Howard Hanson Dam since 1911. Checkered ownership in the subwatershed compli- cates coordinated land management. Although the primary land use is commercial forestry, the Upper Green also serves at the primary municipal water supply for the City of Tacoma. Additionally, a road and railroad alignment have constrained the river in plac- es, the Upper Green Subwatershed is largely undevel- oped and contains relatively high-quality, yet currently inaccessible, aquatic habitat. Long-term recovery of Chinook salmon depends on providing fish passage to the Upper Watershed. The Middle Green Subwatershed extends between river miles 64.5 and 32. It includes the two largest tributaries to the Green River – Soos and Newaukum Creeks. Low-velocity habitats, including off-channel habitats, sidechannels, floodplain wetlands, and river edge, provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Land use in the Middle Green is characterized pre- dominantly by agricultural lands and rural residential development. Land use development adjacent to river and tributaries has resulted in loss of riparian habitat contributing to elevated instream temperatures. Mod- ified flow regimes have disrupted natural transport of large wood and sediment. In addition, a network of training levees designed to restrict lateral channel migration – as opposed to prevent flooding – have simplified channel complexity along some reaches. Restoring floodplain connectivity and expanding rear- ing habitat capacity are critical to increasing Chinook salmon productivity. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 18 The Lower Green River Subwatershed flows from river mile 32 downstream to river mile 11. It serves as an important migratory corridor for adult upstream migration and juvenile downstream migra- tion. Available rearing and high-flow refuge habitat is limited compared to the Middle Green – many reach- es currently lack large wood, side channels, sloughs, and slow-water edge habitats. The Lower Green River also supports Chinook salmon spawning upstream of approximately river mile 25. The Lower Green River valley is the second largest warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The floodplain is heavily developed and character- ized by a combination of industrial, commercial, and urban residential development. The 1906 diversion of the White River left the floodplain perched above the mainstem channel and disconnected historic off-channel habitats. An extensive network of flood control facilities (27 miles of levees and revetments) currently restricts floodplain connectivity and limits channel complexity. A corresponding loss of riparian tree canopy contributes to elevated instream temper- atures. An integrated, multi-benefit approach to flood- plain management is needed to balance fish habitat needs with flood risk reduction and other community priorities in this subwatershed. The Duwamish Subwatershed extends from river mile 11 at the Black River Pump Station downstream to the north end of Harbor Island. The extent of salt influence – as depicted by the saltwater wedge – var- ies based on flows and tide, but can extend upstream as far as the Foster Bridge (RM 10.2) during low flows and high tides. Juvenile Chinook rear in the estuarine waters of the Duwamish as they undergo the physio- logical transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Extensive dredge and fill of the Duwamish has transformed the estuary into an industrial waterway, characterized by straightened channel with armored banks and a lack of riparian tree canopy. More than 98 percent of the historical tidal wetlands have been transformed into commercial and industrial land uses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared the Lower Duwamish Waterway a “Superfund” site in 2001 due to legacy contamination, and clean-up is not expected to be complete for another decade. Sediment cleanup and restoration of estuarine habitat are essential to increasing juvenile Chinook salmon survival. The Nearshore Subwatershed extends 92 line- ar miles from Elliott Bay south to the Pierce County boarder, including Vashon Island. It represents the interface of upland and aquatic habitats; shallow productive zone and deep water habitats; and fresh and marine waters. The nearshore is a dynamic environment – shaped by wave energy and sediment transport that support high species diversity. A variety of habitats, including beaches, eelgrass beds, and pocket estuaries, provide important foraging habitat and a migratory corridor to the Pacific Ocean for juvenile Chinook salmon. Development along the marine shorelines has altered significant stretches of the nearshore ecosystem. Approximately two-thirds of WRIA 9 shoreline is ar- mored, which has disrupted natural sediment delivery and transport. The intensity of shoreline development varies substantially across the watershed. The highest intensity development is located along the industrial and commercial shores of Elliott Bay. The mainland shoreline from Seattle south to Federal Way is pre- dominantly residential. Vashon Island is predominant- ly rural. Improving nearshore habitat is essential to increasing juvenile salmon residence times, growth rates, and overall marine survival. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) HowardHansonDam Tacoma HeadworksDiversion Dam Smay CrSunday CrJenkins Cr.Snow CrSawmill CrMiller CrMill CrTwin Ca m p C rChampion CrTacom a Cr Gale Cr LakeSawyer Deep CrCoal CrBear CrNewauku m C r Newauku m C r Charley C r N. Fork Green RiverLi t t l e Soo s C r Duwa m ish River Green RiverRavensdaleCr.Big Soo s C r Lake Youngs Puget Sound Elliott Bay HowardHansonReservoir SEATTLE Seattle KENT VashonIsland Maury Island RENTON SEATAC AUBURN ALGONA AUBURN FEDERAL WAY BURIEN TUKWILA COVINGTON DESMOINES ENUMCLAW MAPLEVALLEY BLACKDIAMOND NORMANDYPARK 405 509 518 167 99 99 18 99 5 5 5 UPPER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED LOWER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED LOCATION MAP WRIA 4WRIA 5 WRIA 8 WRIA 10 WRIA 6 WRIA 15 WRIA 11 WRIA 23 WRIA 38 WRIA17 WRIA 26 WRIA 39 WRIA 12 WRIA45 WRIA 7 WRIA 9 13 KingCountyKingCounty SnohomishCountySnohomishCounty PierceCountyPierceCounty King County Data Sources:King County Datasets: TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, Tribal_lands, Urban_growth, and KC BNDRY. Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. Produced by: King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Figure 2 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed River Mile River/creek Major Road Urban Growth Area Line WRIA 9 Subwatershed Boundary WRIA 9 Boundary Open Water King County Boundary Muckleshoot Tribal Lands VC File: smb://wlrbafs1.dnrp.kingcounty.lcl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/2010_10202L_W9SHP_W9whsdMap.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 0 2 4 61 Miles October 2020 N 0 5 10 Miles AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Smay CrSunday CrJenkins CrJenkins CrSnow C r Sawmill CrMiller CrMiller CrMill CrMill CrTwin Ca m p C rChampion CrTacom a Cr Gale CrGale Cr LakeSawyer LakeSawyer Deep CrDeep CrCoal CrCoal CrBear CrBear CrNewauku m C r Newauku m C r Charley C rCharley C r N. Fork Green River N. Fork Green RiverLi t t l e Soo s C rLi t t l e Soo s C r Duwa m ish River Green RiverCovington Cr Covington CrBig Soo s C r Lake Youngs Lake Youngs Puget Sound Elliott Bay HowardHansonReservoir HowardHansonReservoir NameName SEATTLE SEATTLE KENT Vashon Island Maury Island RENTON SEATAC AUBURN ALGONA AUBURN FEDERAL WAY BURIEN TUKWILA COVINGTON DESMOINES ENUMCLAW MAPLEVALLEY BLACKDIAMOND NORMANDYPARK NAME 405 509 518 167 99 99 18 99 5 5 5 King County Data Sources:Similar land use designations were combined and derived from King County GIS Center land use coverage LANDUSE_KC_CONSOL_20 based on multi-jurisdictional zoning data. Other King County datasets include TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, Tribal_lands, Urban_growth, and KC BNDRY. Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. Figure 3 Land Use Designations Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed LAND USE CATEGORIES Produced by: King County IT Design and Civic Engagement KCIT DCE File: smb://wlrbafs1.dnrp.kingcounty.lcl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/2102_10202L_W9SHP_W9_LANDUSEmap.ai LPRE GIS Data:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 0 2 4 61 Miles October 2020 N OTHER SYMBOLS Incorporated Area Name River/Creek Major Road Urban Growth Area Line WRIA 9 Boundary Open Water and Name King County Boundary Tribal Lands Industrial Commercial Mixed Use Residential Rural Residential Agricultural Public Lands Forest Parks, Open Space or Golf Course Mineral Resource Lands Aviation/Transportation Undesignated AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 23 October, between approximately river miles 25 and 61. Spawning primarily occurs within the Lower and Middle Mainstem Green River and Newaukum Creeks. Additional spawning occurs in Soos, Burns and Covington Creeks. Fish passage to the upper watershed has been blocked by a combination of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam (1911) and Howard Hanson Dam (1961). Although fish passage was provided at the Tacoma facility in 2007, a downstream fish passage facility has not been completed at Howard Hanson Dam. The dams also block natural gravel delivery and transport; however, available spawning habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor in Chinook recovery. Egg Incubation/Emergence Egg incubation and alevin emergence generally occurs September through January within the same reaches where spawning occurs. Timing is variable and influenced by water temperatures – warmer temperatures drive an earlier emergence. High- flow events and sedimentation during this critical development period can scour redds and result in high mortality. As a result, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam influences incubation/ emergence success. The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon life cycle provides a common thread linking together a diverse watershed. Each of the five distinct subwatersheds plays a critical role in the Chi- nook salmon life cycle. Recovery of a viable salmon population hinges on collective action across the watershed to improve aquatic habitat. The concep- tual life cycle model presented in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan remains an important tool for assess- ing aquatic habitat needs in relationship to priority stressors that adversely impact survival at distinct life history stages and across different life history types. Understanding aquatic habitat needs throughout the life cycle and how they relate observed bottlenecks in survival allows recovery managers to strategically focus limited resources where they are expected to provide the largest benefit to recovery objectives. Figure 5 highlights the relationship between the sub- watersheds and specific life history phases. Adult Upstream Migration/Spawning Chinook salmon enter the Green/Duwamish between July and October. Timing of river entry and upstream migration is impacted by water temperature and flow. Spawning generally occurs mid-September through Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle – Connecting a Diverse Watershed CHRIS GREGERSON AGENDA ITEM #6. e) The Salmon Cycle Spawning Incubation and emergence Stream rearing Downstream migration Adult Migration Migration To Puget Sound Maturation (Marine waters) Nearshore Foraging Estuary rearing DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED LOWER/MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHEDS MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED/OFFSHORE Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 24 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/Migration Juvenile Chinook salmon rear in the Lower and Middle Green subwatershed from mid-December to mid-July. The length of the freshwater rearing period varies among life history types (Figure 5) and is influenced by habitat availability and flows. Subyearling Chinook rely on low-velocity habitats, including mainstem river margins, pools, and off- channel habitats. Rearing habitat availability is a limiting factor for Chinook productivity. Extensive flood control facilities and floodplain development have disconnected floodplain habitats, reduced habitat complexity, and eliminated much of the historic freshwater rearing habitat. Instream flows influence accessibility of off-channel rearing habitats. During low-flow periods, off-channel habitats and floodplain wetlands may become disconnected from the mainstem. In contrast, high-flow events may flush juvenile Chinook downstream if they are unable to access suitable refuge habitat. Given the connection to instream flows, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam can impact habitat connectivity/ availability during the rearing period. Juvenile Estuary Rearing Subyearlying Chinook salmon generally migrate downstream into the Duwamish estuary between February and July, with fry-type life histories predom- inantly entering earlier in the year (Feb-Mar) than parr (May-Jun). Residence times in the Duwamish vary considerably, with some fish spending days and others (i.e., estuarine reared fry) spending weeks to months in the estuary. The Duwamish Estuary – specifically the transition zone (RM 1-9) – is critical for juvenile salmon making the physiological transition from fresh to salt water. Juvenile Chinook salmon rely on shallow, low gradient habitats (e.g., marshes, mud- flats, and tidal sloughs) to escape stronger currents and support efficient foraging and growth prior to en- tering Puget Sound. Extensive industrial development along the Duwamish has transformed the estuary to an industrial waterway, resulting in extensive loss of slow water rearing habitats and contamination of sediments. The lack of high-quality habitat may contribute to accelerated downstream migration and reduced survival upon entry into Puget Sound. Figure 4. The Salmon Cycle AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 25 (Ja n -Ju n ) (Jan-D ec-Jun) FRY (Jan-Apr) FRY (Jan-Apr) FRY FRY (days) F RY (Jan-Apr) S M O LT (w e e k s )? SMOLT (days) ? S M O L T (w e e k s ) FR Y YEA RLINGPARR (d a y s ) (t o m o n t h s ) (weeks to months) (to weeks) ? (days) ? (40 mm) RIVER Yearling RARE (>105 mm) Middle Green Parr COMMON (70-95 mm) Lower Green Parr LESS COMMON (70-95 mm) Estuarine Reared Fry COMMON (70-95 mm) Marine Direct Fry LESS COMMON (40-50 mm) PUGET SOUNDDUWAMISHLOWER GREEN P A R R MIDDLE GREEN (d a y s t o w e eks) Green/Duwamish River Chinook Juvenile Rearing Trajectories Green/Duwamish River Chinook Juvenile Rearing Trajectories Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). The most intense shoreline modifications are located in urbanized Elliott Bay, with more natural shorelines located along the largely rural Vashon Island. Ocean Migration By fall, most Green River Chinook exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca and migrate north along the outer coast of Vancouver Island. While Chinook salmon may spend up to five years in marine waters, most Green River Chinook spend two to three years at sea before returning to spawn. In addition to predators, Chinook salmon are subject to various commercial fisheries during their marine migration. Marine Nearshore Rearing Juvenile Chinook salmon generally rear in the Puget Sound nearshore from later winter through fall. Shal- low nearshore habitats support foraging, growth, and refuge from predators, while also providing a migra- tory corridor to offshore waters. Although considera- ble uncertainty surrounds marine nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon, it is widely accepted that the early marine rearing period is a critical period of growth that strongly influences long-term survival. The Central Puget Sound marine nearshore waters not only support Green River Chinook, but also at least eight different stocks of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Shoreline development has extensively modified nearshore habitat and processes in WRIA 9. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 26 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) ROGER TABOR Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 27 Recovery goals provide a framework from which to evaluate both plan implementation and overall pro- gress towards Chinook recovery. Tracking population metrics and habitat conditions provides important data used to evaluate current population status and overall habitat conditions. This information serves as a key input for informing ongoing adaptive manage- ment. Viable Salmon Population Criteria – Current Status and Goals The Viable Salmon Population1 (VSP) concept – as defined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – provides the foundation for all established recovery goals for Chinook salmon within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. NMFS defines a viable salmon population as a population that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local en- vironmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe (McElhany et al. 2000). The VSP goals outlined in this section remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan and are presented in Table 1. They 1 NOAA technical Memorandum NMFS-NWSSC-42: Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evo- lutionarily significant units. are based on recovery planning targets developed by a team of scientists (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team) appointed by NOAA to support the original 2007 Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook. Four parameters are used to assess the viability of salmon populations: abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. These parameters are rea- sonable predictors of extinction risk, reflect general processes important to all salmon populations, and measurable over time. Abundance Abundance is the number of individuals in the pop- ulation at a given life stage or time. The number of natural origin Green River Chinook spawners is the primary abundance indicator. Chinook abundance indicates an overall decline since before the first plan was adopted in 2005 (Figure 6 and Table 1). In 2009, the number of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) was the lowest ever recorded, with less than 200 fish. For five of the past 10 years (2010–2019), the number of NOS has been below the planning target range (1,000 -4,200 NOS) for WRIA 9. Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 28 Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals VSP Parameter Indicator 2006-2010 (average) 2011-2015 (average) 2016-2019 (average) 10-Year Goal 50-100 Year Goal Abundance Natural Origin Spawners 1975 (average) 963 (average) 2041 (average)1000-42002 27,000 Productivity Egg-to-Migrant Survival 2.9%8.7%5.3%a >8%>8% Diversity Percent Hatchery Origin 56.4%60.6%68.2%Decreasing <30% Proportion 5-6 yr- old Spawners 19.2 9.6%N/A Increasing >15% Relative Abundance of Parr 46%30.6%32.8%a No Target3 No Target Spatial Diversity Spawning Distribution Spawning in Green River mainstem (below Howard Hanson Dam), Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek Spawning above Howard Hanson Dam Maintain spawning distribution Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database a2016-2018 2 A range is used because the productivity of each year’s run varies depending on a variety of factors. If fish are expe- riencing high productivity, fewer adults are needed to reach future targets than if they are experiencing low productivity, which would require more fish returning to reach future targets. 3 No target established because it is not considered a reliable metric of diversity. However, relative abundance of fry and parr does provide important information for projecting future abundance. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 29 Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement. Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database. Productivity Productivity or population growth rate is the ratio of abundance in the next generation as compared to current abundance. The WRIA uses WDFW data to track egg-to-migrant survival rates as a primary means of evaluating productivity (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Egg-to-migrant survival rate is defined as the pro- portion of fertilized eggs that survive to migrate as fry or parr into the Lower Green, as quantified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) smolt trap at river mile 34. Although, the average rate for wild Chinook populations is 10.4 percent (Quinn 2005), the WRIA set a target of 8 percent because the elevated proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds is assumed to reduce reproductive fitness (see VSP diversity metric below). Between 2006 and 2018, the survival rate has ranged from 0.09 percent to 11 percent, with an average of 5.7 percent (Table 1). While the long-term average is below the target, the egg-to-migrant survival rate has exceeded the 8 percent target in five of the last 10 years of data. VSP-Spatial Structure The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator or metric for spatial structure. However, natural origin adults predominantly spawn in Newaukum Creek and the mainstem Green River. Recent changes to hatchery operations will maintain the area in Soos Creek above the weir as a natural production empha- sis area with only natural-origin adults passed above the weir. Adult Chinook will not be passed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) in order to access the upper watershed until downstream fish passage is provided at HHD. A 2019 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that the construction of a downstream fish passage facility at HHD was nec- essary for the recovery of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Southern resident orcas. It sets a 2030 deadline for construction and operation of a downstream fish passage facility. For the spatial structure of the population to improve, natural origin spawners are needed within both of these areas that were part of their historic range. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020NUMBER OF SPAWNERSTotal spawners Natural origin 10-Yr. VSP goal (range) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 30 VSP-Diversity Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by individuals within a population. WRIA 9 has used three metrics to mea- sure diversity: • Percentage of hatchery origin spawners. The target is for fewer than 30 percent hatchery origin Chinook spawners (HSRG 2004). The target has not been met since 2002, and since plan adoption in 2005, the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawn- ing grounds has ranged from 35 percent to 75 per- cent and has appeared to be increasing (Table 1); • Percentage of juvenile Chinook that outmigrate as parr. Based on recent analyses, this indicator is influenced by basic habitat capacity, the number of natural origin spawners, and the streamflows experienced during rearing (Anderson and Topping 2018). As such, tracking the percentage of parr is no longer recommended as a reliable metric for evaluating diversity of the population. However, the metric does continue to provides important popula- tion-level information related to productivity; and • Proportion of natural origin adults that return as five- and six-year old fish, with a simple target of an increasing percentage of older fish returning over time. Since 2005, there have been no six-year old fish, thus monitoring data reflect only five-year old Chinook. Excluding 2009, which was an outlier year with the lowest return of adults on record, the proportion of five-year olds has ranged from a high of 17 percent to a low of 1 percent (Table 1). The average percent return from 2006 to 2015, 14.4 per- cent, is similar to the average over the last 46 years of 15.4 percent. Habitat Goals – Implementation Targets Habitat goals outline both the necessary future ecological conditions to support a viable salmon population and shorter term implementation targets designed to assess plan implementation progress. WRIA 9 developed goals for key ecological indicators that reflect priority habitat needs and environmental stressors that span all life stages of Chinook salmon – adult migration, spawning, incubation and emergence, stream rearing, downstream migration, estuary rearing, and nearshore foraging. The indicators and associated goals presented in Table 2 are organized by subwatershed. This Plan Update does not outline specific goals related to marine migration outside of WRIA 9 boundaries. WRIA 9 developed long-term goals – or necessary future conditions – during the development of the 2005 plan using scientific guidance developed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. The 2004 WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment and 2005 Salmon Hab- itat Plan summarize the full suite of necessary future conditions to support a viable salmon population in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed. They were not amended as part of this Plan Update. The subset of necessary future conditions outlined in Table 2 represents a strategic subset that can be readily assessed related to project implemen- tation across shorter intervals of time. Table 2 also outlines updated short term – 10 year – habitat targets used to directly track plan imple- mentation. The 10-year targets were developed by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee based on a review priority stressors, limiting factors, implementation progress under the 2005 Plan, and a review of common indicators proposed for regional tracking by the Puget Sound Partnership. Specific targets are intended to be aspirational and reflect the significant level of investment needed to substantive- ly advance recovery within the watershed. The Mon- itoring and Adaptive Management chapter summa- rizes recommended methodology and timelines for periodic assessments of these and other longer-term status and trends indicators (e.g., water temperature, contamination). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 31 Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. Necessary Future Conditions and Implementation Targets Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Cond. (2005 Plan) 10-year Target 2005 Plan (achieved)Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (2030) Marine Nearshore Shoreline Armor 65% of shoreline in natural condition Restore 13,500 ft of shoreline (1500 ft restored – net gain of 70 ft of armor). 36%/33 mi of shoreline in natural condition Remove 3,000 ft of hard armor and achieve a net reduction in hard armor. Marine Riparian Vegetation 65% of marine shoreline characterized by riparian tree cover. No target developed 40%/36 mi of shoreline has riparian tree cover Revegetate 60 ac and/or 3.25 mi (~3.5% gain) of shoreline. Shoreline Conservation Not applicable Protect 5 mi of shoreline. (4 mi protected). 9.5 mi of adjacent upland protected as natural lands Acquire 2 mi of shoreline for permanent protection, prioritizing beaches and feeder bluffs. Duwamish Shallow Water Habitat 173 ac of shallow water habitat in the transition zone (RM 1-10) (30% of historic) Restore 26.5 ac of shallow water habitat (~6 ac restored) Unknown Create 40 ac of shallow water habitat between RM 1-10. Riparian Forest 65% of each bank of the river has > 165 ft of riparian tree cover- age (586 ac total) No target was developed 69 ac/12% of 165 ft buffer contains tree cover Revegetate 170 ac (~29% of 165-ft buffer)/9.8 mi of streambank. Lower Green Off-Channel Habitat 45% of historical off-channel habitat. Restore 2.8 mi of side channels, 450 ac of floodplain wetlands, and 5,039 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain habitat (total of 8,839 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain). Restore 16.5 ac of reconnected off-channel and riparian habitat (20.7 ac restored) 3,800 ac of connected 100-yr floodplain that is accessible to juvenile fish Restore 240 ac of floodplain habitat. Side Channels: 550-ft high flow/ 3,740-ft low flow Floodplain Tributaries: 3,080 ft Backwater: 75 ac Floodplain Wetland: 66 ac Other 100-yr Floodplain: 99 ac Riparian Forest 75% of each bank of the river to >165 ft wide (828 ac total) No target was developed 222 ac/27% of 165-ft buffer contains tree cover Revegetate 250 ac (~30% of 165-ft buffer)/ 8.52 mi of high-priority, unforested shoreline (continued on next page) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 32 Necessary Future Conditions and Implementation Targets, continued Habitat Indicator Necessary Future Cond. (2005 Plan) 10-year Target 2005 Plan (achieved)Current Condition Recommended 10-year Target (2030) Lower Green, continued Large woody debris 1,705 pieces per mi (21 key pieces) No target developed.2004: 54 pieces/ mi. 2014: 48.5 pieces/ mi. Achieve 425 pieces/mi. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount 2014: 42 mi of river bank armored (17.7-mi levees; 9.8 mi maintained revetments; 14.5 mi of semi-armored roads acting like levees and natural banks) Set back 1 mi of levee. Middle Green Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration Floodplain subject to lateral channel migration represents 65% of historical conditions Restoration of 50 ac of off-channel habitat and riparian vegetation (45 ac restored) 2017: 1,751 ac or 55% of historic floodplain connected Reconnect 200 ac of floodplain as measured by area subject to lateral channel migration. Riparian forest > 65% of Channel Migration Zone (1,424 of 2,190 ac) and up to 165 ft wide where possible No target developed 2005: 50.3% 2009: 50.5% of the Channel Migration Zone forested Revegetate 175 ac (8% of Channel Migration Zone). Large wood debris 10 jams/mi No target developed 2006: 2.2 jams/mi 2015: 3.8 jams/mi Achieve 5 jams/mi. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount (>1% reduction) 2004: 25% armored 2009: 24% armored Set back 1 mi of revetment/ levee. Upper Green Fish passage Up and downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam Fish passage provided (upstream passage provided) Upstream passage facility complete. Downstream passage not complete. Provide downstream passage at Howard Hanson Dam. Bank armor No new, decreasing amount No new, decreasing amount 2004: 15% armored 2009: 15% armored Remove/setback 0.5 mi of bank armoring. Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. (Continued) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 33 Chapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures The 2005 Strategic Assessment provided the scien- tific foundation for the Salmon Habitat Plan. Although the majority of science remains relevant today, new research findings have refined our understanding of priority pressures and limiting factors related to Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria. The 2005 Strategic Assessment evaluated functional linkages between priority pressures; habitat conditions; and Chinook abundance, diversity, productivity and spatial struc- ture. The functional linkages were used to create a series of conservation hypotheses that outlined how improvements in habitat conditions and natural pro- cesses will drive changes in VSP parameters. From 2017-2018, WRIA 9 produced a series of white papers as addendums to summarize new research and address priority data gaps in the original 2005 Strategic Assessment. White papers included Fish Habitat Use & Productivity (Higgins 2017); Water Temperature (Kubo 2017); Contamination (Colton 2018); and Climate Change (Engel, Higgins and Ostergaard 2017). This chapter provides a summary of the highlights of those papers as they relate to priority pressures impacting Chinook salmon in the Green/ Duwamish Watershed. These refinements in our understanding of priority pressures informed both the recovery strategies presented in Chapter 6 and the prioritization of capital projects in Chapter 7. Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus) Addressing priority habitat stressors is critical to restoring a viable salmon population in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. The following stressors have clear functional linkages to one or more VSP parameters (abundance, pro- ductivity, diversity, and spatial structure). Applicable research and monitoring information is highlighted to reflect new research and best available science since the 2005 Plan. Altered Instream Flows (Middle Green, Lower Green) Watershed Status Operations at Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) and the Tacoma Headworks diversion dam regulate instream flows within the mainstem Green River below river mile 64.5. Water storage, diversion, and release are jointly managed by the U.S. Army Corps and Taco- ma Water utility. Although flood risk reduction is the primary mission of HHD, water storage also supports Tacoma municipal and industrial uses, and fish con- servation uses. In 2007, Tacoma Water’s Additional Water Storage Project provided capacity to store an addition 20,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) for municipal use. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 34 Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation. Water capture and storage generally occur between late February and June 1. Figure 7 depicts how a spring water storage target of 49,000 ac-ft is legally allocated between municipal and fish conservation uses. Phase 2 of the Additional Water Storage Project (to be completed at a later date following down- stream fish passage) would raise the conservation pool to 1,177 feet and store an additional 12,000 ac-ft of water. The U.S. Army Corps convenes a bi-weekly Green River Flows Management Coordination Com- mittee to inform water capture and a subsequent flow augmentation period that extends from July 15 to November depending on fall rainfall. Augmentation of flows is intended to support Chinook salmon migra- tion and spawning, maximize summer rearing habitat, and minimize dewatering of steelhead redds. Lim- ited Fish Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration allotments frequently require tradeoffs among these ecological benefits – especially in dry and/or warm years with low snowpack. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan establishes a minimum stream flow of 225 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Auburn Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. gauge. During the summer of 2015, the minimum flow at the Auburn gauge reached 226 cfs. Although flows are not regulated in tributaries, in- streams flows are impacted by stream withdrawals and groundwater wells used to support residential and agricultural uses. In 2018, the Washington Leg- islature passed the Streamflow Restoration Law to offset the impacts of future permit exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals and help restore instream flows. The law was in response to a 2017 Washington State Supreme Court decision (Hirst Decision) that restricted building permits for new residential homes that would be reliant on permit-exempt wells. The legislature appropriated $300 million over 15 years to support implementation of projects to improve stream flows across the state. The Washington State Department of Ecology is developing a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to identify and prioritize water offset projects in WRIA 9. HOWARD HANSON DAM PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD - 180,000 ac-ft AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL - 104,000 ac-ft FISH CONSERVATION - 24,000 ac-ft TURBIDITY POOL - 600 ac-ft 48-in. bypass pipeinvert elev. 1,069 ft MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL AWSP - 20,000 ac-ft Dam crest elev. 1,228 ft ELEVATION 1,224 ft 1,206 ft 1,167 ft 1,147 ft 1,141 ft 1,075 ft 1,035 ft ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SECTION , ac-ft Spillway invert elev. 1,176 ft 19-ft outlet tunnel invert elev. 1,035 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 35 Research/Monitoring Flow management at HHD dictates instream habitat conditions within the mainstem Green River. As a result, water storage and subsequent release timing not only impacts natural hydraulic processes, but also influences available salmon habitat and produc- tivity. Maintaining minimum instream flows of 250 cfs during dry summer months provides important benefits to available fish habitat. However, associated water capture and storage has reduced the frequency and magnitude of high – habitat forming – flows while prolonging the duration of moderate flows (Higgins 2017). Moderate flows between 5000-8000 cfs are not sufficient to drive process-based habitat formation, but do have the potential to scour redds (R2 Re - source Consultants 2014). Climate Change (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Climate change science was not incorporated into the 2005 Plan because future climate scenarios were unclear. However, climate change has been the focus of intense research, both global and regional, over the last decades. This research highlights the need to prepare for the current and future impacts of climate change and incorporate what we know about climate change into salmon recovery actions. Climate change will directly impact salmon recov- ery work in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. The UW Climate Impacts Group (Mauger et al. 2015) and others predict that Pacific Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bring- ing warmer, wetter falls, winters, and springs. Floods will be more intense and more frequent, with peak flows expected to increase by 28-34 percent by 2080. As winters become warmer and wetter, the water- shed is projected to shift from mixed rain and snow to a rain-dominated basin with less mountain snow melting earlier in the spring. The decrease in amount and earlier disappearance of the snow pack will exacerbate drought-like summer low flow conditions in currently snow-dominated areas of the watershed. Summertime rain is expected to decrease by ~22% by 2050. A projected 4-5°F increase in air tempera- tures will increase water temperature in both rivers and the ocean. Nearshore and estuary areas will be impacted by sea level rise, food web alteration and ocean acidification. A changing climate will exacer- bate typical climate variability, causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The potential impacts to various life histories of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, as a result of climate change are summarized in Figure 8. Flows above 8,800 cfs are needed to initiate lateral channel migration and support creation of off-channel habitats that are critical for juvenile Chinook rearing (Konrad et al. 2011). Long-term juvenile Chinook outmigration data col- lected by WDFW highlights the function relationship between instream flows and Chinook productivity (Anderson and Topping 2018). High flows (between ~8,000–10,000 cfs) from November through mid-Jan- uary appear to scour eggs, sharply reducing the overall productivity of the number of juveniles per spawner. High flows (~6,000-8,000 cfs) during the typical fry outmigration period (mid-January through the end of March) reduce the number of parr pro- duced in the Middle Green, likely because fish are flushed into habitats downstream of the trap. The frequency of spring flows (April through June) above 1,200 cfs appears to increase the number of parr produced. This is likely due to increased connectivity to off-channel habitats, like side-channels. A separate study (R2 Resource Consultants 2013) showed that, at flows below 1,200 cfs, side channel habitats become less connected to the mainstem and overall habitat complexity decreases. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 36 Figure 8. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a result of climate change. Adapted from Beechie et al. (2012). Fish timing represents typical fish behavior. Pink Year 3Year 1 Year 2 Subyearling Yearling Climate Change Impacts on WRIA 9 Salmonids Chinook Coho Chum Steelhead Spawn Incubate Rearing Spawn Smolt Smolt Smolt Rearing Spawn Incubate Rearing Smolt Spawn Incubate Smolt Rearing Spawn Incubate 1-2 Year Rearing Smolt Spawn Incubate Smolt Rearing 2010_W9climate_sh_impacts.aiIncreased summer temperature may decrease growth or kill juvenile salmon where temperatures are already high and block/delay migration. May also decrease spawning fecundity (e.g. Chinook). Decreased summer low flow may contribute to increased tempera-ture, decrease rearing habitat capacity for juvenile salmonids, and decrease access to or availability of spawning areas. Increased winter floods may increase scour of eggs, or increase mortaility of rearing juveniles where flood refugia are not available, displace juveniles to less desira ble habitats. Loss of spring snowmelt may decrease or eliminate spawning opportunities for steelhead, may alter survival of eggs or emergent fry for other salmonid species, cause early dewatering of o- channel and side channel habitats, and reduce connectivity to the floodplain. Incubate River entry River entry River entry River entry River entry River entry Jun.Jul.Aug.Jan.Feb.Mar. Apr. Jun.Jul.MaySept.Dec.Nov.Oct.Aug.Jan.Feb.Mar. Apr. Jun.Jul.MaySept.Dec.Nov.Oct.Aug.Ocean3-5 Years3-5 Years1-2 Years2-4 Years2-4 Years1-2 YearsOceanOceanOceanPuget Sound/OceanOceanOceanAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 37 NATURAL SHORELINE Current sea level ARMORED SHORELINE Current sea level ARMORED SHORELINE Future sea level NATURAL SHORELINE Future sea level Forage fish spawning habitat Forage fish spawning habitat migrates with beach translation. Forage fish spawning habitat Forage fish spawning habitat entirely lost due to armor and sea level rise Future MHHW Current MHHW Former MHHW Current MHHW Future MHHW Former MHHW The Coastal Squeeze Former shoreline edge Water temperatures as measured on July 4, 2015, exceeded the potential lethally threshold (22°C) for salmonids downstream of the Green River Gorge (DeGasperi 2017). Research/Monitoring A changing climate will exacerbate typical climate variability causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The summer of 2015 likely provided a glimpse of the future ecological conditions in the Green/Duwamish watershed. A warm, wet winter with extreme low snowpack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon. (DeGasperi 2017) The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reported adult Chinook salmon dying in the stream just below the Soos Creek hatchery (H. Coccoli, pers. comm.), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) data indi- cated higher than typical numbers of female Chinook mortality with high egg retention (pre-spawn mortal- ity) (Unpublished WDFW data). Other sublethal im- pacts associated with temperatures in excess of 17°C can include developmental abnormalities, altered growth rates, and non-fertilization of eggs; altered migration timing; altered predator/prey relationship; and reduced disease resistance. Sea level in Puget Sound rose 20 centimeters from 1900-2008 and scientists project sea level will rise an additional 0.6 meters by 2100. A 1-foot increase in water surface elevation means an order of magnitude increase in high water events—so a 100-year event turns into a two year event (Mauger et al. 2015). Sea level rise will have myriad effects on the marine nearshore habitats, including increased bank/bluff erosion, landslides, and lost nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass, forage fish spawning habitat, estuary mudflats, etc.) due to the “coastal squeeze” adjacent to armored shorelines. In addition, increased risk of erosion could contribute to a growing demand for additional shoreline armoring. Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn and are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 38 A growing body of research is focusing on the po- tential impacts of ocean acidification on the Puget Sound ecosystem. Ocean acidification is driven by the absorption of carbon dioxide and is expected to impact survival, growth and behavior of marine organisms. In addition to observed impacts to calci- fying organisms (e.g., oysters and crab) there is more recent evidence that ocean acidification may impair sense of smell in salmon, impede growth in herring and other species, and alter plankton populations – which may have a cascading impact on marine food webs. Experiments have shown that coho salmon’s ability to avoid predators declines and risk of being eaten increases in low pH waters (Dunagan 2019). Although considerable uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of ocean acidification on salmon, there is potential for it to exacerbate the issue of marine survival. Elevated Water Temperatures (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Water temperature is a key determinant of the bio- logical integrity of a river – especially as it relates to cold-water dependent salmonids. High water temper- atures can act as a limiting factor for the distribution, migration, health and performance of salmon. Wash- ington State’s water quality standards are protective of viable salmonid habitat in the Green River by assigning a numeric criterion of 16°C, above which the water body is considered impaired (WAC 173- 201A-602). A supplemental criterion of 13°C, in effect between September 15 and July 1 further protects sal- monid habitat. The widespread removal of tall, native trees along the riparian corridor – especially in the middle and lower Green River – allows solar-atmos- pheric radiation to rapidly warm water as it moves downstream below HHD. As a result, large stretches of the Green River, Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek regularly exceed established water quality standards for temperature. In 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures. Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. The Green/Duwamish experienced widespread po- tentially lethal water temperatures in 2015 (DeGasperi 2017). In response, WRIA 9 led the development of the Re-Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy (2016) to emphasize the critical need for increasing riparian canopy and to prioritize revegetation efforts within the watershed. The strategy was adopted as an addendum to the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. It incorporated solar aspect shade maps published in 2014 by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to prioritize areas where increased tree canopy – and thus shade – could provide the largest benefit to preventing ele- vated water temperatures. It also established reveg- etation goals that were directly incorporated into this Plan Update. WRIA 9 developed a Re-green the Green grant program using Cooperative Watershed Management funds from the Flood Control District to accelerate revegetation efforts across the watershed. Research/Monitoring In addition to periodic exceedances of potential lethal water temperatures, a review of 7-DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge (RM 41.5) shows that instream temperatures regularly exceed established thresholds for sublethal impacts to salmon. Figure 10 shows 7-DMax temperatures from 2001-2016 in rela- tion to key Chinook salmon life history stages. These data suggest migration, early spawning, egg incuba- tion, yearling and parr rearing all potentially subject to sublethal impacts associated with elevated water temperatures. A literature review completed for WRIA 9 (Kubo 2017) provides a summary of potential temperature-relat- ed impacts to Chinook salmon. Adult fish migrating upstream may be subject to increased metabolic demand, delayed migration, increased disease expo- sure, decreased disease resistance, and even direct mortality. Spawning fish may experience reduced gamete quality and quantity and reduced fertilization success. Chinook eggs may be subject to reduced embryo survival, decreased hatching-emergence condition, increased abnormalities, and altered meta- bolic rates. Juveniles and outmigrants may be subject to reduced feeding and growth rates, increased dis- ease susceptibility, and accelerated onset of smoltifi- cation and desmoltification. Although many impacts may be sublethal, they can contribute to an increase in delayed mortality. Protecting and restoring mature riparian tree canopy, protecting cold water sources, and promoting hy- porheic exchange between the river/floodplain and the alluvial aquifer are essential to build ecological AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 39 Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured from 2001-2014. State stand- ards for designated uses are noted by the orange line and potentially lethal impacts are indicated by the red line. State standards for designated uses include core summer salmonid habitats (July 1 – September 15) as well as spawning and incubation periods (September 16 – July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook lifestages included below. Source: Adapted from King County 2016. 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan INCUBATION INCUBATION SPAWNING ADULT UPSTREAM MIGRATION YEARLING REARING PARR REARINGFRY REARINGWATER TEMPERATURE (C)Chinook life stages DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge station (GRT10)2001-2014 2015 2016 resilience to rising temperatures and moderate the impacts associated with climate change. By 2080, it is expected that the number of river miles exceeding salmonid thermal tolerances (>18°C) will increase by 70 miles in the Green/Duwamish watershed (G. Mauger 2016). One study suggests that warming of 2-5.5°C could result in the loss of 5-22 percent of salmon habitat by 2090 (O’Neal 2002). Fish Passage Barriers (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status: Fish passage barriers are a critical obstacle to Chinook salmon recovery in the watershed. The presence of Howard Hanson Dam and the Tacoma Headworks Diversion facility block access to approx- imately 40 percent of the historical Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat (NOAA 2019). This barrier alone blocks access to somewhere between 78-165 miles of suitable fish habitat. The 2005 Plan assumed fish passage would be provided by 2015. Ta- coma completed an upstream trap and haul facility at the headworks facility in 2007; however, downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam has not been completed. Predicted temperature increases, lower summer flows and altered precipitation patterns are likely to exacerbate temperature-related stress for Chinook salmon. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 40 In 2019, the NOAA Fisheries released a biological opinion (BiOp) that concluded U.S. Army Corps operations at Howard Hanson Dam would “jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW), and that the proposed action is likely to result in the adverse modification of these three species’ critical habitat designated under the ESA.” In issuing the jeopardy opinion, NOAA stat- ed that without fish passage the population’s abun- dance, productivity, and spatial diversity could not achieve established viability criteria, thus increasing the risk of extirpating the population. In order to avoid jeopardizing ESA-listed Chinook, the BiOp concluded that the U.S. Army Corps must provide operational downstream fish passage no later than February 2031. The resulting facility would be required to satisfy established performance criteria, including achieving 98 percent survival of all fish passing through the facility. The BiOp states that if established performance standards are satisfied, the Upper Green watershed could support self-sustaining populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead, “dra- matically improving the likelihood that the Chinook salmon population would achieve a highly viable status.” In addition to HHD, an unknown number of smaller fish passage barriers impact Chinook salmon move- ments within the watershed. There is a growing recognition that a number of barriers associated with smaller tributaries adjacent to roads, revetments and flood control structures block juvenile access to critical rearing habitats. One of the larger existing barriers is the Black River Pump Station. The pump station is a flood control facility built in 1970, located near the mouth of the Black River. While the facility was originally constructed with both upstream and downstream fish passage facilities, they are outdat- ed and currently do not meet federal fish passage criteria (Jacobs 2020). In its current state, the facility limits both upstream and downstream fish passage and restricts access to over 50 miles of stream, including Springbrook Creek, Panther Lake Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek. Although the majority of stream habitat is primarily suitable for coho and steelhead, Chinook salmon have been found in the system, and the area immediately upstream of the facility could provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Research/Monitoring A 2019 study evaluating the use of small non-natal trib- utaries (streams that do not support Chinook spawn- ing) by juvenile Chinook highlighted the importance of these habitats for both juvenile rearing and flood refuge. Juvenile Chinook were identified in eight of the nine tributaries sampled in the Lower Green River basin and were found up to 480 meters above the con- fluence with the Green River. The results demonstrated (1) widespread use of non-natal tributaries for extend- ed lengths of time; (2) heavily urbanized streams with a large amount of impervious surfaces appear capable of supporting non-natal juvenile rearing; (3) juvenile up- stream passage is an important consideration for fish barriers; and (4) variability in flapgate performance for juvenile fish passage (King County 2019). A follow-up study was funded by WRIA 9 in 2019 to assess flapgate performance and identify potential retrofit and replace- ment options to improve juvenile passability. Long-term fish-in fish-out monitoring by WDFW indicates that Chinook salmon population produc- tivity is limited by available rearing habitat and that parr outmigrants disproportionately contribute to the abundance of returning adults (Anderson and Topping 2018). Restoration of non-natal tributaries has the potential to complement ongoing restoration efforts in the Lower Green River mainstem to provide additional capacity to support fry growth into parr prior to outmigration to the Duwamish estuary. Larger (basins >100 acres), low-gradient (<2%) tributaries likely provide a large amount of rearing habitat and support higher densities of juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor et al. 2011; Tabor and Moore 2018; Tabor, Murray and Rosenau 1989; Scrivener et al. 1994; Bradford et al. 2001). Non-natal tributaries provide important rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green subwatershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 41 Land Conversion (Watershed-wide) Watershed Status Located within the greater Seattle metropolitan area, population growth and economic development have significantly modified the watershed, its underlying hydrology, and the salmon habitat within it. In ad- dition to legacy impacts (Chapter 3 of 2005 Plan), the watershed experienced tremendous population growth and development in the 15 years since the 2005 Salmon Plan. The population of King County population swelled approximately 25 percent, adding an additional 444,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2019; King County 2006). During the same timeframe, 46,000 new housing units were constructed in the watershed (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). The extensive development pressures within the watershed – especially in the Nearshore, Duwamish and Lower Green watershed – have degraded large portions of the watershed from natural conditions. In addition to direct habitat loss, land conversion contributes to increased impervious coverage and stormwater runoff. Refer to the Stormwater section in this chapter for additional information on stormwater impacts on salmon. Approximately 32 percent of the watershed is located within established urban growth areas (UGAs). Competition for scarce available land contributes to high restoration/acquisition costs and the loss of restoration priorities to redevelopment pressures. Source: King County, 2019: Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood control structures. 1810_9332m_GreenRiver-TribHabitats-2.aiAGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 42 Research/Monitoring Despite the tremendous growth and development pressure, growth management efforts have concen- trated new housing construction within urban growth areas. Only about 3 percent of housing units con- structed in the watershed since the 2005 Plan have occurred outside of UGAs (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). While this is a positive outcome, a compreo- hensive assessment of changes in forest cover and impervious surfaces has not been completed since 2006. In addition, the basin-wide effectiveness of critical area and shoreline protections has not been assessed. A WRIA 9-funded study of marine shoreline development from 2016-2018 observed a net increase in shoreline armoring and permit compliance rates below 50 percent (King County 2019). Additional information about the status of marine shorelines is presented in the Shoreline Armoring section. Levees and Revetments (Middle and Lower Green) Watershed Status An extensive network of flood containment and train- ing levees and revetments protect economic develop- ment and agricultural land in the Lower and Middle Green River valleys. In total. there are approximately 36 miles of levees and revetments in the watershed. Over 27 miles of facilities provide flood protection for the Lower Green River valley – the second larg- est warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The valley contains $7.3 billion of structures and associated content, supports over 100,000 jobs, and generates an annual taxable revenue of $8 billion (Reinelt 2014). Flood control facilities degrade floodplain function and reduce habitat complexity. They disconnect large portions of the historical floodplain, off-channel hab- itats, and tributaries – all important juvenile salmon rearing and refuge habitats. Associated vegetation maintenance standards limit riparian revegetation and contribute to elevated instream temperatures. Facilities also disrupt sediment delivery and filtration, water storage and recharge, and large wood input to the river channel. In addition to the direct impacts of the facilities, they also support land use development on historic floodplains habitats. Due to the diversion of the White and Black rivers, much of the “connected” floodplain is perched above the river channel and only connected during very high flows. Current flows with a 100-year flood event equate to an historic two-year event (King County 2010). At these flows, only 18 percent (3,518 of 19,642 acres) of the historic Lower Green River floodplain is connected (Higgins 2017). The loss of juvenile ChiT- nook salmon-rearing habitat reduces juvenile survival and overall population productivity. Restoration of floodplain habitat in the Lower Green River valley not only requires levee setbacks, but also requires ex- tensive fill removal to reconnect perched floodplains across a larger range of flows. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, studies have shown higher growth rates for Chinook salmon accessing flood- plains when compared to fish rearing exclusively in the mainstem. Increased growth likely results from increased food availability and foraging efficiency in floodplain habitats (Henning 2004; Sommer et al. 2001; Jeffres, Opperman and Moyle 2008; and Lestelle et al. 2005). This research also suggests that any increased risk of stranding during retreating flows is offset by the potential for increased growth rates. These studies emphasize how important flood- plain habitats are to juvenile Chinook growth and provide an important context for understanding how the magnitude of habitat loss in the Lower Green and to a lesser extent in the Middle Green have impacted juvenile Chinook production locally. Analysis of juvenile life history success in adult Green River Chinook salmon (2015-2017) found parr outmi- grants disproportionately contribute to adult returns relative to their abundance. Although parr comprised 3-56 percent of the out-migrating juveniles, more than 97 percent of returning adults were found to have exhibited the parr life history. In comparison, the parr life history is reflected in 64 and 76 per- cent, respectively, of the adult returns in the Skagit and Nooksack watershed (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). These data indicate that Chinook salmon life history success varies between watersheds and that productivity (adult spawner abundance) in the Green is currently driven by parr production, as juveniles exhibiting the fry life history rarely survive to adulthood. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Sediment Contamination (Duwamish) Watershed Status Industrial and commercial development in the Duwamish estuary not only led to dredge and fill of historical estuarine wetlands, but also left a legacy of persistent contaminants within the working water- front. Two Superfund sites require additional clean-up in the Duwamish, the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and Harbor Island/East Waterway (EW). Both sites contain elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), as well as dioxins and furans. The EPA’s Record of Decision for the LDW (2014) outlines the cleanup plan for the 412 acre site, which includes 105 acres of dredging or partial dredging, 24 acres of capping, 48 acres of enhanced natural remediation and 235 acres of monitored nat- ural attenuation. Although early action areas (Slip 4, Terminal 117, Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge, Diag- onal Combined Sewer Overflow [CSO], and Norfork CSO) resulted in cleanup of approximately 50 percent of PCB contamination, cleanup will not be completed until after 2031. Cleanup options for the EW site are under development. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 43 Figure 12. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2017). An analysis of long-term juvenile outmigration data collected by WDFW identified a density-dependent relationship between adult spawner abundance and relative parr abundance (Anderson and Topping 2018). Figure 6 shows that adult escapements in excess of 3,000 fish did not generally result in increased parr production. In contrast, fry production was observed to be density independent. Juvenile Chinook require rearing and refuge habitats (e.g., off-channel habitats, side-channels, etc.) to grow into parr prior to outmigration. When considered in con- cert with the Campbell and Claiborne studies, these results highlight the importance of reconnecting floodplains and restoring rearing habitat to increasing Chinook returns. Productivity in the Green/Duwamish is currently constrained by available rearing habitat in the Lower and Middle Green rivers.NUMBER OF FRYNUMBER OF JUVENILESSPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP 0 1,000 2,000 5,0003,000 4,000 6,000 7,000 100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 NUMBER OF FRYSPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP 0 1,000 2,000 5,0003,000 4,000 6,000 7,000NUMBER OF PARR100,000 0 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 44 Transport pathways carry contaminants from sources to surface waters, as well as within surface waters. Contaminants reach the Green/Duwamish receiving waters via point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and CSOs discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmo- spheric deposition, as well as by spills/leaks and bank erosion. Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated prey. Chinook experience greater chemical exposure during the juvenile phase than during the adult phase due to the comparatively different lengths of time they spend in the Duwamish during these life stages (Colton 2018). Although the 2005 Salmon Plan hypothesized that sediment cleanup would benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on productivity at the time. Research/Monitoring A growing body of research findings suggests that contaminant exposure for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish and Elliott Bay is affecting juvenile Chinook salmon growth, disease resistance, and immunosuppression, and ultimately marine survival. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in industrial estuary and nearshore habitats (e.g., Duwamish, Puyallup and Snohomish) contain elevated levels of organic contaminants as compared to those rearing in less developed watersheds (Skagit and Nisqually) (O’Neil et al. 2015; Varanasi et al. 1993). Juvenile Chinook salmon whole body PCB tissue concentrations from the Duwamish and associated nearshore areas have exceeded adverse impact thresholds (O’Neil et al. 2015; Johnson 2007). PCB levels in wild fingerlings have also been shown to have significantly higher PCB levels than their hatchery counterparts, suggest- ing that wild Chinook have a longer residence time within the Duwamish estuary (Nelson, et al. 2013). An examination of 37 years of hatchery data from 20 hatcheries across 14 watersheds found 45 percent lower smolt-to-adult survival rates for hatchery Chi- nook that outmigrate through contaminated estuaries as compared to uncontaminated estuaries (Meador 2014). The study evaluated the findings against the total amount of estuary habitat, length of freshwater habitat between each hatchery and estuary, as well as growth rates and did not find these factors could explain observed variation in survival rates. Because wild Chinook – especially the fry outmigrant life his- tory type – are more dependant on and have longer residence times in estuarine habitat, the observed decline in survial may be more pronounced in wild Chinook salmon. A recent study by scientists at the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center estimated the potential impact remediation of the Lower Willamette River Su- perfund site would have on Chinook salmon recovery (Lundin et al. 2019). The study used a combination of field and laboratory-collected exposure, growth, and disease resistance data to estimate acute and de- layed mortality rates for juvenile Chinook. These esti- mates were then incorporated into a life cycle model that estimated sediment remediation could improve juvenile survival by 54 percent and increase popula- tion abundance by 20 percent. This study provides a population-scale assessment of the potential impacts of legacy pollutants on Chinook salmon and suggests that remediation in the Duwamish could be a signifi- cant driver for Chinook recovery. Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience very low marine survival rates. In contrast to less developed watersheds, estuarine-reared fry in the Green/Duwamish are not contributing significantly to adult returns. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 45 The research on potential adverse impacts to juvenile Chinook as a result of contaminant exposure is con- sistent with a recent analysis of juvenile life histories expressed by adult Chinook salmon in the Green/Du- wamish River. Analysis of otoliths from returning adult salmon allow resource managers to back-calculate size upon entry in marine waters, allowing differentia- tion between parr and fry migrants. Otolith collection from adult Chinook salmon (2015-2017) indicate that less than 3 percent of fish returning to the water- shed entered marine waters as a fry migrant, despite representing between 44 and 97 of the total juvenile outmigrants (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). Additional research is needed to assess the relative importance of contamination in relation to other stressors (i.e., existing estuarine habitat quality and capacity) in contributing to poor marine survival. Stormwater (Nearshore, Duwamish, Lower and Middle Green) Watershed Status Stormwater runoff and associated hydrological modifications resulting from forest conversion and land use development within the Green/Duwamish watershed adversely impact water quality and salmon habitat. Approximately 59 and 24 percent, respectively, of the 165-foot riparian buffer in the Duwamish and Lower Green is characterized by im- pervious surfaces (King Co. unpublished data, 2013). Although watershed-wide data are not available, the impacts associated with the loss of forest cover and increase in impervious surfaces are not confined to riparian areas. At the basin-wide scale, these levels of impervious coverage can contribute to a two-three fold increase in stormwater runoff above natural conditions (Paul and Meyer 2001). Increased runoff contributes to rapid changes in flows, with larger peak flows and lower low flows; increased pollutant transport and degradation of water quality; shifts in benthic macroinvertebrates communities; elevated water temperatures; increased bank erosion and sediment transport capacity; and altered channel morphology and hydraulics. The majority of the development within the water- shed – and across Puget Sound – predates existing critical area ordinances and low-impact development standards designed to mitigate impacts to aquatic ecosystems. As a result, stormwater runoff is recog- nized within the region as one of the more significant challenges facing both salmon and Puget Sound recovery efforts. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, a significant body of research has focused on stormwater toxicity impacts to salm- on in urban creeks. Consistently high levels of mor- tality (up to 90 percent) in adult coho salmon have been observed in urban watersheds, with the extent of mortality rate related to an urbanization gradient and, more specifically, density of motor vehicle traffic (Scholz 2011; Feist 2017 ). More recent studies have connected observed mortality events to pollutants associated with highway runoff (Scholz 2016; Peter 2018). Research suggests that juvenile Chinook that enter the Duwamish as fry – as opposed to parr – experience very low survival and do not substantively contribute to population abundance as measured by adult escapement. Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) are another area of emerging research. The EPA defines CECs as “chemicals and other substances that have no reg- ulatory standard, have been recently ‘discovered’ in natural streams (often because of improved analytical chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause del- eterious effects in aquatic life (e.g., endocrine disrupt- ers) at environmentally relevant concentrations” (EPA 2008). CECs include hormones, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), and industrial process chemicals. An analysis of juvenile Chinook whole body tissue in several Puget Sound estuaries detected 37 of 150 surveyed PPCPs (Meador et al. 2016). Metabolic disruption consistent with starvation was also observed in juvenile Chinook collected ad- jacent to waste water treatment plants in Sinclair Inlet and the Puyallup River (Meador 2018). The potential impacts to Chinook salmon growth, reproduction, and behavior are not well understood. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 46 6/2/13 3/5/15 Although Chinook salmon do not appear vulnerable to acute toxicity as a result of roadway runoff exposure (Scholz 2019), more research is needed to evaluate potential sublethal impacts. Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project (Ecology). Although studies have shown treatment of runoff can prevent acute toxicity, the large capital expenditures associated with stormwater retrofits have precluded widespread implementation. A comprehensive needs and cost assessment for stormwater retrofit within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound wa- tershed was completed in 2014. The study evaluated 278 square miles of the watershed, excluding Seattle and areas upstream of Howard Hanson Dam. An esti- mated $210 million per year would need to be spend over the next 30 years to build necessary regional facilities, retrofit roads and highways, and retrofit non-forested lands not redeveloped within the next 30 years (King County 2014). Shoreline Armoring (Nearshore) Watershed Status The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed encompasses 92 linear miles of marine shoreline. Associated nearshore habitats provide not only important rearing and migratory habitat for juve- nile salmon, but also spawning habitat for forage fish (e.g., sand lance and surf smelt), which are important prey items for salmon, birds and marine mammals. Delivery of sediment and trees from natural bluffs helps sustain nearshore habitat complexity (beaches, spits, eelgrass beds, etc.) and shoreline resilience to coastal erosion and sea level rise. The degradation of marine shorelines and associated ecological functions has implications not only for Chinook salmon recovery, but also for the ESA-listed southern resident orca population. Shoreline armor – especially along feeder bluffs – disrupts sediment supply and transport, altering nearshore habitat quantity and quality. Shoreline land use ranges from commercial and industrial waterfront in Elliott Bay, urban residential between Seattle and Federal Way, to rural residential and undeveloped shorelines along Vashon Island. Approximately 65 percent of the shoreline is currently armored and only 22 of 52 drift cells have greater than 50 percent of historical feeder bluffs intact (King County 2019; WRIA 9 2012). AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 47 Research/Monitoring Recent research reinforces assumptions in the 2005 Plan about the importance of nearshore habitats to salmon. The range of physical and biological impacts in response to shoreline armoring varies across spa- tial and temporal scales. Shoreline armoring impacts wrack and log accumulation, juvenile fish utilization, forage fish spawning, beach profiles, sediment grain size, and marine riparian vegetation. In particular, drift cells with a high proportion of armoring tend to be characterized by skinnier beaches, coarser sedi- ments, fewer drift logs, fewer prey species (Dethier et al. 2016). Natural shorelines convey important benefits to juvenile Chinook salmon. Small juvenile salmon preferentially use low-gradient, unarmored shorelines (Munsch, Cordell and Toft 2016). Riparian vegetation associated with unarmored beaches provide a source of terrestrial prey items for juvenile Chinook and ben- efit forage fish egg survival by moderating substrate temperatures and maintaining humidity (Rice 2006; Toft, Cordell et al. 2007). Even small-scale beach restoration projects (i.e., Olympic Sculpture Park) have resulted in measurable increases in larval fish abun- dance, juvenile salmon, and invertebrate diversity as compared to adjacent armored shorelines (Toft, Ogston et al. 2013). The magnitude of unpermitted shoreline modifica- tions threatens to negate investments in shoreline restoration and undermine the goal of “no net loss” established within the Shoreline Management Act. From 2013-2018, the watershed saw a net increase of 364 feet of shoreline armor despite armor removal and restoration of 382 feet shoreline during the same timeframe. Only 42 percent of observed shoreline modifications were permitted by local governments prior to construction (King County 2019). Although juvenile Chinook from the Green/Duwamish River have been observed to use the marine shore- lines throughout Central Puget Sound, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative importance of non-natal coastal streams and pocket estuaries. A study in the Whidbey Basin found abundant use of non-natal coastal streams (32 of 63 streams) by juve- nile Chinook. The presence of juvenile Chinook was influenced by (1) distance to nearest natal Chinook salmon river; (2) stream channel slope; (3) watershed area; and (4) presence and condition of a culvert at the mouth of a stream. The importance of non-natal coastal streams to juvenile Chinook salmon dropped significantly beyond 7 km from the mouth of a Chi- nook bearing river (Beamer, et al. 2013). Additional research is needed to prioritize non-natal coastal streams in WRIA 9 with respect to potential contribu- tion towards Chinook salmon recovery. Despite the recognized importance of natural shorelines and significant regional investment in armor removal, WRIA 9 continues to experience a net increase in shoreline armoring. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 48 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 49 WRIA 9 developed 11 overarching recovery strategies to organize watershed priorities and guide future investments. These strategies outline priority areas of focus intended to advance salmon recovery over the next 10-20 years. Recovery strategies are not prioritized. Implementation across the portfolio of recovery strategies is necessary to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resil- iency. Successful implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capital investment programs, and commu- nity outreach messaging are consistent with identi- fied watershed priorities. WRIA 9 hosted a series of subwatershed workshops to review and update policies and programs from the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. Revised policies and programs are organized by recovery strategies – as opposed to subwatershed – to reduce redundancy and improve alignment with other Puget Sound salmon plan updates. This structure is intended to provide project sponsors and other recovery part- ners a streamlined communication tool for a shared understanding of what needs to happen, where, and what policy considerations are necessary at the local and regional level to advance Chinook salmon recovery. Strategy: Restore and Improve Fish Passage Location: All Subwatersheds Fish passage barriers block access to important spawning and rearing habitat and can exacerbate localized flooding issues. Legacy transportation and flood control infrastructure were not regularly de- signed for fish passage and/or elevated flood flows associated with climate change. Although address- ing fish passage barriers was a priority in the 2005 Plan, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the State has a treaty-based obligation to address culverts under state-maintained roads in order to preserve tribal harvest rights within their usual and accustomed areas. This ruling has reinforced the need and elevated the urgency for addressing identi- fied barriers in a systematic and strategic manner. Chapter 6: Recovery Strategies AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 50 Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non-natal tributaries. Photos: Mike Perfetti. Figure 16. Healthy juvenile Chinook (right) and coho (left) salmon sampled from a non-natal tributary in 2018. Photo: Chris Gregersen. Programs »Fish Passage Barrier Removal WRIA 9 partners should work towards a compre- hensive inventory of fish passage barriers in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed, and prioritize barrier removal across the watershed to maximize the benefit of fish passage investments. Although the majority of existing barriers in the watershed impact coho salmon and steelhead, special consideration should be given to removing barriers to non-natal tributary rearing habitats. Recent fish monitoring studies have demonstrated the importance of non-natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook and remedying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Recent fish moni- toring studies have demonstrated the importance of non-natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor and Moore 2018) and reme- dying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Many partner jurisdictions do not have the capacity to implement a programmatic approach to barrier identification and removal; instead, barrier removal is driven by infrastructure repair needs and local capital improvement programs. Some, such as the City of Seattle, have an inventory and prioritized list of fish passage barriers but lack sufficient funding for implementation. To support a more compre- hensive approach to fish passage, WRIA 9 partners should leverage available technical assistance from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Passage and King County Fish Pas- sage Restoration Programs to assess and prioritize barriers for removal outside of their scheduled capital improvement programs to expedite high- priority barrier removals. Jurisdictions should apply for funding for high-priority projects through the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board. Regional coordination among WRIA 9 partners on fish barrier removal priorities should help identify synergies and accelerate barrier removal in priority subwa- tersheds. Programmatic improvements within the County Fish Passage Restoration Program may support increased efficiencies within other jurisdic- tions. Fish passage accomplishments and lessons learned should be shared regularly to expedite bar- rier identification and increase coordination across the watershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 51 Policies »Fish Passage (FP) 1: Provide efficient and safe fish passage where built infrastructure (e.g., road cross- ings and flood control facilities) intersects instream habitats. Fish passage design considerations should not only facilitate adult upstream migration, but also ensure juvenile salmonid access to rearing habitat provided in non-natal tributaries. Project sponsors should use WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines (2013) to assess feasibility and support alternative development. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity Location: Lower and Middle Green The process of channel migration within the floodplain creates side channels, back-water sloughs, and other off-channel habitats that are critical for juvenile salm- on rearing and refuge. Floodplains also facilitate an exchange of nutrients and organic material between land and water, and provide important flood storage capacity that can mitigate flood damages to adjacent communities. The historic loss of flood- plain habitat within the Green/Duwamish watershed resulted in a loss of habitat complexity, increased peaks flows and water velocities, and a loss of groundwater storage and important cold water recharge during summer months. Flow regulation at Howard Hanson Dam and the diversion of the White River into the Puyallup River has reduced the frequency and mag- nitude of flood events and left much of the floodplain perched well above the current river channel. Reconnecting floodplains and restor- ing floodplain habitats is essential to increas- ing both the available rearing habitat and corresponding salm- on productivity of the system. Figure 17. The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi-benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements. PSE Corrid o r T r ail Russell Road Green River Natural Resources AreaGreenRiver S 2 3 1 s t / S 2 2 8th St S .2 1 2 t h S t. Habitat Area A (Main Channel Edge) Scour Deflectors Relocated Van Doren's Landing Park Hand-Carry Boat Launch Relocated Trailhead Setback Levee 1 2 3 4 5 6 KOA Campground Habitat Area B (Backwater) MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS LOWER RUSSELL LEVEE SETBACK Grading Contour (1 ft.) Floodw all OHW Habitat Wood Eddy Feature and Number Pump and Discharge Site New Van Doren's Park Boundary Green River Trail Levee Trail Secondary Trail Road Improvement Wetland Updated 08/1/2019 Grading Plan 5/3/18 1 0 500 ft. N AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Setback : Relocation of the toe of the levee/revetment landward of ordinar y high water to provide for increased erosion and channel migration. 100-year flood elevation with setback levee Existing 100-year flood elevation Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 52 Programs None identified. Implementation relies on individual capital projects that will be identified in project list. Policies »Floodplain Connectivity (FC) 1: Support multi-benefit flood risk reduction projects that also enhance salmon habitat by allowing rivers and floodplains to function more naturally. Multi-benefit projects can (1) reduce community flood risk; (2) provide critical salmon habitat; (3) increase floodplain storage; (4) improve water quality; (5) replenish groundwater; (6) expand public rec- reation opportunities; and (7) strengthen commu- nity and ecological resilience to extreme weather events due to climate change. »FC2: Wherever possible, flood protection facilities should be (re)located away from the river edge to reconnect floodplains and re-establish natural riv- erine processes. During conceptual design of alter- natives, project sponsors should evaluate opportu- nities to pursue relocation of existing infrastructure and real estate acquisition to support levee set- backs. A process-based approach to restoration is ideal for species recovery; however, where a levee setback is infeasible due to the constraints of past land use activity, alternative facility designs (e.g., levee laybacks) should strive to incorporate plant- ing benches and wood structures that mimic lost ecosystem services and improve critically needed edge habitat. »FC3: Local government should utilize critical areas and shoreline regulations and associated land use policies to protect creek riparian areas and asso- ciated floodplains to increase the flood storage capacity of these areas. »FC4: Vacating and relocating roads should be evaluated as tools to support salmon restoration priorities where impacts are negligible and/or can be mitigated. Coordinating transportation infra- structure improvements with salmon habitat needs (e.g., floodplain reconnection and fish passage) can improve outcomes and reduce project costs. Road vacation policies should be updated to consider level of use and road standards. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Flood protection facilities (e.g., Howard Hanson Dam, revetments, and levees) and loss of riparian habitat have disrupted sediment transport, simplified hab- itat complexity, contributed to a loss of rearing and refuge habitat, and impeded natural recruitment of spawning gravels. Although process based restora- tion is preferred, ongoing intervention is necessary to replace/mimic natural processes where they cannot be restored. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 53 Programs »Middle Green River Gravel and Wood Supplementation Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Pub- lic Utilities should continue gravel and wood sup- plementation in the Middle Green River to account for disruption of natural sediment transport and wood recruitment caused by Howard Hanson Dam. Up to 14,000 tons of spawning gravels are deposit- ed annually at two sites located near river mile 60, just downstream of the Tacoma Headworks Facility. High flows during the winter months engage the deposited gravel and naturally distribute it down- stream. Regular monitoring of gravel distribution should inform quantity, size gradation, and timing to maximize benefits for salmonids. The U.S. Army Corps Corps should continue to transport large wood (> 12 in. diameter; > 20 ft. in length; >4 ft. diameter root ball) that is stranded in the reservoir to below the Tacoma Headworks Facility. Large wood increases channel complexi- ty, provides habitat for juvenile fish, and provides nutrients and substrate for aquatic insects. The upper watershed is heavily forested and large wood is transported to the reservoir during high flow events, but is unable to move downstream of the dam without intervention. Existing quantities of large wood downstream of the dam remain signifi- cantly below recommended wood volumes (Fox and Bolton 2007) to support salmon recovery. Peri- odic surveys should be completed to monitor large wood volumes and ensure project success. Policies Channel Complexity (CC) 1: Project designs should incorporate best available science related to climate change predictions and anticipated changes to seasonal instream flow patterns to enhance channel complexity and edge habitat across a range of flows. Lower spring and summer flows could make restored rearing habitat inacces- sible during juvenile Chinook outmigration. Special consideration should be given to project designs that ensure juvenile salmon rearing habitat remains accessible in low flow years. »CC2: For habitat restoration projects calling for the addition of large woody debris, placement of wood should consider risk to river users, such as boaters and swimmers. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors Location: All Subwatersheds Healthy riparian corridors provide a critical role in pro- viding cool and clean water for salmon. Riparian vegeta- tion shades instream habitat and moderates water tem- peratures; reduces erosion by stabilizing streambanks; captures rainwater and filters sediment and stormwater pollutants; provides terrestrial nutrient and food inputs; and is a source of large wood, which is critical to habitat complexity. Restoring riparian corridors is essential to addressing high summertime water temperatures and building long-term resilience to predicted changes as- sociated with climate change. The Washington State De- partment of Ecology (Ecology) developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek in 2011 that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures. Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. Refer to the “Integrate Agricultur - al Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives” strategy for a discussion of riparian corridors within agricultural lands. Programs »Re-Green the Green Revegetation Program The 2016 Re-Green the Green Strategy prioritizes riverine, estuarine and marine areas for revegetation, establishes interim goals, and outlines strategies for securing necessary funding. Riparian revegetation priorities are based on the solar aspect shade maps developed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (2014). This effort identified and prioritized shorelines where shade is critically needed to reduce instream water tempera- tures that frequently exceed water quality standards. WRIA 9 should continue to run an annual grant pro- gram that supports program implementation across priority shoreline areas. As of 2020, approximately $500,000 of annual Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Funds provided by the King County Flood Con- trol District have been set aside to support Re-Green the Green project implementation by WRIA 9 partners. This funding is intended to provide a baseline level of revegetation funding that can be leveraged to access other sources of funding. Riparian revegetation proj- ects help improve water quality, lower water tempera- tures, stabilize shorelines, contribute insects (prey) for juvenile salmonids, increase stormwater infiltration, and improve aquatic habitat quality when trees fall into the river. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 54 acres revegetated *414 (17%) acres out of the 2,384 acre goal established in the 2016 Re-Green the Green Strategy. The goal reflects a proportion of the total riparian buer (developed and undeveloped) that has less than 50% tree cover. 15 watershed partners have revegetated 414* acres along 75,314 linear feet (14.3 miles) of shoreline in the Green/Duwamish watershed—that’s nearly 5 Foster Golf Courses or 235 Sounders soccer fields of new revegetated shoreline! SINCE 2015 17%83% acres left to revegetate Green Duwamish Revegetation2015-2020 PROGRESS REPORT Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re-Green the Green Strategy. »Implement coordinated and comprehensive approach to noxious/invasive weed removal along river and marine shorelines WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with the King County Noxious Weed Removal Program to prior- itize and sequence weed removal efforts through the watershed. Noxious weed control should be conducted in parallel with priority riparian reveg- etation efforts. Ongoing invasive removal on res- toration sites is critical until native plants become established (~ five years). Invasive plants spread quickly, impede growth and establishment of natives, and degrade riparian habitats by destabilizing riverbanks and reducing tree canopy needed to help maintain cool water temperatures. Priority species impacting the ripar- ian community in the Green/Duwamish include knotweed species (Class B), purple loosestrife (Class B), policeman’s helmet (Class B), English ivy (Class C), Himalayan blackberry (Class C), and reed canary-grass (Class C). »Long-term Restoration Site Stewardship and Maintenance WRIA 9 partners should explore potential funding sources for a professional stewardship/mainte- nance crew to provide long-term site maintenance of restoration sites across the watershed. Salmon recovery funding generally does not provide for site maintenance beyond several years, and main- tenance typically falls outside the scope of regular park maintenance operations. A shared mainte- nance crew would provide cost savings to jurisdic- tions for maintenance of the growing portfolio of restoration sites. Priority tasks for a crew would include invasive species removal, planting as needed, and litter cleanup. In addition to these basic functions, this crew could play an important role in helping to manage the growing challenge of encampments within the Green River corridor. This program would ensure a regular staff presence at restoration sites to assist with outreach and public safety in addition to enhancing long-term ecological outcomes. In AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 55 addition, a shared crew would address stewardship and maintenance needs at sites that are not suitable for citizen volunteers. Policies »Riparian Corridor (RC) 1: Protect and enhance ri- parian corridors to help achieve temperature water quality standards established to protect salmon mi- gration, spawning and rearing. Local governments should support implementation of the Green River and Newaukum Creek TMDLs by protecting and re-establishing mature riparian vegetation within established stream buffers. »RC2: Revisit levee vegetation guidelines to im- prove revegetation opportunities along flood facilities. Guidelines must balance the critical need for riparian shade (i.e., Ecology TMDL) with the need to inspect the structural integrity of facilities and maintain public safety. Remote sensing (i.e., ground-penetrating radar, drones, or boat inspec- tions) may provide a viable alternative to traditional visual inspections that require a clear zone. »RC3: Project sponsors who receive WRIA 9 fund- ing should request funding for up to three years post-construction maintenance funding for plant establishment, and should document the ability to maintain habitat restoration and protection projects to ensure long-term objectives are achieved. Main- tenance may include, but is not limited to, noxious weed and invasive plant control, revegetation, and deterrence of undesired uses such as dumping and occupancy that can damage habitat. »RC4: River corridor trails should be compatible with salmon recovery priorities. Trail design standards should balance the need for riparian tree canopy to maintain cooler water temperatures with needs for important recreational view corridors and sight- lines for user safety. Trail design/placement should also not preclude reconnection of critically needed floodplain habitats. Trails offer residents an oppor- tunity to connect with the river; interpretive signage should highlight the presence of salmon and the ecological importance of riparian and floodplain habitat. »RC5: Encourage regional efforts to develop a Bon- neville Power Authority (BPA) mitigation program for power transmission impacts across Puget Sound. The BPA has a significant footprint within the Upper Watershed and the Soos Creek Basin where vegetation management and tree removal under transmission lines precludes adequate ripari- an canopy cover. Although the BPA has established mitigation programs for Columbia basin operations, a comparable program does not exist within Puget Sound. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality Location: All Subwatersheds Clean, cold water is essential for salmon growth and survival. A growing body of evidence suggests clean- up of legacy industrial contamination and stormwater pollution control may improve early marine survival and increase Chinook productivity. Recent scientific literature suggests contaminant exposure pathways (e.g., legacy industrial contamination, stormwater run- off, municipal wastewater discharges, etc.) are having sublethal and lethal impacts on juvenile Chinook salmon. Although the acute toxicity of stormwater runoff to coho salmon in urban watersheds is well documented, potential sublethal impacts to juvenile Chinook salmon as a result of contaminate exposure pathways are not well understood. Programs Green/Duwamish Watershed Pollution Loading Assessment (PLA) Ecology should continue to lead development of a pollutant loading assessment (PLA) that will (1) include a watershed-based model to evaluate cumulative effects of pollution; (2) assess relative contribution of toxic pollutants from different sources/pathways in the watershed; and (3) help prioritize source control efforts. The PLA is essential to maximizing effectiveness of Lower Duwamish Waterway cleanup and avoiding subsequent recon- tamination. The PLA is an interim strategy for improving water quality – it is not a TMDL or another regulatory AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 56 instrument. It represents a foundational effort that will inform future actions to address source control issues. Following its completion, WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with Ecology to address priority pollutant sources within their jurisdictions. Implement Pollution Identification and Control (PIC) Programs The Vashon-Maury Pollution Identification and Con- trol (PIC) program provides incentives (technical support and financial) to replace or repair failing septic systems, and address other pollution sources (e.g., animal waste) contributing to water quality degradation in the marine nearshore. Failing or inappropriately sited septic systems have resulted in water quality concerns and closure of beach and shellfish harvest areas – especially within Quarter Master Harbor. While the direct impact on shellfish harvesting is a human health concern, the water quality pollution can negatively affect various parts of the nearshore ecosystem that supports Chinook salmon. Although the 2005 Salmon Plan focused on Quarter Master Harbor, PIC programs should be expanded to other nearshore areas as warranted to identify pollution sources, provide technical support, and offer financial incentives to remedy failing septic systems and other sources of pollution. Over the last decade, investments made by Public Health— Seattle & King County and other partners have resulted in improved water quality and reopening of 493 acres of shellfish harvest areas. Creosote Removal Program WRIA 9 organizations should partner with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Creosote Removal Program to identify and remove creosote-treated debris and derelict structures from marine and estuarine waters. Creosote structures leach chemicals and can create toxic conditions for organisms that live within beach and marine sediments, as well as disrupt the marine foodweb. Studies have found creosote exposure can contrib- ute to mortality of herring eggs and alter growth and immune function of juvenile salmonids. Dere- lict structures can also interrupt sediment transport and displace aquatic vegetation. Since adoption of the 2005 Plan, the program has removed over 21,000 tons of creosote debris and 8.0 acres of overwater structures from Puget Sound. However, thousands of derelict creosote pilings re- main within Puget Sound. WRIA 9 partners should continue efforts to inventory and prioritize focus areas based on concentration of creosote debris and potential impacts to forage fish and juvenile salmon rearing. Policies »Water Quality (WQ) 1: Promote Low-Impact Devel- opment (LID) and green infrastructure (natural and engineered systems) to address stormwater runoff. Given the magnitude of development constructed prior to existing stormwater controls, extensive stormwater retrofits are needed to address legacy sources of water pollution. LID techniques should mimic, where possible, pre-disturbance hydrologi- cal processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evap- oration and transportation. LID techniques include: • Vegetation conservation: native vegetation and small-scale treatment systems; • Site design: clustering of buildings and narrower and shorter roads; • Retention systems: bioretention, bio-swales, rain gardens, wetlands and vegetated roofs; • Porous or permeable paving materials: sidewalks, trails, residential driveways, streets, and parking lots; and • Rainwater catchment: rain barrels and cisterns. Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure is an approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle. Green infrastructure is effective, economical, and enhances community safety and quality of life. – American Rivers AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 57 Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park. Although stormwater toxicity is not lethal to Chinook salmon, potential sublethal impacts are not well understood. Photo: Matt Goehring. »WQ2: Support local and regional watershed-based stormwater management initiatives (e.g., Our Green Duwamish, STORM, etc.) that prioritize programs and projects that can effectively demonstrate large- scale, watershed-wide, water quantity and water quality improvements that benefit salmon recovery. Potential priorities include: • Collaborative source control strategies such as education and outreach, business inspections, pollution prevention, and programmatic mainte- nance; • Regional retrofit programs focused on restoring natural hydrology and the removal of toxics; and • Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) incentive programs that promote the voluntary use of GSI. »WQ3: Source control efforts across multiple sectors (commercial, industrial, and agricultural) should ensure that water and sediment quality support salmon growth and survival. Source control suffi- ciency is a critical milestone that must be achieved to initiate contaminated sediment cleanup. Ensur- ing implementation, maintenance, and enforce- ment, where necessary, of source control best management practices will help reduce pollutant loading into water bodies and ensure pollutants don’t undermine sediment cleanup efforts in the Duwamish. Incentives to promote effective source control include spill prevention and response, technical support, and hazardous waste vouchers to local businesses. »WQ4: Protect and enhance rural and urban for- ests, which provide diverse social, economic and ecological benefits. In Rural Areas of King County, at least 65 percent of each sub-basin should be preserved as natural forest cover and impervious coverage should not exceed 10 percent of a sub- basin. Where forest cover exceeds this threshold, the goal of no net loss in forest cover should be pursued. In Urban Growth Areas, local govern- ments should adopt goals to achieve 30-40 percent ecologically healthy urban tree canopy coverage and reduce impervious surfaces. Adopting goals specific to riparian canopy could help prioritize riparian restoration. Local education, outreach, and incentive programs should be supported to in- crease urban forestry programs and associated tree canopy coverage. »WQ5: Ensure cost-share agreements between the U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tacoma Water, and private landowners are maintained and that road mainte- nance and abandonment plans achieve sediment reduction goals. Support opportunities to abandon unnecessary forest roads as they are identified to reduce overall road density. »WQ6: Support regional and state legislative efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills in Puget Sound and ensure the state remains a leader in oil spill preven- tion and response. Over 20 billion gallons of oil are transported through Washington each year by ves- sel, pipeline and rail. A catastrophic spill could cost the region over $10 billion and impact over 150,000 jobs. It would also cause significant harm to aquatic ecosystems and disrupt maritime industry, recre- ation, and tourism. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 58 »WQ7: Local governments should adopt the Inter- agency Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines, as amended, for maintenance of existing infrastructure. Govern- ments should participate in the associated Regional Forum to support ongoing adaptive management to improve outcomes. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines Location: Marine Nearshore Marine nearshore habitats, including beaches, pocket estuaries, eelgrass beds, inlets, and deltas, provide important rearing and migration habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon and many other animals in Puget Sound. They are also critical spawning habitat for forage fish – a key prey species for Chinook salmon. Decades of alteration and armoring of the Puget Sound marine shoreline has reduced shoreline length and habitat complexity, disrupted sediment supply and transport, and eliminated forage fish spawning habitat. Restoring natural shorelines will increase nearshore productivity and salmon growth and survival in the marine environment. Figure 20. Before and after Phase II restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien. Construction was completed in 2014. Photos: Hugh Shipman. Programs »Develop/maintain a “Toolbox” of Shore Friendly Alternatives for Privately-Owned Shorelines (aka Do-it-yourself approach for residential shoreline improvement) WRIA 9 partners should develop a “shoreline toolbox” to provide shoreline owners guidelines for implementing shore friendly alternatives that clearly outline stewardship concepts and best manage- ment practices for private shorelines. It should not only outline the range of alternatives for different shoreline types (e.g., beach and bluffs), but also highlight important design, feasibility, maintenance, and permitting considerations when considering shoreline improvements. Topic areas should include native shoreline vegetation, erosion control, shore- line access, docks, and stormwater management. The toolbox should be designed to supplement shoreline workshops and technical assistance programs and could be made available online to provide guidance to property owners who may elect to take a “do-it-yourself approach” to shoreline management. It should be tailored to reach private landowners and contractors and connect them with available local and regional resources. The toolbox should draw from regional efforts such as WDFW’s Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines, the Shore Friendly King County collaborative, Green Shores for Homes, and Green Shorelines for Lake AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 59 Washington and Lake Sammamish, and highlight local examples of shore-friendly approaches within WRIA 9. »Expand Shore-Friendly Technical Assistance and Cost-Share Programs to Accelerate Armor Removal and Soft Shoreline Protection (aka Supported Approach for Residential Shoreline Improvement) Access to technical information about shoreline erosion and protection alternatives and the finan- cial costs associated with marine shoreline armor removal have been identified as key barriers to motivating shoreline landowners to consider soft shoreline protection. Soft shoreline protection is less preferred than outright removal, but prefera- ble to traditional hard armor in that it helps main- tain and enhance some natural marine shoreline functions (e.g., sediment transport and delivery). Bulkhead removal is expensive and site-specific erosion risk is not conducive to the use of standard models or templates for soft shore protection. In addition, many landowners and consultants are unfamiliar with how to design/implement success- ful soft shoreline protection projects. Technical assistance to help landowners better understand risk, to provide design and permitting support, and to assist with access to cost-share funding should help to overcome existing barriers to armor removal on private property and promote expansion of soft shoreline protection alternatives. The King Conservation District (KCD) has histori- cally provided technical assistance on environmen- tally friendly ways to manage shoreline properties, including shore-friendly alternatives to traditional bulkheads. The KCD also has a cost-share incentive program to encourage revegetation and removal of existing armor and/or soft shore protection designs where site-specific conditions allow. In 2020, KCD established a Shore Friendly King County collabo- rative between multiple partners. This program is seen as part of a local adaptation of the regional Shore Friendly approach to reducing marine shore- line armoring. Although this is an existing program, additional resources are needed to expand ca- pacity. Landowners are identified through parallel marine shoreline landowner workshops. Priority should be given to currently unarmored shorelines and armored properties where site-specific factors (e.g., structure location, fetch, bank/bluff geology, etc.) make armor removal and/or soft shoreline protection alternatives feasible. »Implement Acquisition Strategy to Protect and Restore Functioning Nearshore Habitats Acquisition of priority marine shorelines supports conservation and restoration of critical nearshore processes and rearing habitats used by multiple stocks of juvenile Chinook – including Green/Du- wamish Chinook. A number of planning efforts have identified and prioritized conservation of nearshore habitats within WRIA 9, including the Prioritiza- tion of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration (2006), Vashon-Maury Island Greenprint (2007), and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (2012). Although many of the highest priority sites have been specifically identified as unique projects within the Habitat Plan, WRIA 9 should support opportunistic acquisi- tion of other functioning nearshore habitats if they become available. Although the bulk of the acquisition opportu- nities for functioning habitats are located on Vashon-Maury Islands, additional opportunities exist on the mainland nearshore. Successful im- plementation of a nearshore acquisition strategy requires consistent outreach to landowners and operational flexibility to capitalize on acquisition opportunities before they are lost. The sale of prop- erties previously unavailable for decades frequently can represent a once in a generational opportunity to protect a priority stretch of marine shoreline. In- dividual acquisition opportunities should be evalu- ated based on ecological value/potential of near- shore habitat and risk of development. Available funding sources to support acquisition include King County Conservation Futures, King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Program and Coastal Erosion Program, Wash- ington Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, and various Washing- ton State Recreation and Conservation Office grant programs. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 60 Policies »Nearshore (NS) 1: Avoid shoreline infrastructure or stabilization except where demonstrated to be nec- essary to support or protect a legally-established primary structure, critical public infrastructure, or shoreline use in danger of loss or substantial damage. Support armor removal and alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization (e.g., setbacks and relocations) where feasible to reduce impacts to existing natural shoreline processes. Protection and restoration of important sediment sources (e.g., feeder bluffs) is needed to restore nearshore processes and sediment transport. Where the need for bank stabilization is supported by analysis of a geotechnical engineer, “soft” shoreline stabiliza- tion techniques (e.g., bioengineering techniques and vegetation enhancement) should be required where feasible. “Soft” stabilization measures should be designed to preserve or restore natural shoreline processes (e.g., sediment transport). “Hard” shore- line stabilization should only be allowed where softalternatives do not provide adequate protection. Refer to WDFW Marine Shoreline Design Guide- lines, Green Shores for Homes, Integrated Stream- bank Guidelines, and Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines for additional guidance. Primary Structure: Structural improvement that is essential to the primary use of the property. Structures that function as secondary or subordinate to the primary use of a property are considered an accessory use. »NS2: Encourage multiple family/neighborhood use of docks, boat ramps, and beach access stairs. Local jurisdictions should minimize impacts to the nearshore marine environment by encouraging consolidation/joint-use of structures that could serve multiple landowners. Opportunities to pursue joint-use should be evaluated during development and redevelopment. Boat docks, ramps and beach access stairs can shade aquatic vegetation, disrupt juvenile salmon migration and foraging, alter near- shore sediment transport and degrade nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass). Possible incentives include permit streamlining, fee reductions, and dimension- al incentives (e.g., increased length, width, etc.). »NS3: Jurisdictions should promote derelict vessel prevention and coordinate with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) on der- elict vessel removal. Derelict vessels can contribute to contamination of aquatic lands, degrade water quality, and damage sensitive aquatic habitats (e.g., eelgrass). Although the WADNR Derelict Vessel Removal Program has removed more than 580 ves- sels from marine waters, local efforts are critical to ensuring effective prevention and rapid response. »NS4: Support beach nourishment, where appropri- ate, to offset interruption of natural sediment supply and transport caused from extensive shoreline modifications (e.g., bulkheads, etc.). Beach nourish- ment has been used successfully to protect shore- lines, restore natural beach profiles, and enhance nearshore habitats. »NS5: Support regional efforts to identify and test actions to increase juvenile survival during outmi- gration through Puget Sound and increase local ef- forts to stabilize or improve foodweb function such as forage fish habitat protection and restoration. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat Location: Duwamish The Duwamish estuary provides critical rearing habi- tat for juvenile salmon as they make the physiological transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Industri- al development within the Duwamish valley drove extensive fill of tidal wetlands, armoring of shore- lines, and navigational dredging. The modifications AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 61 straightened the estuary and eliminated 98 percent of the historic wetlands. Despite the magnitude of loss of habitat, the Duwamish continues to play a critical role in supporting juvenile Chinook salmon. Both cleanup of legacy industrial contamination within the Lower Duwamish Superfund Site and restoration of shallow water rearing habitat are needed to increase juvenile salmon survival and overall productivity with- in the watershed. Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon. Photo: Mike Perfetti. Program »Implement and Adaptively Manage the Duwa- mish Blueprint The Duwamish Blueprint outlines strategic guid- ance for governments, businesses, non-profit or- ganizations and citizen groups working to improve the estuarine ecosystem and increase juvenile salmonid productivity. It identifies approximately 100 acres of shallow water habitat restoration po- tential within the Duwamish estuary transition zone (RM 1-10). Many of the habitat opportunities are conceptual and have not been prioritized. Periodic evaluation of conceptual opportunities is needed to elevate and refine project ideas as the Duwamish landscape changes (e.g., Superfund cleanup, Natu- ral Resource Damage Assessment [NRDA], and real estate availability). Restoration in the Duwamish is complex, expensive, and will require flexibility, innovation, and extensive coordination and collaboration to be successful. The former Duwamish Blueprint Working Group, which was convened to develop the Blueprint, would provide a framework to facilitate coordina- tion across key partners. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the Blueprint Working Group to identify opportunities to enhance partnerships to (1) pursue larger project footprints; and (2) overcome barriers to implementation. Given limited land availability, WRIA 9 should opportunistically evaluate potential acquisitions and consider elevating conceptual projects as part of adaptive management based on habitat benefit, acquisition feasibility, and readiness. Policies »Duwamish Estuary (DE) 1: Engage in the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) Superfund cleanup process to coordinate and sequence potential salmon habitat projects with Superfund activities to maximize benefits to salmon recovery. Strategic acquisition should be prioritized over habitat project construction prior to competition of the LDW clean- up to avoid potential contaminated sediments and minimize potential for re-contamination. »DE2: Engage with NRDA trustees and potentially liable parties to inform project development and design and maximize potential benefit to salmon re- covery. NRDA settlements within the Duwamish will result in large capital investments in habitat resto- ration that should provide a significant lift to salmon recovery. Coordination with the NRDA process will also support identification of potential synergistic opportunities, and help identify and resolve barriers to maximize restoration outcomes. For example, it may be possible to leverage NRDA settlements to expand existing and/or planned restoration projects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 62 Although NRDA has a broader scope than Chinook salmon recovery, priority NRDA habitats signifi- cantly overlap with salmon recovery needs in the Duwamish (e.g., estuarine marshes, intertidal mudflats, and riparian habitats). Tracking NRDA project implementation will be important to under- standing the status of habitat restoration efforts in the Duwamish. Given the existing uncertainty associated with juvenile Chinook survival in the Duwamish, WRIA 9 should engage with the trust- ees to share emerging research, exchange lessons learned in restoration, inform adaptive manage- ment of restored sites, and identify priority sites for restoration. »DE3: Encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Seattle to identify strategies for dredging that: (1) minimize impacts to salmon hab- itat and (2) improve salmon habitat through use of beneficial re-use where suitable. Soil contamination may limit opportunities for re-use. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Green River flows are regulated to support both flood control and water supply needs. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan requires maintenance of minimum instream flows during summer months. Although water capture and storage behind Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) support maintenance of mini- mum instream flows and periodic flow augmentations during summer and early fall, it can also reduce the frequency of high flow events that drive lateral chan- nel migration (i.e., habitat forming flows) and availa- bility of juvenile Chinook rearing habitat throughout spring. Low snowpack and drought conditions ex- acerbate already difficult tradeoffs in timing of water release designated for fish conservation purposes. Water temperatures also regularly exceed established water quality standards for Salmon Core Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat. Climate change forecasts predict the watershed will experience reduced snowpack, lower summer time flows, and elevated instream temperatures. These changes will impact the already difficult reservoir refill strategies at HHD, potentially putting greater stress on refilling earlier and having a bigger impact on juvenile Chinook habitat. Prolonged low flows can cutoff access to critical rearing habitats and exacerbate high instream temperatures. High water temperatures can delay adult migrations, contribute to increased susceptibility to disease, and even be lethal above 23°C. Protecting instream flows and cold water refugia is essential to strengthening watershed resilience to climate change. Cold-water refugia are characterized as being at least 2°C colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters. Programs »Develop Watershed Management Plan to Address Permit-Exempt Well Development WRIA 9 partners should coordinate on develop- ment of the Ecology’s Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to assess and offset potential consumptive impacts of new rural, domestic water use on stream flows in the Green/Duwamish water- shed. Maintaining legally established minimum in- stream flows has proven challenging during recent years with below average precipitation. Climate change models indicate that changes in precipita- tion patterns could exacerbate streamflow issues and further stress salmon. Implementation of the plan is required to not only offset permit exempt domestic water use, but also provide for a net ecological benefit. The legislature plans to direct $300 million in funding through 2035 to benefit fish and streamflows. WRIA 9 should position itself to leverage this funding source to support implementation of appropri- ate projects in this plan that meet the flow or net ecological benefit guidance and/or develop addi- tional project elements that do so. If instream flows remain problematic in the future, additional consid- eration should be given to integrating other cate- gories of water use into an expanded Watershed Management Plan and implementation program. »Develop a Strategy to Protect and Restore Habi- tat in the Upper Green River and its Tributaries Conduct a planning effort to develop a long-term, comprehensive approach to protecting and restor- ing ecosystem processes in the Upper Green River subwatershed. Current checkerboard ownership AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 63 20132013 Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. The project protected cool waters from a natural spring. complicates land management and a strategic approach is needed to leverage the relatively intact upper watershed to maximize benefits for salmon and steelhead recovery. Access to the upper water- shed has long been identified as critical to long- term salmon recovery. However, the delay of fish passage and the degraded condition of the lower watersheds have resulted in limited investments in the upper watershed. Projected shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns associated with climate change further emphasize the critical importance of this landscape to long-term salmon recovery. A number of assess- ments should be completed to inform a strategic approach to management of the upper watershed, including: • Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management As- sessments (VELMA): Quantify long-term effects of forest management and climate scenarios on salmon habitat (i.e., hydrological flow regimes and instream temperatures); • Model intrinsic habitat value of stream segments within the upper watershed to inform conserva- tion and restoration priorities; • Beaver Assessment: Assess current activity, mod- el potential benefits, and explore potential reintro- duction if warranted; and • Assess important wildlife migratory corridors and key landscape level linkages to inform acquisition priorities. The results of these assessments should be used to prioritize salmon recovery investments in the upper watershed with respect to potential land consolida- tion, land use management changes, and potential road abandonment. Policies »Stream Flows (SF)1: Support reevaluation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water storage sched- ule and Fish Conservation Guide Curve at HHD to increase benefits for salmonids while maintaining downstream flood control benefits. The current water capture period overlaps the juvenile Chinook rearing period and impacts accessibility and/or amount of important rearing habitats during outmigration. Utilize the existing Green River Flow Management Coordination Committee to assess fish habitat needs based on best-available science and basin-specific climate change projections. »SF2: Protect existing cold water refugia and en- hance water storage and hyporheic exchange by reconnecting historic floodplain habitats to instream habitats. These habitats facilitate heat dissipation and provide an influx of cooler waters to moderate seasonal fluctuations in stream tem- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 64 peratures and flows, providing physiological and ecological benefits for cold-water salmonids. »SF3: Support forest management and harvest rotation programs that increase hydrologic function and improve base flows to minimize impacts on sal- monid habitat, support climate change resiliency, and maintain viable silviculture. Additional research is necessary to quantify potential benefits. »SF4: Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water withdrawals to provide instream flows and water temperatures that support adult salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing. Local gov- ernments, water purveyors, and state and federal regulators should: • Protect groundwater resources and critical aqui- fer recharge areas; • Manage groundwater and surface water with- drawals seasonally to maximize the benefits to salmonid habitat; • Develop drought management plans to supply safe and reliable drinking water while minimizing impacts to salmonids during periods of drought; • Ensure rural domestic use does not adversely impact salmonid habitat; • Support water rights acquisition programs that can augment chronic low flows; and • Limit or preclude mining and other significant excavation activities that could adversely impact groundwater hydrology. »SF5: Support expansion of reclaimed/recycled wastewater to reduce demands on stream and ground withdrawals. Reclaimed wastewater can be used safely and effectively for non-drinking water purposes such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial pro- cessing. Reclaimed water is available year-round, even during dry summer months or when drought conditions can strain other water resources. See also policies SW4-6 above. Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education Location: All subwatersheds Education and outreach are fundamental to protect- ing and restoring salmon. It raises awareness, builds political support, and promotes positive behaviors that benefit salmon. Long-term salmon recovery will not be successful without public support. Broad- based community support provides political leverage to protect and expand local, state and federal invest- ments in habitat restoration. It is also helps promote positive behavior change and minimize behaviors that can negatively impact salmon or undermine recovery investments. For example, ecological gains associat- ed with marine shoreline restoration in WRIA 9 have been predominantly offset by new armor installations. General outreach is not sufficient to drive widespread and long-lasting behavior change. Targeted social marketing strategies must identify and overcome both real and perceived barriers to promote positive behaviors that contribute to salmon recovery. Programs »Implement a Comprehensive Communications Plan to Promote Behavior Change that Expedites Salmon Recovery in WRIA 9 Integrate lessons learned from the regional Shore Friendly programs into a locally adapted commu- nication plan designed to increase implementation of behaviors that support salmon recovery. Key outcomes include: • Increased public recognition of the urgency around salmon recovery and connection to southern resident orcas; • Improved public understanding and stewardship of riverine and nearshore ecosystem processes that support salmon and forage fish; • Technical assistance provided to interested shoreline residents; • Target audiences make informed decisions based on knowledge of Shore Friendly practices, climate resilience, and adaptation; • A suite of tools and incentives developed to address identified barriers to adoption of desired behaviors; AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 65 • Messaging and outreach tailored to contractors and realtors; • The value of riparian vegetation is communicat- ed to the public, including riverside landowners, elected officials, and trail/park users; and • Partners conducting outreach and education receive positive reinforcement and feedback from the salmon recovery community. Additional effort is needed to refine target audi- ences and develop associated social marketing approaches. The intent of the communication plan should be to build awareness, expand stewardship, and promote advocacy. A regional Social Marketing Strategy to Reduce Puget Sound Shoreline Armor- ing was developed for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2015. A Green/Duwamish River Revegetation Outreach and Engagement Plan was developed in 2019. These plans provide an ex- isting framework that can be expanded to integrate other priority salmon recovery issues. »Expand Volunteer Stewardship Increase citizen participation through new steward- ship programs and by expanding and supporting existing stewardship programs that engage vol- unteers in restoring, maintaining, and monitoring habitat protection and restoration projects. These projects not only benefit salmon recovery, but also improve stormwater retention, carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat and include important themes and messages for participants to change behavior at home. Local volunteer programs should: • Foster environmental stewardship and personal connection to salmon recovery; • Educate people about threats to salmon and the role of habitat in salmon recovery; • Leverage additional resources to implement recovery actions; and • Expand the constituency to advocate for salmon recovery. The Green/Duwamish Watershed has a number of volunteer stewardship programs that play an instru- mental role in invasive vegetation removal and na- tive revegetation. Many of these programs provide long-term stewardship of large capital restoration sites. Traditional salmon recovery funding is not available to fund long-term (beyond two to three years) stewardship and maintenance of restoration sites. As a result, local funding or creative partner- ships are essential to ensure restoration projects achieve desired outcomes into the future. »Expand Community Science Monitoring Develop and implement community science pro- grams to address data gaps and foster watershed stewardship among residents. Community science programs can provide capacity to collect important long-term monitoring data while serving as an out- reach tool to educate residents about local natural resource issues. They can also create opportunities to introduce students to scientific research and provide important data for resource managers. Since 2005, citizen science programs include: • Beach Nearshore Ecology Team (BeachNet): The Vashon Nature Center coordinates a forage fish monitoring program that collects data on forage fish presence/absence, spawning timing, beach substrate preferences, and intertidal and upland habitat conditions within the marine reserve. Data are shared with WDFW and is used to inform protection of spawning beaches. BeachNet also contributes to shoreline restoration monitoring in partnership with University of Washington, King County, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. • Miller-Walker Basin Community Salmon Investi- gation (CSI): The CSI program has conducted 10 years of salmonid spawning surveys to assess long-term trends in salmon abundance and the urban runoff mortality syndrome in coho salm- on. Data are shared with local jurisdictions and resource managers. A partnership with the UW Tacoma Center for Urban Waters has helped identify both the suite of toxic chemicals contrib- uting to coho mortality and priority areas within this watershed to focus future stormwater im- provements. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 66 Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation. The program has leveraged community support and a partnership with the University of Washington to advance our understanding of stormwater runoff impacts on local salmon. Photo: Miller/ Walker Stewardship Program. »Shoreline Workshops and Technical Assistance Implement workshops to educate target audiences (landowners, landscapers, contractors) about shoreline stewardship and common misconcep- tions about shoreline erosion. Promote alternative approaches to shoreline management that provide for the use and enjoyment of property in a manner that benefits fish and wildlife. Priority focus areas include: • Shoreline processes and salmon habitat; • Erosion control; • Noxious/invasive weed control; • Revegetation guidance; • Natural yard care; and • Stormwater management. Workshops should connect target audiences with local and regional resources (e.g., technical assis- tance) designed to overcome barriers to improving shoreline stewardship. Materials and messaging should be tailored to specific subwatersheds and groups of landowners to increase effectiveness. The Green Shores for Homes program developed in 2015 is an available tool to guide the design of improved shoreline conditions for Puget Sound properties. Policies »Education and Stewardship (ES)1: Support edu- cational programs that integrate watershed science and salmon into problem-based learning exercises for school children. These programs instill a sense of place, encourage appreciation of natural resourc- es, and promote environmental literacy among the next generation of future decision makers. »ES2: Support diverse outreach and education pro- grams that promote awareness of salmon recovery and positive behavior change. Programs should employ community-based social marketing to iden- tify and overcome barriers to targeted behaviors. Priority focus areas include shoreline stewardship, riparian revegetation, and stormwater manage- ment. Strategy: Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives Location: Lower and Middle Green Salmon recovery and the preservation of viable agriculture are two regional priorities that intersect in the Middle and Lower Green floodplain and along Newaukum Creek. King County designated over 16,295 acres of land within the Green River watershed for agriculture within three Agricultural Production Districts (APD). Some additional, but relatively small amounts of agricultural activities occur within the cities of Kent and Auburn. Over 5,763 acres of land within the APD have been enrolled within the Farm- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 67 land Preservation Program (FPP). Restrictive cove- nants on FPP properties are designed to permanently protect agricultural use and open space. The 2005 Plan acknowledged that salmon recovery and agricultural production operate within a shared landscape along the Green River valley. It prioritized sequencing of restoration projects over the first 10 years of plan implementation to focus first on existing public lands, then on lands within the rural and urban growth areas, and finally on lands within the APD, but not enrolled in the FPP. The plan acknowledged that projects that negatively impact tillable surface may need to be reconsidered at a later date. This Plan Update acknowledges that the implementa- tion of high-priority salmon projects critically needed to advance salmon recovery will result in localized loss of existing farmland. Research indicates that rearing habitat availability in the Lower and Middle Green River is the primary limiting factor for Chinook productivity within the watershed. Collaboration be- tween agricultural and salmon recovery interests will be necessary to identify and advance shared prior- ities and ensure salmon and agriculture can coexist productively within a shared landscape. Lessons learned from other watersheds should be reviewed for applicability within the Green River watershed. Programs »Farm Conservation Planning Farm conservation plans can help landowners protect natural resources while achieving their land use goals. They can also help access and leverage agricultural incentives to improve conservation practices on agricultural lands. Priorities include stream and wetland buffer revegetation and live- stock management. Agriculture is widespread throughout the Middle and Lower Green and farm- land preservation is a regional priority. Expanding riparian buffer revegetation on Green River valley farms has the potential to greatly benefit salmon recovery, especially where agricultural lands over- lap with high priority areas identified by the Muck- leshoot solar aspect shade maps (2014). Limiting livestock access to stream buffers can also greatly improve water quality and riparian conditions. Available incentive programs include: • King Conservation District rural services pro- grams (e.g., Land Owner Incentive Program, Farm Conservation Technical Assistance, and Agricul- tural Drainage Program) • King County Small Habitat Restoration Program • USDA Farm Service Agency Conservation Re- serve Enhancement Program • King County Livestock Program (i.e., BMP cost share) Landowner recruitment is essential to program success. Additional resources and strategies are needed to expand participation. Policies »AG1: Protect, enhance, and restore high quali- ty salmon habitat in the Agricultural Production Districts in a manner that strives to reduce loss of viable agricultural land and ensure the long-term viability of agriculture. Projects that displace tillable farmland should strive to provide benefits to adja- cent farm lands in attempt to offset impacts. Local governments, state and federal agencies, non-profits, and special purpose districts should work with agricultural landowners in the Agricultur- al Production Districts to: • Correct water quality problems resulting from agricultural practices; • Implement best management practices for live- stock and horticulture; • Prevent additional degradation or clearing of forested riparian buffers; • Encourage landowners to pursue voluntary sus- tainable actions for fish, farms, and soils; • Conduct compliance monitoring and regulatory enforcement where necessary to protect critical habitats; • Identify opportunities where salmon recovery projects can provide parallel benefits (e.g., flood risk reduction and drainage improvements) to adjacent agricultural lands; and • Limit the extent of actively farmed lands dis- placed by priority salmon restoration projects. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 68 »AG2: Evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory flexibility given to agricultural landowners that obtain a farm plan from the KCD. If the flexibility leads to better habitat and water quality outcomes, other opportunities should be explored to provide additional flexibility. If the flexibility has not led to better outcomes, the County should evaluate if there are improvements to the regulatory structure (e.g. require some amount of the farm plan be im- plemented versus implementation being voluntary) that would improve the outcomes of the flexible approach. Strategy: Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning Location: All Subwatersheds Historical population growth and development within the watershed displaced habitat, altered natural hydrology, and polluted local waters. Local land use plans should provide a blueprint for future growth and development that is consistent with salmon recovery. Land use decisions should reinforce the importance of preservation of intact, functional hab- itats and provide a pathway for restoration of priority habitats. While the Salmon Habitat Plan is not a reg- ulatory document, integration of identified recovery strategies and habitat priorities within local land use plans, policy and decision-making can accelerate implementation and ultimately dictate success of recovery efforts within the Green/Duwamish. Programs »Incentivize Voluntary Restoration Practices Local governments and state agencies should pro- mote landowner adoption of voluntary conserva- tion and restoration actions through implementing associated incentive programs. Regulatory com- plexity, fees, access to technical assistance, and project costs have all been identified as barriers to expanding adoptions of voluntary best manage- ment practices on private property. Priority areas to address include invasive removal and native reveg- etation along shorelines, soft shoreline stabilization, and green stormwater infrastructure. Jurisdictions should review existing barriers and evaluate incen- tive opportunities, including: • Streamlined permitting process; • Reduced fees for restoration projects; • Free technical assistance (e.g., engineering, plant- ing plans, etc.); • Cost share/financing programs; and • Regulatory flexibility. Voluntary adoption of best management practices by private landowners has been sporadic. Addi- tional targeted investments are needed to expand implementation beyond early adopters. Improving coordination and consistency across regulatory jurisdictions (i.e., local, state and federal govern- ments) is also needed to improve consistency and reliability of the permitting process and increase adoption of best management practices. A coordi- nated effort across the watershed to identify target- ed practices and assess best practices related to available incentives could reduce costs and im- prove efficiency. Using the Green Shores for Homes or similar programs as an incentive-based program to increase the number of properties that voluntari- ly improve shoreline conditions on their property should be explored. »Regulatory Compliance Monitoring and Associ- ated Enforcement Jurisdictions should assess regulatory compli- ance with shoreline master programs, critical area protections, floodplain regulations, and agricultural regulations (e.g., Livestock Management Ordi- nance) to assess and improve protection of salmon habitats. Regulatory compliance is fundamental to achieving no net loss of ecological function along marine and freshwater shorelines and to ensuring that ongoing impacts to salmon habitat do not undermine salmon recovery investments. Periodic compliance monitoring should be used to assess the status of jurisdictions and the status of local regulatory implementation and to inform a strategic approach to address shortcomings. If a regulatory framework is not achieving intended outcomes, local jurisdictions should assess changes to staffing levels, outreach and education, technical training for staff, interagency coordination, and enforcement to improve compliance rates. A WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Com- pliance Project (2018) found that only 42 percent of shoreline modifications between 2013-2018 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 69 obtained local permits. Even fewer shoreline modifications obtained a WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval. Furthermore, more new shoreline armor (mostly unpermitted) was constructed than re- moved through restoration projects. These results indicate that unpermitted shoreline modifications are undermining salmon recovery investments and overall efforts to achieve “no net loss of ecosystem function” as required through the Shoreline Man- agement Act. Jurisdictions should take a program- matic approach to identify and address barriers (e.g., permit fees, regulatory uncertainty/confusion) to improve shoreline compliance rates and achieve outcomes that protect salmon habitat. Coordination and sharing of lessons learned across jurisdictions and the larger Puget Sound are recommended to improve efficiency. Policies »Land Use (LU)1: Ensure salmon recovery priorities are integrated into long-range planning efforts, including Shoreline Master Programs, Compre- hensive Plans, and Open Space and Parks Plans. Planning documents should be consistent with the Salmon Habitat Plan and support implementation of habitat protection and restoration priorities. WRIA 9 should provide technical assistance to pro- mote compatibility. »LU2: Land use development, annexation, and cap- ital improvement programs within the watershed should be consistent with the salmon recovery plan and promote progress towards achieving the necessary future conditions (and associated imple- mentation targets) for a viable salmon population. Development proposals should be evaluated with respect to impacts on key habitat indicators and identified habitat projects for the respective subwa- tershed. »LU3: Local governments should use compre- hensive plans and associated land use policies to direct growth and development within existing Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to protect ecologically important landscapes in rural areas. Specifically, avoid future expansions to existing UGAs that could result in additional land conversion and landscape degradation. »LU4: Strictly apply and improve compliance with critical area, shoreline, vegetation conservation, floodplain, and agricultural regulations designed to protect important ecological habitats. Avoid use of variances in priority areas identified for protection and restoration in the salmon habitat plan. »LU5: Local governments should support flexible development tools that encourage protection and/ or restoration of ecologically important salmon habitat. Possible tools include, but are not limited to, transferable development rights, mitigation banking/ reserve programs, incentive zoning, Green Shores for Homes, and Public Benefit Rating System tax programs. »LU6: WRIA 9 partners should incorporate sea level rise projections into long-range planning docu- ments, habitat project designs, and development standards to promote long-term ecosystem resil- iency. Nearshore habitats adjacent to armored shorelines could be lost as water levels rise (i.e., coastal squeeze) if shorelines remain fixed. Low- lying shoreline areas should be identified to support landward migration of nearshore habitat as sea levels rise where appropriate. »LU7: Encourage certified development standards (e.g., Built Green, Salmon-Safe Certification, and Green Shores for Homes) that minimize the impacts of urban development on the natural environment. Incentives could include reductions in flexible development standards, expedited permitting, and reduced or waived permit costs. »LU8: Incorporate Salmon-Safe Certification stan- dards into best management practices for park and grounds maintenance procedures. Certification is available for parks system, golf courses, and urban development. Salmon-Safe Certification is a peer-re- viewed certification and accreditation program that promotes practices that protect water quality, improve watershed health and restore habitat. »LU9: Local governments should evaluate shorelines and critical areas, open space (e.g., parks and golf courses), and public lands with respect to identified salmon habitat priorities and notify WRIA 9 staff prior to approving significant land use conversion, or pursuing sale/exchange of public lands. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 70 »LU10: Incorporate Green Shores for Homes Certifi- cation standards into best management practices for residential shoreline development. The WRIA should support municipal efforts to establish a Green Shores for Homes certification process during permit review to help expedite permitting. Green Shores for Homes is an EPA-funded certifica- tion and accreditation program that was developed by technical Shore Friendly design of shoreline properties. Plan Implementation and Funding Location: All Subwatersheds The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Interlocal Agreement provides a framework for managing and coordinating imple- mentation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. It recognizes that salmon recovery transcends political bound- aries and calls for strong collaboration between local, state, and federal partners. Success hinges on strong relationships, strategic coordination, and collective action. Working effectively across such a diverse landscape as the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound requires creative partnerships with non-traditional partners. Leveraging shared resources to implement multi-benefit projects will help overcome land availability constraints and high restoration costs. Programs »Basin Stewardship Support and expand existing basin stewardship programs across the Green/Duwamish subwater- sheds. Basin stewards are instrumental to imple- mentation of the salmon habitat plan. They advo- cate for salmon recovery, coordinate across diverse stakeholders, and build on-the-ground relationships that facilitate large capital restoration projects. Key tasks for basin stewardship include: • Coordinating and implementing restoration proj- ects; • Coordination and collaboration across jurisdic- tions; • Securing grant funding (including grant writing) for restoration and acquisition projects; • Promoting voluntary stewardship on private property; • Responding to citizen inquiries concerning water- shed issues; and • Expanding public education and outreach oppor- tunities Basin stewardship covers the Middle and Lower Green River sub-basins, Miller and Walker Creek basins, and Vashon Island. Priorities for expan- sion include mainland nearshore and Duwamish sub-basins. »Land Conservation Initiative (LCI) The LCI represents a coordinated effort to preserve river corridors, urban open space, trails, natural lands, farmland and forestlands. It is a regional collaboration between King County, cities, business people, farmers, environmental partners, and others to strategically preserve our last, most important places. The initiative sets forth the goal of conserv- ing and preserving 65,000 acres of high conser- vation value lands throughout King County within the next 30 years. The primary funding source is the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) fund, which is a property tax on all parcels in the county. The LCI is an important funding source for pursuing open space acquisitions throughout the Green/ Duwamish watershed. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the LCI to execute high-priority land acquisitions within the Green River Corridor to improve hydrological integrity, support salmon recovery, and expand recreational opportunity. Much of WRIA 9 is mapped as an “opportunity area” where households lack access to open space. Implementation of the LCI has the potential to align salmon recovery investments with needed invest- ments to address equitable access to open space throughout the watershed. »U.S. Army Corps Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) WRIA 9 partners should continue to engage U.S. Army Corps leadership to advocate for appropri- ation of funding to implement ERP projects. The original collaborative effort resulted in identification of 45 projects, 29 of which were carried forward in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. U.S. Congress autho- rized $113 million in 2000 to be cost shared be- tween the federal (65%) and local partners (35%). Since the 2005 Plan, 13 of the original projects have AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update PAGE 71 been completed, with seven completed under the ERP authorization (e.g., North Winds Weir, Codiga Farms, Riverview Side Channel) and six completed by local sponsors (e.g., Porter Levee Setback, Fen- ster levee Setback, and Gale Creek). The Congressionally authorized ERP represents an important federal resource to support critically needed and underfunded salmon restoration work in the watershed. As of 2016, the ERP has only been allocated 8.25 percent of the authorized amount. A 2018 Green/Duwamish ERP Comprehensive Cost Update removed 12 projects based on the ratio of perceived habitat value to cost and the presence of hazardous materials. However, the recommend- ed “de-scoped” plan still includes a number of high-priority projects including NE Auburn Creek and the Hamakami, Turley, and Lones levee setback projects. The cost update for the modified ERP scope is $260 million and the congressionally au- thorized cost adjusted for inflation is $269 million. Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River. The project, sponsored by the City of Kent, was constructed in 2012 in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Photo: City of Kent. Policies »Implementation (I)1: The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Inter- local Agreement outlines the governance, funding, and decision-making structure for coordination and implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. »I2: Process-based habitat restoration – where feasible – is preferable to other approaches that rely on more intensive human intervention. However, the magnitude of alteration within portions of the watershed render true restoration of degraded pro- cesses infeasible in some locations. Rehabilitation and substitution projects require additional moni- toring and maintenance to ensure desired functions are achieved. WRIA 9 should support periodic investments in adaptive management of completed projects to ensure maximize long-term ecological benefits. »I3: Support use of mitigation funds to implement priority salmon habitat enhancement projects. Off- site mitigation programs (e.g., in-lieu fee and mitiga- tion banking) can help improve ecological function in critical locations (e.g., Chinook Wind in the Duwamish Transition Zone) as a means of offsetting unavoidable impacts in less sensitive areas of the watershed. Development of mitigation opportuni- ties should be coordinated with the WRIA to ensure proposals are consistent with and do not preclude identified salmon recovery priorities. The WRIA should explore the potential for innovative partner- ships that could combine mitigation and restoration funding to expand the overall ecosystem benefit of habitat projects. However, habitat improvements AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE 72 associated with mitigation funds must be tracked as separate and discrete from those achieved with restoration-based grant funding. »I4: Salmon recovery planning and habitat project development should integrate social justice and equity considerations. Public access and recre- ational improvements should be considered where demonstrated need exists and when compatible with salmon recovery goals. WRIA 9 should seek multiple benefit solutions that consider displace- ment and social justice issues. »I5: Coordinate Salmon Habitat Plan implementation with other watershed-wide and regional initiatives to identify synergies, leverage available funding, avoid conflicts, and improve salmon recovery out- comes. Existing watershed-wide and regional initia- tives include the King County Flood Hazard Man- agement Plan, King County Flood Control District Lower Green River Corridor Plan, Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Cleanup, Puget Sound Action Agenda, Our Green Duwamish, WRIA 9 Watershed Restoration Enhancement Committee, and the Puget Sound South Central Action Area Local Inte- grating Organization. »I6: Support examining new funding sources and fi- nancing strategies for implementing priority habitat projects and programs throughout Puget Sound. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum will seek representa- tion on regional committees tasked with the exam- ination of public and private funding strategies at the local and regional level. »I7: Salmon recovery funding should support adaptive management of previously constructed projects where monitoring data shows design changes are necessary to improve habitat function. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 73 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 7: Capital Projects Salmon recovery capital projects preserve, enhance, create or restore the habitats and physical processes that support salmon. Projects include acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement approaches. Although significant progress has been made im- plementing projects identified in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, many projects remain unfunded and under-resourced. Since 2005, 165 projects have been completed or are in progress, totalling over $160 million of investments. While many of the remain- ing projects identified within the 2005 Plan are still viable, other opportunities have been lost to develop- ment and/or a change in ownership. This update provides a current, comprehensive list of potential capital projects that align with established goals for Chinook salmon recovery in WRIA 9. A couple of plan amendments added new projects to the 2005 Plan, including: a 2007 plan amendment; and the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint. As part of the 2020 update, all projects described in the plan (and its amendments) or the appendices of the plan were evaluated for inclusion in updated project list. WRIA 9 staff developed an updated list of capital projects in partnership with ILA member jurisdic- tions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. Partners were asked to submit projects and provide specific project infor- mation including a project sponsor, location, scope, goals, alignment with recovery strategies, and pro- jected habitat gains. In some cases, an identified project did not have a clear sponsor, but was includ- ed due to the perceived importance of the project. The request for projects primarily targeted Chinook salmon-focused projects, but several coho salmon projects were accepted. A few additional project guidelines were developed in refining the project list: •Policies and Programs – Project submittals were not required for actions that fell within the scope of larger programmatic actions (e.g., fish barrier removal). •Discrete footprint – Projects were required to articulate a specific project footprint to support evaluation of feasibility and magnitude of ecologi- cal benefit. •Implementable within 10–15 years – Project spon- sors were directed to submit projects that could be implemented within a 10–15-year timeframe, provid- ed adequate funding and landowner willingness. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 74 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Project Prioritization A team of subject matter experts was recruited to review, evaluate and tier projects for inclusion in the Plan. This four-person prioritization team brought expertise in restoration ecology, fish biology, and habitat project management, and over 50 years of knowledge from working in the Green/Duwamish River and Central Puget Sound. A balance of inter- ests was represented to eliminate bias for specific projects. The review process evaluated all concep- tual projects based on their full potential to provide habitat lift. Future constraints identified during design and feasibility could impact overall project scope and associated benefits. Project prioritization was based on subject matter expert evaluation of: • Habitat Quality (lift): the relative importance and value of a specific proposed habitat; and • Habitat Quantity (size): the potential amount (acreage and shoreline length) of habitat created or enhanced based on the entire project footprint. The scoring process was weighted so that habitat quality comprised 75 percent of the score and habitat quantity comprised 25 percent of the score. The tier- ing process assumes habitat benefits are positively correlated with size. Larger projects not only provide more habitat, they allow increased habitat heteroge- neity. Smaller, more homogeneous habitats, are less resilient to perturbations, and site constraints can be problematic for optimizing habitat. A small modifier was added to allow consideration of high-value geo- graphic locations (e.g., proximity to existing restora- tion sites, feeder bluff, etc.). Potential lift reflects the projected immediate and long-term habitat benefits to addressing limiting factors for Chinook salmon re- covery. Processed-based restoration was considered to provide more certainty of long-term benefits. A total of 118 projects were submitted and ranked as part of the project solicitation process. Projects were ranked within a specific subwatershed – not across subwatersheds. Given the large number of projects, projects were tiered based on overall benefit and to provide an indication of priority for financial support from the WRIA. Tiers were defined as follows: • Tier 1 - high potential; substantially contribute to recovery goals in each subwatershed. • Tier 2 - moderate potential; clear alignment with Chinook salmon recovery goals. • Tier 3 - limited potential; associated with Chinook recovery (or not primary species impacted); com- pliments broader recovery efforts in the subwater- shed. A simplified scoring methodology based on habitat quantity and quality provides a foundation for long- term planning by setting high-level implementation priorities within each subwatershed. Tiers were as- signed to projects by identifying natural breakpoints in the full list of projects within a subwatershed. These established breakpoints serve as a scoring baseline for projects received through future biennial calls for projects. Future proposed projects will be scored under the same criteria and assigned a tier. The proposed project will be added to the tiered list for future funding, with near-term funding priority giv- en to those projects previously identified as in need of funding. The final list of projects was approved unanimously by the Implementation Technical Committee and Wa- tershed Ecosystem Forum in 2019 and will serve as the comprehensive list of recovery actions that help achieve recovery goals, and ultimately toward the delisting of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. 19Duwamish(DUW) Middle Green (MG) Lower Green (LG) 1 Upper Green (UG) Number of WRIA 9 Projects by Subwatershed 39 Nearshore (NS) 14 45 Figure 25. Number of projects by subwatershed. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 75 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Capital Project Information by Subwatershed containing: • Subwatershed project location maps • Subwatershed project listings with tier rankings • Project fact sheets with site maps Marine Nearshore Subwatershed ................................p. 76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed .............................p. 102 Lower Green River Subwatershed ..............................p. 116 Middle Green River Subwatershed ............................p. 146 Upper Green River Subwatershed ............................p. 160 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Marine Nearshore Subwatershed 39 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 17 projects Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 8 projects NS-2 ...........Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow Water Habitat NS-16 .........Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration and Water Quality Improvements NS-22 ........Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation NS-35 ........Lower Shinglemill Creek habitat restoration NS-39 ........Walker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition NS-40 .......Salmon Creek Fish Barrier Removal NS-42 ........Miller Creek Regional Detention Facility NS-54 ........West Galer Street/32nd St. Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration NS-58 ........Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration Project NS-59 ........Mileta Armor removal and shoreline restoration NS-68........Longfellow Creek Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration NS-70 ........Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage NS-72 ........Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration Project/Perkins Lane Utility Access Road NS-73 ........Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Project Tier 3 (Score <7) 14 projects PAGE 76 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-7 ...........Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-8 ..........Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries NS-11 ..........Beaconsfield on the Sound NS-15 .........McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff restoration NS-21 .........Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-23 ........Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions NS-24 ........Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-28 ........Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration NS-29 ........Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation NS-43 ........Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration NS-45 ........Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration NS-49 ........Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal NS-53 ........Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration NS-61 .........Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration NS-62 ........Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-63 ........Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration NS-66........Camp Kilworth Protection NS-13 .........Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project NS-14 .........Raab’s Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration NS-25 ........Judd Creek Pocket Estuary NS-27 ........Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration NS-31 .........Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration NS-44........Portage Salt Marsh Restoration NS-60 .......Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration NS-67 ........Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 77 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 509 518 99 99 99 5 5 5 Miller Cr Puget Sound Elliott Bay NS-28 NS-27NS-61NS-62 NS-43 NS-24 NS-63 NS-21 NS-8NS-7 NS-2 NS-68 NS-72 NS-70 NS-45 NS-73 NS-35 NS-29 NS-60 NS-59 NS-58 NS-66 NS-16 NS-67 NS-13 NS-42 NS-40 NS-49 NS-54 NS-53 NS-31 NS-22 NS-11 NS-25 NS-15 NS-14 NS-39 NS-23 NS-44 NS-23 SEATTLE SEATTLE Vashon Island Maury Island SEATAC FEDERAL WAY BURIEN DES MOINES DES MOINES NORMANDY PARK NORMANDY PARK River mile Project location and name Project location and name River/creek Major road King County boundary Maine Nearshore Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks Incorporated area Open water 1 NS-1 NS-1 0 1 2 3 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map issubject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_NS.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-7 Agren ParkWestside Hwy SWMcIntyre Rd SWSW Cove Rd Puget Sound Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Nearshore Pocket Estuary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect and improve riparian vegetation, improve tributary access, remove armoring and fill, increase vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats, protect and enhance pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths. Tier 1 Project: NS-7 Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI – 13-28; KI - 11-7) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 78 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-8 HitchingsProperty86th Pl SW87th Ave SW90th Ave SWSW Dilworth Rd 91st Ave SWSW Soper Rd SW Gorsu c h R d Puget Sound Vashon Island K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties at the mouth of Dillworth and Gorsuch Creeks to restore stream delta and pocket estuary habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-8 Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 12 - 4) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY PAGE 79 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-11 Marine ViewParkMar ine V iew D r SW Puget Sound NORMANDY PARK K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park Incorp. Area Boundary RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect and restore 1085 ft. of active feeder blu along mainland marine nearshore. Tier 1 Project: NS-11 Beaconsfield on the Sound PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Normandy Park (KI-7-3) Banksidejurisdiction: Normandy Park Project sponsor: Normandy Park Budget: $600,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT NS-15 Saltwater State ParkMa r in e V i ew D r S Puget Sound DES MOINES K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Incorp. Area Boundary Restoration Acquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Monitoring &Assessment Enhancement/Planting Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore historic pocket estuary, protect feeder blus, remove marine shoreline armoring and enhance low-impact recreational activities. Tier 1 Project: NS-15McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Des Moines (KI - 8 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Federal Way Project sponsor: Des Moines Budget: $20,838,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 80 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-15 Saltwater State ParkMa r in e V i ew D r S Puget Sound DES MOINES K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Incorp. Area Boundary Restoration Acquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Monitoring &Assessment Enhancement/Planting Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore historic pocket estuary, protect feeder blus, remove marine shoreline armoring and enhance low-impact recreational activities. Tier 1 Project: NS-15McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Des Moines (KI - 8 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Des Moines Project sponsor: King County/ State Parks Budget: $20,838,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 81 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Burma Rd S W NS-21 Puget Sound Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Project Area RestorationAcquisition $ NearshoreFeeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore nearshore habitat by removing shoreline debris, hard armor, and derelict docks. Tier 1 Project: NS-21 Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 11-2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 82 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-23NS-23 Vashon Commons Point HeyerNatural Area Ellisport Wildlands OberPark 87th Ave SWSW Cemetery Rd Monument Rd SWDockton R d SW SW Cove Rd Beall Rd SWSW Bank Rd SW 204th St SW Elli s port Rd Geor ge Ed wards RdVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound 0 3,000 Feet Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NPublic Lands Park Project Area 0 2,000 ft. RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to protect and restore beach feeding processes and salt marsh at spit. Tier 1 Project: NS-23 Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $10,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: PAGE 83 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 84 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-28 Frog Holler Forest Trails Frog HollerForest LostLake SpringBeachSpringBeach Neill PointNatural Area Spring BeachNatural AreaSpring BeachNatural Area Lost LakeNatural Area Inspiration Pt.Natural Area Forest Glen Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Wax Orchard Rd SWVashon Hwy SWVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound Puget Sound Maury Island Vashon Island K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 2,000 ft.Public Lands Park Trail RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore about 209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with approximately 4615 feet of blu-backed beach shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-28 Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 13-20) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-24 147th Ave SW147th Ave SWRaymond Rd SWRaymond Rd SWSW Reddings Beach RdSW Reddings Beach RdSW ReddingsBeach Rd SW ReddingsBeach Rd SW Cross Landing Rd 145 th P l SW 145 th P l SW UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Vashon IslandPuget Sound K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 200 400 ft.Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire beach feeding parcels, remove fill, restore salt marsh, remove road, and reroute road drainage. Tier 1 Project: NS-24 Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI – 13 – 23) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 85 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-28 Frog Holler Forest Trails Frog HollerForest LostLake SpringBeachSpringBeach Neill PointNatural Area Spring BeachNatural AreaSpring BeachNatural Area Lost LakeNatural Area Inspiration Pt.Natural Area Forest Glen Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Wax Orchard Rd SWVashon Hwy SWVashon Hwy SWPuget Sound Puget Sound Maury Island Vashon Island K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP NProject Area 0 2,000 ft.Public Lands Park Trail RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore about 209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with approximately 4615 feet of blu-backed beach shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-28 Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 13-20) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 86 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-43 Dockton Forest,Dockton Natural Area andMaury Is. Natural Area Trails Maury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Dockton Natural Area DocktonPark 99th Ave SWDockton Rd SWSW D o c k S t Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N05001,000 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. Tier 1 Project: NS-43 Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 8) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Park Trail Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY NS-29UFOErraticFeeder LineMI N A TMINATDockton Forest Trails M I N A T (M aury Island N atu ra l A r e a T r a ils )MINA T Gravel GrinderMaury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Park TrailSW 275th Sandy Shores Dr SWK ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Restoration Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove invasive species, add topsoil, and revegetate about a mile of marine shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-29 Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 14 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,050,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Green River Trail - Kent Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 87 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-43 Dockton Forest,Dockton Natural Area andMaury Is. Natural Area Trails Maury IslandNatural Area DocktonForest Dockton Natural Area DocktonPark 99th Ave SWDockton Rd SWSW D o c k S t Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N05001,000 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. Tier 1 Project: NS-43 Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 8) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,600,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Park Trail Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 88 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-45 Point Defiance- Tahlequah Ferry Loading DockVashon Hwy SWSW P o h l R d SW T a h l e q u a h R d 131st Ave SWPuget Sound Tahlequah Cr.Tahlequah Cr.Slai g h t e r ’ s C r . PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, restore creek meander and fish passage, remove bulkhead, and restore nearshore, estuary and marsh habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-45 Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI - 13 - 21, KI - 13 - 22) Jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: Vashon/Maury Budget: $7,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY NS-49 Arroyos Natural Area Arroyo Heights Park Arroyo Heights Park SW 106th St SW 108th St M arin e Vie w Dr S WPuget Sound Seattle Park PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Park Restoration Nearshore Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 700 feet of rip rap and timber bulkhead along the shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-49 Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI -5 - 1) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 89 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-49 Arroyos Natural Area Arroyo Heights Park Arroyo Heights Park SW 106th St SW 108th St M arin e Vie w Dr S WPuget Sound Seattle Park PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Park Restoration Nearshore Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 700 feet of rip rap and timber bulkhead along the shoreline. Tier 1 Project: NS-49 Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI -5 - 1) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-53 MagnoliaPark Magnolia Tidelands Park MagnoliaPlayfieldParkmontPlaceCarletonCenter EastmontPlace Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park Mag n o l i a B l v d W W McGraw St Viewmont Way WMontavistaPl WWest Vi ewm ont Way W 34th Ave WW Lynn St 34th A v e W Puget Sound Seattle 0 200 400 PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Tier 1 Project: NS-53 Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI - 3 - 2) Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 90 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-28NS-61 Lost Lake Lost Lake Natural Area Northilla Beach Natural Area Manzanita Natural Area Inspiration Point Natural Area Hake Rd SW101st Ave SWSW Nor t h i l l a R d SW 268th St 101st Ave SWSW 280th St Ma n z a n i t a B e a c h R d SW Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park 0 1,000 ft.500 RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Tier 1 Project: NS-61 Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $15,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Maury Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PAGE 91 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Spring Beach Spring BeachNatural Area SW Spring Beach Rd139th Ave SW141st Ave SW143rd Ave SWSW P o h l R d Puget Sound PROJECT AREA MAP N K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands ParkPublic Lands Park 0 800 ft.400 RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore shoreline and forage fish habitat. Tier 1 Project: NS-62 Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-62 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PAGE 92 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update SW 207th Ln SW 208th St SW 216th St SW Mad rona Rd141st Ave SW135th Ave SWS W M a d r o n a R d SW Madrona RdPuget Sound Green Valley Cr. PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire undeveloped lots along the Green Valley Creek, restore creek mouth, and remove hard shoreline armor. Tier 1 Project: NS-63 Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 26) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $4,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-63 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 93 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update SW 207th Ln SW 208th St SW 216th St SW Mad rona Rd141st Ave SW135th Ave SWS W M a d r o n a R d SW Madrona RdPuget Sound Green Valley Cr. PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands RestorationAcquisition $ Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire undeveloped lots along the Green Valley Creek, restore creek mouth, and remove hard shoreline armor. Tier 1 Project: NS-63 Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI - 13 - 26) Banksidejurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $4,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: NS-63 Vashon Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 94 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update NS-66 Palisades Park Dumas BayPark SR 509 SR 509 Puget Sound FEDERAL WAY PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft. K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle Public Lands Public Lands Park Acquisition $ Nearshore Feeder Blu Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder blus Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect 900 feet of active feeder blus that occurs in the first third of the drift cell. Tier 1 Project: NS-66 Camp Kilworth Protection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Federal Wa y (KI - 10 - 3) Banksidejurisdiction: Federal Way Project sponsor: Forterra and Kilworth Environmental Education Preserve (KEEP) Budget: $3,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Inc. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 95 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Riparian SouthMarinaPark Overlook Park I Marine View Dr SS 223rd St 7th Ave SS 227th St Puget Sound DESMOINES 509 516NS-13 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-13Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire and restore the stream, create fish passage, remove the jetty and rock from the south bank, and create a pocket estuary. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: $3,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-13.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Riparian RaabsLagoonNaturalArea Dockton Rd SW80th Ave SWSW 234th St 75th Ave SWKingsbury Rd SWQuartermaster Harbor UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYMAURY ISLAND NS-14 Tier 2 Project: NS-14Raab's Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire vacant lots, restore riparian forest habitat and connectivity by removing the weir and bulkhead. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 9 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-14.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 96 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Judd C r e ek Marjorie R. StanleyNatural Area SW 232nd St SW Quartermaster DrVashon Hwy SWUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND Quartermaster Harbor NS-25 Tier 2 Project: NS-25Judd Creek Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore habitat with wood placement, removal of derelict barge, and additional vegetation near mouth of Judd Creek. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 0 - 1 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Nearshore Pocket Estuary KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-25.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands/Easements N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian PinerPointNaturalAreaNorthillaBeachNaturalArea99th Ave SWSW Nort h i l l a R d Point Piner Rd SWSW Summerhurst Rd 101st Ave SWSW 280th St Puget Sound UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT NS-27 NS-27 Tier 2 Project: NS-27Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder blus. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 8 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-27.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands/Easements N05001,000 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 97 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Nearshore Feeder Blu NS-31 DiscoveryPark CarletonHighlandsMagnoliaTidelandsPark Magnolia Blvd WW Dravus St Magnolia Blvd WW Dravus St W Emerson StW Emerson St Puget Sound SEATTLE NS-31 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-31Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder blus. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: TBD Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-31.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Feeder Blu Riparian Tramp HarborDock Dockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWDockton Rd SWSW Quartermaster DrSW Quartermaster Dr PortageWay SWPuget Sound Quartermaster harbor NS-44 UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYMAURY ISLAND IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-44Portage Salt Marsh Restoration Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Install bridge or box culverts, restore fish access, and restore habitat to salt marsh. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 6 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-44.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Riparian Ellis CreekNatural Area Tramp Harbor Dock 8 7 t h A v e SW Dockton Rd SW 8 7 t h A v e SW Dockton Rd SW SW Ellisport RdSW Ellisport Rd Puget SoundEl l i sport CreekUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTYVASHON ISLAND NS-60 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-60Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire and restore habitat at Ellisport Creek stream mouth, and allow for fish passage. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 13 - 4; KI - 13 - 5 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-60.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Nearshore Pocket Estuary Planning/ Design Riparian NS-67 Des Moines Creek TrailDes Moines Creek TrailDes MoinesBeach Park Des MoinesCreek Park South Marina Park OverlookPark I OverlookPark II S 223rd St S 222nd St S 223rd St S 222nd St 7th Ave SS 227th St S 216th St Des MoinesMemorial Dr SS 216th StS 216th St DES MOINES NORMANDYPARK 509 Puget Sound NS-67 Des Moines CreekIMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: NS-67Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Remove approximately 500 feet of hard shoreline armor and pull back fill material to create a more natural shoreline and stream transition. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: TBD Restoration PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_NS-67.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Nearshore Pocket Estuary Project No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment NS-2 Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow Water Habitat • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Remove shoreline armor and restore natural beach adjacent to a previously created pocket beach. Seattle Parks and Recreation Nearshore KI - 4 - 1 - NAD Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-16 Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration and Water Quality Improvements • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Project will remove armoring to restore estuary and re-align creek to more sinuous route. Improve water quality in park through parking lot improvements, reduce erosion associated with stormwater runoff, creosote-treated pedestrian bridge replacement, and wetland enhancement. Washington State Parks & Recreation Nearshore KI - MA - 014 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Federal Way LG- Off-channel habitat NS-22 Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation Planning/Design Remove some level of shoreline armor and plant native vegetation along a stretch of barren riprap. The riprap leads to a protected sandy pocket beach that exists at all tidal elevations. There may be additional opportunity for nearshore restoration on adjacent Port property. The Port also has a marine habitat restoration pilot site adjacent to this project. Seattle Parks and Recreation Nearshore KI - 3 -2/3 - 3 - NAD, KI - 3 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-35 Lower Shinglemill Creek Habitat Restoration Restoration Add LWD into stream reach west of Cedarhurst Road.King County Nearshore KI - 11 - 4 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline conservation Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects (continued on next page) PAGE 98 PAGE 99 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) NS-39 Walker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Restoration & Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance The project plan is to seek partnership or acquisition opportunities with the property owners within the project area, with the goal of acquiring and restoring additional contiguous areas beyond the current city-owned wetland parcels within the project site. City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Burien Shoreline conservation NS-40 Salmon Creek Fish Barrier Removal • Planning/Design • Restoration The project plan is to seek a partnership or acquisition opportunities with the property owners within the project area, with the goals of removing the fish-barrier weir at the mouth of the creek, and removing and replacing a culvert with a modern fish passable one. City of Burien Nearshore KI - 5 - 1 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Burien • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-42 Miller Creek Regional Detention Facility Planning/Design The project plan is to identify one or more large commercial properties in Burien that have no existing stormwater treatment or flow control, and partner with them to construct regional stormwater facilities on their site(s). City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and enhance sediment and water quality City of Burien Shoreline conservation NS-54 West Galer Street/32nd St. Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Remove/reduce shoreline armoring, remove fill, relocate an SPU-owned pump station if feasible, and re-vegetate shoreline. Potential acquisition of adjacent properties. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle Shoreline armor NS-58 Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration Project Restoration & Acquisition Restore fish passage and salt marsh habitat at mouth of creek. King County Nearshore KI - 13 - 15 / KI - 13 - 14 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-59 Mileta Armor Removal and shoreline restoration Restoration Remove shoreline armoring, evaluate and improve fish passage. King County Nearshore KI - 13 - 10 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-68 Longfellow Creek Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Restoration & Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance This project will evaluate restoration opportunities at five sites along a 1.7-mile section of Longfellow Creek. Future restoration may include: floodplain reconnection, fish passage improvements (culvert replacements or daylighting), stream channel realignment, stream channel and riparian restoration, wetland creation and/or enhancement. Seattle Public Utilities RM 0 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance riparian corridors City of Seattle DUW - Riparian forest NS-70 Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Restoration & Acquisition Replace two aging fish passage barrier culverts with new culverts that meet fish passage standards. Includes partial daylighting and stream channel restoration. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore / KI - 5 - 1 Restore and improve fish passage City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor NS-72 Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration Project/Perkins Lane Utility Access Road • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Assess feasibility of modifying the utility service road and sewer access points in order to remove shoreline armor and restore to a natural beach. Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-73 Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Project Restoration Replace current surface water extraction system with a fish friendly system to allow for the return of salmon and other salmonids Water District 19 2923039086/Water District 19 Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines Water District 19 • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation Project No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects, continued PAGE 100 PAGE 101 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 9 projects DUW-18 ....Codiga Off-channel Habitat Expansion DUW-22 ...Cecil Moses DUW-24 ...Carrossino Restoration DUW-26 ...S 104th St. Bank Stabilization/Restoration DUW-3 ......Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback DUW-60 ...Herring’s House Park Fish Access Improvement DUW-61 ....George Long DUW-63 ...S. 115th St. Road Setback Tier 3 (Score <7) 2 projects DUW-14 ....Duwamish Waterway Park DUW-19 ....Southgate Creek Restoration Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed 19 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 8 projects DUW-2 ......Rendering Plant DUW-7 ......Chinook Wind DUW-7a ....Chinook Wind - Extension DUW-25 ...Desimone Oxbow Restoration DUW-29 ...Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek DUW-32 ...Duwamish River People’s Park & Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) DUW-64 ...U-Haul River Project DUW-66 ...Terminal 25 South PAGE 102 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-67.......Codiga to TCC Corridor AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-3 DUW-2 DUW-7 DUW-7a DUW-18 DUW-64 DUW-63 DUW-66 DUW-61 DUW-60 DUW-29 DUW-26 DUW-25 DUW-24DUW-22 DUW-19 DUW-18 DUW-14 DUW-32 2 1 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 12 10 11 Lake Washington Duwamish R iver Miller CreekGreen R iver Black River 405 900 599 518 509 99 99 99 5 Spokane St. Viaduct Lake Washington Puget Sound Elliott Bay Lake Burien SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY TUKWILA SEATAC RENTON MERCER ISLAND Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_DUW.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area Line Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Open water Public lands Incorporated Area Figure __ Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects 1 N 0 1/2 Mile October 2020 1/4 West Seattle Bridge DUW-1 PAGE 103 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Figure 27. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-2 RM 10 Gr e e n R i v e r T r a i l - T u k w i l a Gre en R. T r a i l - Lower Foster Golf Links Foster Golf Links 57th Ave. SMini Park Int e r u r b a n A v e S 68th Ave S 900 5 D uw a m i s h River TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY RENTON DUW-2 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N0 200 400 600 ft Backwater Side Channel Floodplain Riparian Edge Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore seven + acres with side channel and backwater habitat enhancements and reforestation. Tier 1 Project: DUW-2 Rendering Plant PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 10.1 - 9.7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,730,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 104 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 6Green R iver Tra i l - Lowe r G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tukw i l a Site 1 Duwamish Cecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S99 99 599 D u w a m i s h R iver TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SDUW-7DUW-64 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public landsPark N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance low velocity, shallow water rearing rearing habitat (shallow subtidal and intertidal) in the Duwamish transition zone. Tier 1 Project: DUW-7 Chinook Wind PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: King County Budget: $14,900,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PAGE 105 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 6Green R iver Tra i l - Lowe r G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tuk w i l a Site 1 DuwamishCecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S 99 99 599 D u w a m i s h River TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SDUW-64 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public LandsPark N0200400600 ftInc. Area Boundary Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance the land between Chinook Wind Mitigation and Duwamish Gardens to create a unified park and rest. Tier 1 Project: DUW-7a Chinook Wind Extension PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.8/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $1,418,000 Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Edge Planning/ Design PAGE 106 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) DUW-25 6 RM 6 Duwamish River Green R iver Tra il - Lower Site 1 Duwamish Cecil Moses Memorial Park Turning Basin Number 3 East Ma rg ina l Way SEast Ma rg ina l Way S E a s t M a rg ina l Wa y S E a s t M a rg ina l Wa y STukwila Intl BlvdTukwila Intl BlvdS Boeing Access RdS Boeing Access Rd Airpo r t Wa y S Interurban Interurban Av e . S . Av e . S . 99 TUKWILA SEATTLE BURIEN K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public LandsPark N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 45.4-acre site located on the western shore of the Duwamish River between river miles 5 and 6 resulting in 23.6 acres of marsh created, 10.8 acres of vegetation, and 34.4 acres refuge habitat created. Tier 1 Project: DUW-25 Desimone Oxbow Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 5.3/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: Unknown Budget: $84,193,945 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Side ChannelRiparianEdge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat PAGE 107 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 5 DUW-29Duwamish River G r e e n R i v e r T r a i l - L o w e r Port of Seattle Tr ails Hamm CreekNatural Area Turning BasinNumber 3 D e s M o i n e s M em o r i a l D r S 99 TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N0200400600 ft Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create o channel habitat and shallow water esturarine habitat in the area north of the existing Duwamish 230 kV - 26 kV substation. Tier 1 Project: DUW-29 Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 5.0 - 4.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle City Light Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Nearshore Pocket Estuary Restoration Tributary PAGE 108 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 4 DUW-32 Duwamish Ri verGreen River Trail - LowerDuwamish Trail King County International Airport Boeing Field 14th Ave S16th Ave SEast M ar g inal W ay S S Cloverdale St S R 99 99 TUKWIL A SEATTLE SEATTLE UNINCORPORATED KING COUNT Y K ING C O U N T Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftIncorp. Area Boundary Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 Primary strategy Protect , restore, and enhance channel complexit y and edge habitat . Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivit y • Recreation oppor tunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tier 1 Project: DUW-32Duwamish River People’s Park &Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish 4.5 - 4.1 / left bank Jurisdiction: Por t of Seattle Project sponsor: Por t of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Restore approximately 13.5 acres and 2,050 linear feet of upland and aquatic habitats. The project will expand o-channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring, and add large wood. PAGE 109 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 110 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-64 RM 6Green River Trail - Lower G r e e n R i v e r T r ail - Tuk w i l a Site 1 Duwamish Cecil MosesMemorial Park Tukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way S 99 99 599 D u w a m i s h River TUKWILA BURIEN East Marginal Way SK ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Incorp. Area BoundaryPublic LandsPark N0200400600 ft Riparian Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish MarshDuwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 4.4-acre parcel by creating o-channel mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat. Tier 1 Project: DUW-64 U-Haul River Project PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 6.3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $11,770,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Backwater Edge Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 111 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-66 Duwamish River Duwamish RiverDuwamish River Elliott Bay TrailWest Seattle Bridge Trail Harbor MarinaCorporate Centerat Terminal 102 SW Spokane St E Marginal Way SS Spokane St West Seattle Brg E Marginal Way SWest Seattle Bridge Seattle Harbor Island UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY 99 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftPark Backwater Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore critically needed estuarine in the East Waterway. Project will expand o-channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring & creosote pile, and add large wood. Tier 1 Project: DUW-66 Terminal 25 South PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish 0.4 / right bank Jurisdiction: Port of Seattle Project sponsor: Port of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 Project: DUW-3 Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback the revetment, create shallow water edge habitat with backwater refuge for salmonids, and improve shoreline conditions in this freight district in Tukwila. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 9.7- 10.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,230,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: FloodplainEdge Enhancement/Planting Planning/ Design Acquisition $ Restoration Scoping/Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Riparian 5 6 t h P l S 5 1 s t P l S S 1 3 0 t h P l S 125th St 56th Ave S49th Ave SGa t e w a y D r 50th Ave SB e a c o n C o a l M i n e R d S S 124th St 57th Ave SS Pamela D r Private RdS 122nd Ln S 122nd St 48th Ave SS L a n g s t o n R d S 1 3 3 r d S t48th Ave S56th Ave S57th Ave SGateway Dr57th Ave S51 s t P l S 5 1 s t P l S S 1 3 0 t h P l S 124th St 57th Ave S5 1 s t P l SS 130 th P l DUW-3 Duw am is h River Gre e n River Trail - T ukwila Foster Golf Links Codiga Park Green River Trail Site S 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Int e r u r b a n A v e S TUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary DUW-3 RM 9 5 599 900 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-3.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd9RM 9Gree n RiverTrai l - T ukw ila Int e r u r b a n A v e SS 133rd StS 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Duwamish R i verTUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Codiga Park Foster Golf Links TukwilaComm.Center DUW-18 5 900 599 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Tier 2 Project: DUW-18 Codiga Off-channel Habitat Expansion PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand Codiga Park habitat restoration project by turning the backwater area into a side channel to increase rearing and refuge for salmon during higher flows. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8.6/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $642,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_ DUW-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdRiparian Side Channel Floodplain Duwamish Marsh Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Mudflat PAGE 112 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Tier 2 Project: DUW-22 Cecil Moses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhance access to and expand existing o-channel habitat to increase quality and quantity of available rearing habitat in the transition zone by expanding existing inlet/outlet, removal of tire revetment, and potential acquisition and restoration of adjacent downstream creek parcel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 6.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $5,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Duwamish Marsh Acquisition $ Restoration Duwamish Mudflat Green River Trai l - Lower Green River Trail - Tukwila Cecil Moses Memorial Park S 112th StTukwila Intl BlvdDuwami s h River TUKWILA BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY DUW-22 99 N0300600 ft150 RM 6 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-22.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary PAGE 113 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-24.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdUNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Tier 2 Project: DUW-24 Carrossino Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties and create shallow mudflat, marsh, and backwater habitats. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 6 - 6.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $16,304,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Riparian Edge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Green R iver Trail - Lower Green River Trail - Tukwila Cecil Moses Memorial Park S 112th St Tukwila Intl BlvdDuwami s h River TUKWILA BURIEN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY DUW-24 99 N0300600 ft150 RM 6 Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 114 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update DUW-26 99 RM 6 East Ma rg ina l Way SEas t Ma rg ina l Wa y SAi rpo r t Way STukwila Intl BlvdTUKWILA SEATTLE S 102nd St S 102nd StS 104t h S t D u wamish RiverTier 2 Project: DUW-26 S. 104th St. Bank Stabilization/Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, abandon and remove the road, and create shallow water edge and backwater habitat in the transition zone. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 5.6 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,930,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:Green River Tra il - Lower Backwater Riparian Edge Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-26.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdTier 2 Project: DUW-60 Herring's House Park Fish Access Improvement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adaptively manage an older restoration project to increase fish use by expanding channel opening width, removing shoreline armor and considering a bridge over the channel for recreational access. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 1.1 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $1,250,000 KEYHABITAT: Side Channel Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian PROJECTTYPE: Planning/ Design Restoration Duwamish TrailDuwamish Tra i l Puget Park West Duwamish Greenbelt Pigeon Point Park Herrings House Park (Tualtwx) Terminal 108 Park Terminal 107 Park Kellogg IslandWest Duwamish GS: Puget Park SW Da ws o n St West Marg ina l Way SW DUW-60 RM 1 Duwamish R iver SEATTLE N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-60.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 115 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 Project: DUW-61 George Long PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create backwater refuge and riparian habitat at the uppermost limit of the transition zone. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 10.4 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Edge Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Riparian IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT DUW-61 Green RiverDuwam ish R iverGreen River Tr a i l - L o w e r G r e e n R i v e r T r a i l - T u k w i l a Foster Golf Links Macadam Winter Garden Fort Dent Park S 144th St 58th Ave SIn te ru r ban A v e S SR 9 0 0 Green River TUKWILA UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY RM 10 DUW-61 N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary In t e r u r b a n A v e S KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-61.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdTier 2 Project: DUW-63 S. 115th St. Road Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate local road and create shallow water edge, backwater mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat as part of the Duwamish Hill Preserve Master Plan. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 7 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Side ChannelEdge Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat DuwamishHill Preserve S 115th St 42nd Ave SS 112th St S 115th St 42nd Ave SS 112th St East Marg ina l Way S Inte r u r b a n A v e SEast Marg ina l Way S Inte r u r b a n A v e STukwila Intl BlvdAirport Way STUKWILA RM 7 599 5 Green River Trail - Tukwila DUW-63 D u w a m i s h R iver N0300600 ft150 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_DUW-63.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Table 4 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects PAGE 116 PAGE 117 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Proj#Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal Alignment DUW-14 Duwamish Waterway Park • Acquisition • Planning/Design • Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance Acquire adjacent properties, pull back bank armoring, revegetate. incorporate recreational uses. Seattle Parks and Recreation RM 3.6/left bank Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines; City of Seattle Marine riparian vegetation Shoreline armor Shoreline conservation DUW-19 Southgate Creek Restoration • Other • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition • Scoping/Reconnaissance This project would improve fish passage, water quality and flooplain/flood- control in Southgate Creek, which is piped and channelized through most of its lower reach; the confuence of the Green would be improved for off-channel, tributary Chinook use. Studies are required. City of Tukwila RM 7.90/left bank Protect, restore and enhance instream flows and cold water refugia City of Tukwila DUW - Riparian forest DUW - Shallow water habitat 9RM 9Gree n RiverTrai l - T ukw ila Int e r u r b a n A v e SS 133rd StS 129th St 5 0 t h P l S S 124th St Duwamish R i verTUKWILA UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Codiga Park Foster Golf Links TukwilaComm.Center DUW-67 5 900 599 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0 300 600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Tier 2 Project: DUW-67 Codiga to TCC Corridor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to create a public greenbelt and shallow water and riparian habitat extending from Codiga Park to the Tukwila Community Center. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8.1-8.3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $12,525,000 PROJECT TYPE:KEY HABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_ DUW-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdBackwater Duwamish Marsh Riparian EdgeAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Recon. Duwamish Mudflat Education & Outreach Enhancement/ Planting AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 118 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 19 projects LG-1 .........Reddington Habitat Creation LG-5 ........Northeast Auburn Creek Restoration LG-7 .........Mullen Slough LG-10 ......Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation LG-12 .......Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat LG-17 .......Fort Dent Revetment Setback LG-18 .......Black River Marsh LG-19 .......Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation LG-23 ......8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off-Channel Habitat LG-26......Valentine Revetment Setback Tier 3 (Score <7) 13 projects LG-2 ........Olson Creek Restoration LG-15.......Nelsen Side Channel LG-16 ......Gilliam Creek Fish Passage and Riparian Rehabilitation LG-20 .....Riverview Plaza Off-channel Habitat Creation LG-21 .......Best Western Revetment Setback LG-38 .....Fenster Slough Wetland Connection LG-43 .....Panther Creek at East Valley Road Improvement Project LG-27 ......8th Street Acquisitions LG-30 .....Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration LG-31.......South of Veteran’s Drive Floodplain Reconnection LG-32 ......Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection LG-37 ......Strander Boulevard Off-channel Habitat Creation LG-46 .....Mill Creek Protection and restoration near Emerald Downs LG-49 .....Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements LG-51 ......Milwaukee 2 Improvements LG-55 .....Frager Road Levee Setback LG-52......Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage Improvement LG-53 .....Signature Pointe Levee Improvements LG-54 .....SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee LG-56 .....Kent Airport Levee Setback LG-57 ......Barnaby Truong Off-Channel Habitat Creation LG-58 .....Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements Lower Green River Subwatershed 45 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 13 projects LG-3 ........Horsehead Restoration Project LG-6 ........Wrecking Yards Restoration Project LG-8 ........Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration LG-22 ......Wetland Floodplain Off-Channel Habitat Reconnection LG-28......North Green River Park LG-29......North of Veteran’s Drive Floodplain Reconnection LG-33 .....Midway Creek Wetland Complex LG-34 .....Johnson Creek Floodplain Project LG-35 .....P-17 Stormwater Pond Connection LG-39 .....Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection LG-40 .....Downey Side Channel Restoration LG-42 .....Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A LG-45 .....Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration AGENDA ITEM #6. e) FEDERALWAY LG-8 LG-7 LG-6 LG-5 LG-3 LG-1 LG-2 LG-57 LG-55 LG-54 LG-53 LG-56 LG-51 LG-49 LG-46 LG-45 LG-43 LG-52 LG-38 LG-27 LG-26 LG-23 LG-39 LG-22 LG-28 LG-30 LG-32 LG-33 LG-31 LG-29 LG-34 LG-35 LG-37LG-20 LG-21 LG-19LG-17 LG-16LG-15 LG-42 LG-10 LG-40 LG-58 LG-12 M i l l C r .Springbook Cr.S. Mil l C r . Black River Green Ri ve r 405 167 18 5 AngleLake Star Lake Panther Lake Lake Geneva KENT KENT KENT AUBURN RENTON TUKWILA ALGONA River mile Project location River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line Lower Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Open water Public lands Incorporated area Figure __ Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects 0 1/2 1 2 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_LGR.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 1 PAGE 119 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Figure 28. Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 26 RM 27Green River Trail - KentGr e e n R i v e r Mill Creek North Green River Park Horsehead Bend Natural Area Horsehead Bend Natural Area UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT S 259th St S262nd St S 266th St 9 4 t h P l S Green River Rd LG-3 K ING C OUNT Y WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Urban Growth Area Line 0 300 ft150Reiten RdPublic Lands Incorp. Area BoundaryPark N Backwater Floodplain RiparianEdge Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create approximately 13 acres of backwater habitat and revegetate 3,000 feet of river bank. Tier 1 Project: LG-3 Horsehead Restoration Project Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo VC file: 2010_10202L_W9SHRPfact_HORSEHEAD.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 25.7 - 26.5 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $11,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: PAGE 120 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-6 RM 24 Green River RMRM Interurban Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGreen River Trail - Kent Foster Park Green River Trail Site Interurban Trail Site - KentSR 167S 259th StS 259th St 72nd Ave S72nd Ave S1st Ave S1st Ave S79th Ave S79th Ave S3rd Ave S3rd Ave S74th Ave S74th Ave SS 266th StS 266th St S 262nd St 80th Ave S80th Ave SS 261st StS 261st St KENT KENT KENT K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400600 ftParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. EdgeBackwater Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire, remediate and restore wrecking yards with side channels and backwater features. Tier 1 Project: LG-6 Wrecking Yards Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.1 - 24.9 / left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $37,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Side channel WetlandRiparian KEY HABITAT: PAGE 121 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Mill CreekS 277th St West Valley Hwy N68th Ave S167 AUBURN KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY LG-8 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ftInc. Area BoundaryParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. Edge Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve aquatic habitat by remeandering the tributary channel, revegetating, and adding large wood to the creek channel. Tier 1 Project: LG-8 Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.7/left bank (Mill Creek 0.3-2.3) Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $23,900,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 122 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 123 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 277th St C o r r id o r T r a ilLG-22 RM 27 Gre e n R i v e r Mill Cr. North Green River Park Mill Creek Earthworks Park Riversands Park G r e e n R i v e r R d SE 267th StWoodland Way SS 277th St KENT KENT AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT YSeattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ftInc. Area BoundaryParkUrban Growth Area Line Bndy. Edge Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration TributarySide channel Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore approximately 30 acres of floodplain wetlands and provide access to 2,000 feet of non-natal tributary rearing habitat. Project would address an existing fish barrier at the mouth of the creek and setback 1,800 feet of Green River Road. Project design will need to consider future location of the Green River Trail. Tier 1 Project: LG-22 Wetland Floodplain Off-channel Habitat Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 27.2 - 27.6 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,165,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-28 RM 27 Mill Cr. Gr e e n R i v e r Tr a i l - K e n t North Green River Park Horsehead Bend Natural Area Mill Creek Earthworks Park Green River RdWoodland Way SGree n R i v e r R d S Gr e e n R i v e r KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Urban Growth Area Line Bndy. Inc. Area Boundary EdgeBackwater Floodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Side channel Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Bank armor • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore floodplain habitat by removing revetments, restoring reconnecting floodplain wetland, creating side channels and backwater features, and integrating stream channel from the adjacent project (LG-22). Project design will need to preserve or relocate important regional recreational amenities (i.e., soccer fields and Green River access). Tier 1 Project: LG-28 North Green River Park PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 26.5 - 27.3 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $17,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: LG-22 Frager Rd TrailLG-29 RM 19 Gr e e n R i v e rGreen River Trail - KentKent Puget Power Trail Green River Trail - KentGrandview Park Green River Trail Site - Kent Green RiverNaturalResources Area Van DorensLanding Park Rive rv iew B lvd S Veterans Dr KENT KENT SEATAC K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration WetlandRiparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect floodplain wetland to river, improve wetland area, while preserving Frager Road Trail's connection to the Green River. Tier 1 Project: LG-29 North of Veterans Drive Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 18.9 - 19.2/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design PAGE 124 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Frager Rd TrailLG-29 RM 19 Gr e e n R i v e rGreen River Trail - KentKent Puget Power Trail Green River Trail - KentGrandview Park Green River Trail Site - Kent Green RiverNaturalResources Area Van DorensLanding Park Rive rv iew B lvd S Veterans Dr KENT KENT SEATAC K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration WetlandRiparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect floodplain wetland to river, improve wetland area, while preserving Frager Road Trail's connection to the Green River. Tier 1 Project: LG-29 North of Veterans Drive Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 18.9 - 19.2/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design PAGE 125 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 21 RM 20 LG-33 Green River Trail - Kent Frager Rd Trail RiverbendGolf Course RiverbendGolf Course Green RiverTrail Site - Kent CottonwoodGrove Park 53rd Pl S516 KENT UNINCOR PORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Wetland Riparian Acquisition $ Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Side channel Scoping/ Reconnaissance Backwater Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore Midway Creek and floodplain wetland complex by removing wetland fill and improving fish passage to enhance connectivity between the Midway Creek and the Green River. Project design should maintain/enhance regional trail connectivity. Tier 1 Project: LG-33 Midway Creek Wetland Complex PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 19.6 - 21.1/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Gre e n R i v er LG-34 Valley Floor Community ParkValley Floor Community Park 42nd Ave SRiverview Blvd SS 212th StOrillia Rd SKENT KENT TUKWILA SEATAC UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Education & Outreach Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback road and trail, reconnect floodplain, and create o-channel habitat to improve water quality and increase fish access. Tier 1 Project: LG-34 Johnson Creek Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.2 - 17.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 126 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) LG-34 Valley Floor Community ParkValley Floor Community Park 42nd Ave SRiverview Blvd SS 212th StOrillia Rd SKENT KENT TUKWILA SEATAC UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Inc. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Education & Outreach Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback road and trail, reconnect floodplain, and create o-channel habitat to improve water quality and increase fish access. Tier 1 Project: LG-34 Johnson Creek Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.2 - 17.8/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PAGE 127 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 14 LG-35 G reen River Interurban Trail - TukwilaGreen River Trail - TukwilaInterurbanTrail Site - Tukwila InterurbanTrail Site - Tukwila Minkler Blvd Andover Park E181TUKWILA RENTON K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Incorp. Area Boundary Floodplain Restoration Riparian Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Side channel Scoping/ Reconnaissance Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate the City of Tukwila's stormwater pond; clean and connect the existing pond to the river, setback the levee to create up to 7 acres of o channel habitat. Tier 1 Project: LG-35 P-17 Pond Connection Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 13.7- 13.9/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $37,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: P-17Pond PAGE 128 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 28 LG-39 Gr e e n R i v e r Green River Trail - Auburn 277th St Cor r i d o r T r a i l North Green River ParkNorth Green River Park Mary Olson Farm Mary Olson Farm Riversands ParkRiversands Park Green River Trail SiteGreen River Trail Site G r e e n R i v e r R d AUBURN KENT UNINCOR PORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public LandsPark Floodplain Restoration Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - O-channel habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect the Port of Seattle's existing wetland mitigation site with the 100-year floodplain. Within the ~78 acres of reconnected floodplain, approximately 11 acres would be available as regularly inundated o-channel rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. The Port also owns an adjacent 34 acre site to the west which could support restoration of additional wetland habitat and further enhance floodplain connectivity. Project Design will need to address future Green River Trail alignment around this project area. Tier 1 Project: LG-39 Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 27.9 - 28.2 / left bank Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: Port of Seattle Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: WetlandBackwater PAGE 129 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) G re e n River Trail - K e ntFrager Rd T r a i l RM 22 LG-40Green Ri v e r Riverbend Golf Course Lake Fenwick Park Hogan ParkRussel l Rd W Meeker St KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create network of side channels to provide rearing habitat and increase flood storage capacity, add large wood to create habitat complexity, cover and refuge, and lower peak flood elevations during 100-year flood events. Tier 1 Project: LG-40 Downey Side Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 21.5 - 22/ left bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: $6,800,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Monitoring & Assessment 516 Gr e e n R i v e r PAGE 130 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 131 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdateFrager Rd TrailRussell RdRussell Rd SRM 18 LG-42 Green RiverGreen River Natural Reso u r c e s A rea TrailsGreen River Trail - K e n t Green River Natural Resources Area Valley Floor Community Park Van Dorens Landing Park Green RiverTrail Site - Kent S 216th StRiverview Blvd SS 212th St KENT K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Trail Floodplain Restoration Edge Side channel Monitoring & Assessment Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create o-channel habitat by grading and reshaping the bank, widening the channel, restoring channel complexity and meanders, excavating low benches, installing large wood, and planting native vegetation. Tier 1 Project: LG-42 Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.9 - 18.3/ right bank Banksidejurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: PROJECT TYPE: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 132 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Fr a g e r R d T r a i l LG-45 Green River Green River Trail - Ke n t Riverbend Golf Course RussellRoad Park Green River TrailSite - Kent CottonwoodGrove Park Russel l Rd53rd Pl SLakesi d e B l v d W W James St W Meeker St KENT KENT RM 20 RM 21 K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP Public Lands N0200400 ft.Park Floodplain Restoration Wetland Riparian Edge Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Side channel Backwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - O-channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 36 acres by creating side channel and backwater habitat on a largely undeveloped shoreline in City of Kent. Tier 1 Project: LG-45 Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 20 - 20.8 / left bank Jurisdiction: Kent Project sponsor: King County Flood Control District Budget: $12,525,000 - $33,975,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Tributary Upland AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 133 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 Project: LG-1 Reddington Habitat Creation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The previous Reddington Levee Setback project was done with a focus on flood risk reduction benefits and left two areas waterward of the levee that have room for side channel and/or backwater type habitats. This project would design and create additional habitat integrated with the existing habitat features on site. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 28.6 - 28.2 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Backwater Side Channel Floodplain Edge Restoration LG-1 Green River Trail - AuburnTrailsBrannan Park BrannanPark MaryOlsonFarm Issac EvansPark NorthGreen RiverPark RiverpointPark Green River Rd SEGreen River RdAUBURN Green RiverRM 29 LG-1 N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-1.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplain Wetland EdgeRestoration TributaryRiparian LG-49 Green River Trail - KentHorsehead BendNatural Area S 266th St Maple LnEast Valley Hwy SCentral Ave S86th Ave S KENT Green RiverUNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-5.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-5 Tier 2 Project: LG-5 Northeast Auburn Creek Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhance floodplain and stream habitat by creating o channel rearing and high flow refuge habitat for juvenile salmon. Project will improve fish passage, which is currently partially obstructed by a flapgate at the mouth of the creek. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 25.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,500,00 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 134 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainEdge Acquisition $ Restoration TributaryRiparian LG-7 Mi l l C r e e k LakeFenwickPark Private Rd 5 2 n d A v e S KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTYMullen SloughKCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-7.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-7 Mullen Slough PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project would remeander and revegetate the tributary, increasing quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 21.5 / left bank (Mullen Slough 1 - 2) Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $9,600,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: LG-7 Park Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/ Planting Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian Frager Rd TrailFr a g e r R d S KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-10.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-10 Green Riv e r Green River Trail Site - Kent Trails Valley FloorCommunity Park ThreeFriendsFishingHole 59th Pl SSouthcenter PkwyRussell RdS 200th St KENT TUKWILA RM 17 Green River T r a i l -KentN0300600 ft150 LG-10 Tier 2 Project: LG-10 Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Balance future habitat, flood protection and recreation on the site. Explore opportunities to add alcove habitat, excavate low benches and alcoves, install large wood, and plant native riparian vegetation, while maintaining/enhancing the recreational trail user experience. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 17 - 17.8 / right bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 135 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/ Planting Restoration Riparian LG-12 BriscoePark 62nd Ave SSouthcenter PkwyS 190th St S 1 8 4 t h P l TUKWILA KENT SEATAC G r e e n R iver Trail -Kent G re e n R i v e r RM 16 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-12.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 LG-12 Tier 2 Project: LG-12 Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create o-channel habitat at Briscoe Park by removing bank armor, excavating perched floodplain, installing large wood, and planting riparian vegetation. Project design needs to address potential impacts to recreational amenities at Briscoe Park. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 15.6 - 16.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: 5 Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Backwater Floodplain Edge Riparian Fort DentPark TukwilaPark65th Ave S62nd Ave SS 151st St In te ru rban Ave S South c e n t e r Blvd TUKWILA RENTON G reen R iv e r G r e e n Ri ver Trail - TukwilaI nt er urban TrailTukwilaRM 12 181405 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-17.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 LG-17 Tier 2 Project: LG-17 Fort Dent Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback portions of the Fort Dent revetment to create shallow water habitat, riparian forest, and o-channel habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 - 11.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 136 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Enhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Backwater Edge Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-18.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-18 Black Riv e rLake to Sound TrailGreen River Trail - L o we r G r e e n R i v e r Trail - TukwilaFort DentPark BlackRiverPumpStation FosterGolf Links BlackRiverForest In te ru rban A ve SMo n s t e r R d SW68th Ave S TUKWILA RENTON G r e e n Ri verDuwamish River RM 11 LG-18 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-18 Black River Marsh PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create an island at the confluence of the Black, Green, and Duwamish Rivers, and increase edge habitat, flood storage, and o-channel refuge. Revegetate the shoreline along the Black River up to the Black River Pump Station. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 - 11.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Wetland Monitoring & Assessment Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Tributary Edge Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-19.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-19Springbook CreekBlack River SpringbrookTrailBlack River Forest Waterworks Gardens SW 16th St SW 7th St SW Grad y W a y Oakesdale Ave SW RENTON TUKWILA LG-19 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT 405 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-19 Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Improve the aquatic and riparian habitat for Lower Springbrook Creek with riparian plantings, large woody debris, pool construction, channel branch excavation, and potential two-stage channel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 11 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Renton Project sponsor: City of Renton Budget: $20,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 137 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Side Channel FloodplainEnhancement/ PlantingAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-23.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-27 104th Avenue SE Park Scootie Brown ParkM St NER St NE14th St NE Ri ver vi ew Dr NE104th Ave SE8th St NE Lea Hill Rd SEGreen River AUBURN RM 31 LG-23 N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-23 8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off-Channel Habitat PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire private properties and restore o-channel and riparian habitat, including up to 0.25 miles of potential side channel. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 30.4 - 31.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands FloodplainEnhancement/ Planting Acquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Tributary Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-26.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdGreen R ive r T ra i l - Aubu rn Issac Evans Park Green River Trail Site Dykstra Park State Park Auburn Narrows 104th Avenue SE Park Green R i v e r R d S E 22nd St NE Rive rv iew D r NE104th Ave SELea Hill Rd S ESE 304th WayG re en River AUBURN RM 30 LG-26 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT N0300600 ft150 Tier 2 Project: LG-26 Valentine Revetment Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback the existing revetment and relocate Green River Road to the north, away from the river. Realign the unnamed fish stream into the historic channel and install a fish friendly culvert. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 30.1 - 29.8 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 138 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainAcquisition $ Planning/ Design Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-27.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdState Park Auburn Narrows Scootie Brown Park Lea Hill Tennis Courts R St NE105 th P l SE107th Pl SE8th St NE 104th Ave SELea Hill Rd SEE Main St SE 320th St R St SEGreen R i v e r AUBURN RM 31 LG-27 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-27 8th Street Acquisitions PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire properties and restore o-channel and riparian habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 31.1 - 31.4 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft Floodplain EdgeAcquisition $ Restoration Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-30.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFrager R d T r a i l Mill CreekInterurban Trail - KentGreen River T r a i l Kent WillisStreetGreenbelt Kiwanis Park #4 74th Ave SS 259th St68th Ave SWashingtonAve SG re e n River KENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY 167 181 518 RM 23 RM 24 LG-30 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-30 Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire left bank properties from Mill Creek (Auburn) to Washington Ave. S. bridge and install native plantings. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.2- 23.7 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 139 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainEnhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Restoration KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-31.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFrager Rd TrailKent Puget Power Trail Riverview Blvd SVeterans Dr S 22 8 t h S t SR 5 16 Frager Rd SKENT KENT RM 19 Green River T r a i l - KentG reen River LG-31 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-31 South of Veterans Drive Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Create o-channel habitat in small triangle of flat land behind Frager Road. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 19.4 - 19.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Floodplain Edge Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-32.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdLG-51 LG-30 Mill CreekInterurban Trail - KentGreen River Trail - KentGr een River Trail - KentFoster Park 3rd Ave SS 259th St74th Ave S79th Ave S72nd Ave SS 262nd St68th Ave SKENT UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY Gre e n River RM 24 LG-32 167 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-32 Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore o-channel habitat within the park, while balancing flood protection and recreation. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.9 - 24 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 140 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Backwater Floodplain Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Wetland Riparian LG-37Interurban Trail - TukwilaBicentennial ParkAndover Park EStrander Blvd SW 27th St TUKWILA RENTON Green RiverRM 13 181 LG-37 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-37 Strander Boulevard Off-Channel Habitat Creation PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This project would connect an isolated wetland area in between two railroad tracks with the river creating floodplain connection and use for salmonid rearing and refugia. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 13.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $10,000,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: N0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-37.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplain Acquisition $ Restoration Tributary Wetland Riparian Mill CreekInterurban Trail - AuburnM St NW29th St NW Ron Crockett Dr NWWest Valley Hwy NAUBURN 167 LG-46 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-46 Mill Creek Protection and Restoration Near Emerald Downs PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire property and restore creek meander of the existing channel, revegetate the riparian zone and associated wetland habitat, and increase channel capacity to reduce existing flood risks. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.7 / left bank (Mill Creek RM 3.0 - 4.4) Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands N0300600 ft150 KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-46.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 141 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/Planting Acquisition $ Planning/Design Restoration Upland Riparian Interurban Trail - KentGreen River T rail - KentFoster ParkSR 167SR 167S 259th St 1st Ave S3rd Ave S74th Ave S79th Ave S72nd Ave SS 262nd St G re e n R i v e r RM 24 KENT UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY LG-51 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: LG-51Milwaukee 2 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Excavate a backwater channel, remove all invasive vegetation and hardscape, and replace with native plants and trees. Place large wood within the project area. The project increases rearing and refuge habitat for salmon. The project must balance flood protection and recreation goals, including regional trail improvements. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.0 - 24.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE:KEY HABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-51.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150ParkPublic Lands Incorp. Area Boundary RM 25 RM 26 Horsehead Bend NaturalArea Green River Trail Site Interurban Trail Site - Kent S 259th St S 266th St Maple Ln79th Ave S1st Ave S3rd Ave S80th Ave SS 262nd StS 261st StCentral Ave SEast Valley Hwy SGreen RiverInterurban TrailGreen River Trail Green River TrailLG-49 Tier 2 Project: LG-49Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Setback levee segments, and install large wood structures along the riverbank to provide salmon habitat. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.25 - 26.25 / right bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-49.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdUNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY KENT N0400 ft Floodplain EdgeEnhancement/Planting Planning/Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 142 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update EdgeRestoration Riparian IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNATFrager Rd TrailLG-55 Green River Trail - KentGreen River Natural Resources Area Valley Floor Community Park Van Dorens Landing Park S 216th St Riverview Blvd SS 212th St S 216th St Frager Rd SGreen RiverKENT RM 18 LG-55 Tier 2 Project: LG-55Frager Road Levee Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Reconstruct the toe, slope and levee crest to a stable configuration with a fully bioengineered solution, including a vegetated bench. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 17.25 - 18.75 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_LG-55.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 143 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 144 PAGE 145 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Table 5Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj#Project Name Project Type Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/ Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal Alignment LG-2 Olson Creek Restoration Restoration Improve quality of aquatic habitat through setting back the banks, adding large wood to channel, and expanding riparian vegetation along the creek. Increase amount and quality of flood refuge habitat by reconnecting southern grassy area at lower flows and restoring as a wetland. This project will build off of a KCDOT project to fix the fish passage barrier at the mouth in 2020. King County RM 28.4 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance instream flows and cold water refugia City of Auburn LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-15 Nelsen Side Channel • Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This project reconnects a segment of the former river channel that was discon- nected with construction of I-405 and rerouting of the river. City of Tukwila RM 12.5 /right bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-16 Gilliam Creek Fish Passage and Riparian Rehabilitation • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This project will replace a large flapgate that inhibits salmonid usage of the Gilliam Creek tributary, and restore nearly 300 lineal feet of the lowest stretch of Gilliam Creek. City of Tukwila RM 12.5 / left bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Tukwila LG - Off-channel habitat LG-20 Riverview Plaza Off-channel Habitat Creation • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration This City-owned parcel once had a modest picnic area for viewing, but those have since been removed. There are several, large cottonwood trees in this low bank area with opportunities to create shallow water habitat while preserving most or all of the trees. It is waterward of the levee and Green River Trail. City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-21 Best Western Revetment Setback • Acquisition • Restoration This project would setback this revetment to the extent possible. There is a hotel 80’ landward; setting it back somewhat could create some edge habitat. Should look for opportunities in the event of property redevelopment. City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Tukwila 1. Off-channel habitat 2. Riparian 3. Large Woody Debris Forest LG-38 Fenster Slough Wetland Connection • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration Reconnect approximately 1/2 acre of wetland area to the Green River that is currently cut off by the Fenster II Levee. The area has the potential to provide backwater/off-channel and riparian habitat functions. City of Auburn RM 40 / left bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Auburn LG - Off-channel habitat LG-43 Panther Creek at East Valley Road Improvement Project • Acquisition • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration The project is intended to provide daylighting and habitat improvements of Pan- ther Creek from river mile 0.5 to 0.0 and the adjacent East Valley wetlands. This includes improving hydrologic and hydraulic function through repairing and/or replacing the existing culverts at East Valley Road and Lind Ave SW. City of Renton RM 1 1 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off-channel habitat LG-52 Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage Improvement • Acquisition • Other • Planning/Design The project intends to provide fish passage and improved conveyance through a culvert replacement along Panther Creek at the Talbot Road South culvert. City of Renton Surface Water Utility RM 11 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off-channel habitat LG-53 Signature Pointe Levee Improvements • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition Setback levee segments and slope. Install large wood and native riparian plants. Address potential for recreational impacts of moving the trail further from the river and closer to residential units. City of Kent RM 23.15 - 21.75 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Bank Armor LG - Large woody debris LG - Off-channel habitat LG-54 SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee • Planning • Scoping/ • Reconnaissance Balance habitat, flood protection, and recreation. Set back existing levee to allow for more flood storage and habitat improvements. These potential improvements include flatter riverbank side slopes, log jams along the river, and increased riparian plantings. City of Kent RM 21.75 - 19.2 5/ left bank Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity City of Kent LG - Bank Armor LG - Off-channel habitat LG - Riparian Forest LG-56 Kent Airport Levee Setback • Planning/Design • Restoration • Acquisition Setback the levee, incorporate current stormwater pond into riparian buffer, and install native plants. City of Kent RM 24.1 - 23. 8/ left bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Riparian Forest LG-58 Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements • Enhancement/Planting • Planning/Design • Restoration Re-grade side slopes that are overly steep, remove non-native invasive plant species, and plant new native vegetation in areas that have not already been improved. The project also includes installation of large wood structures along the river’s edge throughout the length of the levee reach where feasible. City of Kent RM 17.0 - 16.1 / right bank Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat City of Kent LG - Off-Channel Habitat AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 146 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Tier 2 (Score 7-18) 5 projects Middle Green River Subwatershed 14 projects Tier 1 (Score 18+) 8 projects MG-3 .......Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection MG-9 ......Lones Levee Restoration MG-11 ......Turley Levee Setback MG-13 .....Hamakami Levee Setback MG-19 .....Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration MG-21 .....Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration MG-24 ....Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback MG-26 ....Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition and Restoration Tier 3 (Score <7) 1 project MG-6 ......Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement MG-10 .....Burns Creek Restoration MG-16 .....Ray Creek Restoration MG-20 ....Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration MG-22 ....Kanaskat Reach Restoration MG-25 ....Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 147 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-3MG-3MG-9MG-9 MG-6MG-6 MG-26MG-26 MG-24MG-24MG-13MG-13 MG-19MG-19 MG-23MG-23 MG-21MG-21 MG-10MG-10 MG-11MG-11 MG-20MG-20 MG-16MG-16 MG-25 Green RiverBig Soos Cr .Big Soos Cr . Coal C r . Coal C r .Jenkins Cr.Jenkins Cr.Deep Cr.Deep Cr. Bear Cr.Bear Cr. Ravensdale Cr. Big S o o s Cr.Big S o o s Cr.Newauku m Cr. Newauku m Cr. 18 Lake Sawyer Lake Meridian ENUMCLAWENUMCLAW COVINGTONCOVINGTON AUBURNAUBURN KENTKENT KENTKENT KENTKENT MAPLE VALLEY MAPLE VALLEY BLACK DIAMOND BLACK DIAMOND Tacoma HeadworksDiversion Dam Lake Youngs River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line Middle Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Incorporated area Open water 1 MG-1 Figure __ Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects 0 1 2 4 Miles N Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_MGR.ai LPRE GIS File:Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT Figure 29 Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 148 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 43 MG-3 Flaming Geyser Park Flaming Geyser State Park Black DiamondOpen Space SE Green Valley Rd Green Riv e r BLACK DIAMOND UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park Restoration Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, place large wood in river channel and associated wetland, and extensively the revegetate riparian zone throughout state park. Tier 1 Project: MG-3 Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 42-44/both banks Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Planning/ Design Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 149 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-9 G reen R i v e r N a t u ra lA r e a T r a i l s Green River Natural Area SE Green Valley Rd. Green Rive r K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Restoration Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing levee, install setback feature to protect agricultural land, place large wood in river channel and remnant river channel, and reintroduce gravel from remnant levee into river channel. Tier 1 Project: MG-9 Lones Levee Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 38/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 37 MG-11 Green River Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d Green RiverK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public LandsPark Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove existing levee, setback new revetment away from river channel, and increase complexity with large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-11 Turley Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 37 / left and right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary PAGE 150 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-13 Green RiverGreen RiverNatural Area SE Green Valley Rd AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, construct revetment away from river, and place large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-13 Hamakami Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 35/right bank Bankside Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 151 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-13 Green RiverGreen RiverNatural Area SE Green Valley Rd AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area BoundaryPublic Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland RiparianBackwater Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under-structure into the river channel, construct revetment away from river, and place large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Tier 1 Project: MG-13 Hamakami Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 35/right bank Bankside Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 152 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-19 Hatchery Natural Area Porter Levee Natural AreaSE Auburn Black Diamond RdSR 1818 Green RiverState Salmon Hatchery Big Soos Cr G re e n R i v e r AUBURN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Inc. Area Boundary Public Lands Urban Growth Area Line Bndy.Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and increased water quality with placement of large trees in streams and associated wetlands, and plant native trees and shrubs along riparian edge. Tier 1 Project: MG-19 Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33.3/right bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel Tributary AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 153 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 41 MG-21 Green River Newaukum C r . Green RiverNatural Area WhitneyBridge Park Lower NewaukumCreek Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d 21 2 t h A v e S E 21 2 t h A v e S E212th Way SE K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Park Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire approximately 40 acres, and install several hundred pieces are large wood on ~3,500 lineal feet of river. Tier 1 Project: MG-21 Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 41 / left and right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 154 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update RM 41 MG-24 Green River Newaukum C r . Green RiverNatural Area WhitneyBridge Park Lower NewaukumCreek Natural Area SE G r e e n V a l l e y R d 21 2 t h A v e S E 2 1 2 t h A v e S E212th Way SE K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0 200 400 ft.Park Restoration Floodplain Acquisition $ Wetland Riparian Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, construct set-back structure away from the River, add wood to floodway, and revegetate with native plants. Tier 1 Project: MG-24 Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 40.5 - 41.5 / right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: MG-26 Newaukum Cr. Foothills Trail Site 284thAveSEVeazie-CumberlandRdSEK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0 200 400 ft. Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and improve water quality with placement of large wood in the stream channel and associated wetlands, revegetating the riparian area. Tier 1 Project: MG-26 Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40.4/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 155 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update MG-26 Newaukum Cr. Foothills Trail Site 284th Ave SEVeazie-Cumberland Rd SEK ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Park RestorationAcquisition $ Wetland Riparian Tributary Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and improve water quality with placement of large wood in the stream channel and associated wetlands, revegetating the riparian area. Tier 1 Project: MG-26 Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40.4/left bank Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Acquisition $ Restoration Side Channel Wetland Tributary Riparian Newau k u m CreekSE 400th St226th Ave SESE 392nd St 224th Ave SEMG-6 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-6 Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Place large wood in the stream channel between RM 6 - 10 and remove hardened streambanks. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-6.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdN0300600 ft150 FloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration WetlandTributary Riparian MG-10 Green River Natural AreaSE Green Valley RdGreen R ive rBurns CreekMG-10 Tier 2 Project: MG-10Burns Creek Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Restore lower two miles of Burns Creek by acquiring several parcels or portions of parcels, place large trees with rootwads attached in streams and associated wetlands, plant native trees and shrubs to significantly improve fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, and water quality in an area which is very important for over-wintering salmon. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-10.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 PAGE 156 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 157 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update FloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration WetlandTributary Riparian MG-16 Neely Bridge Natural Area SE Green Valley R dGr e e n R i v e r RM 35AUBURN UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY MG-16 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-16Ray Creek Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire several conservation easements of at least 100’ buers, place large wood in stream, and plant native trees and shrubs in riparian buer. Build fencing for livestock exclusion to immediately improve of fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, water quality in a degraded area. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-16.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdFloodplainAcquisition $ Restoration Wetland Riparian Gre e n R i v e r Auburn Narrows Natural Area State Park Auburn Narrows SE Auburn Black Diamond Rd SE Green Valley R d 18 MG-20 RM 33 AUBURN AUBURN UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-20Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Remove gravel road in floodway, expand notch of previously-constructed side channel, add large wood, and plant native vegetation. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $350,000 PROJECTTYPE:KEYHABITAT: Park Public Lands Incorp. Area Boundary Urban GrowthBoundary N0300 ft KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-20.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdAGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 158 PAGE 159 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Kanaskat Natural Area SE H u d s o n R d Pipeline Rd SE Green Rive r H e a d w o r k s R d 346th Ave SELa k e U m e k R d S E UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY MG-22 IMAGE_Ortho2019KCNAT Tier 2 Project: MG-22Kanaskat Reach Restoration PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire about 3.5 acres, remove large house/garage/ septic, convert 3,300 lineal foot gravel road to backcountry trail, and extensively revegetate site. PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 59 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $600,000 Acquisition $ Restoration PROJECTTYPE: Riparian KEYHABITAT:KCIT-DCE VC folder: 2010_10202w_MG-22.ai GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdPark Public Lands N0300600 ft150 Table 6 Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj. No.Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1)Jurisdiction Goal alignment MG-25 Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood • Education and outreach • Planning/design • Restoration • Scoping/reconnaissance Little Soos Creek at stream mile 1 runs through City of Covington owned open space through the Coho Creek development. The stream historically has been armored, disconnected from its floodplain and a paved trail adjacent to the creek is often flooded in the winter. There is an opportunity to restore in stream and floodplain habitat in the stream through reconnecting the creek to its floodplain, restoring side channels, removing artificial armoring, adding large wood, and revegetating the riparian zone. Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group RM 33.3/right bank Protect, restore, and enhance riparian corridors; City of Covington • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Riparian forest AGENDA ITEM #6. e) UG-4 77 78 64 65 79 80 81 82 86 66 87 67 83 84 71 88 68 72 89 69 85 93 73 90 70 94 74 91 95 75 92 76 Smay Cr.Sunday Cr.Sn o w C r .Sawmill Cr. N. F o r k G r e e n R i v e r Twin Ca m p C r.Charley Cr.Champion Cr.Tacom a Cr. Gale C r . Howard Hansen Reservoir Green R i v e r 0 1 2 4 Miles N River mile Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line King County boundary Figure __ Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.asp x. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_UGR.ai LPRE GIS File: Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 1 Upper Green River Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks Incorporated area Open water UG-1 Upper Green River Subwatershed 1 project Tier 1 (Score 18+) 1 project UG-4 .......Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage Figure 30 Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects PAGE 160 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) RM 64 UG-4 Howard Hanson Reservoir Green R i v e r K ING C OUNT Y Seattle WRIA 9 Incorporated Area N Vashon/ Maury Islands Miles 0 5 10 LOCATION MAP Seattle PROJECT AREA MAP N0200400 ft.Public Lands Edge Riparian Planning/ Design Scoping/ Reconnaissance Tributary Upland Primary strategy Restore and improve fish passage. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • UG - Bank armor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Creation of downstream fish passage at the Howard Hanson dam is the highest priority project within the Green/Duwamish watershed as it would have an immediate and dramatic impact on all Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters of Chinook and steelhead. Tier 1 Project: UG-4 Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Upper Green (UG) River mile: King County (RM 64) Banksidejurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County/Army Corps of Engineers Budget: Unknown PROJECT TYPE: Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT KEY HABITAT: Side channel PAGE 161 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 162 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 163 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy There are three major funding sources that sup- port implementation of the projects and programs prioritized within the Salmon Habitat Plan – Salm- on Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR), and King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) grants. The WRIA also supports project sponsors in seeking funding from various other local, state and federal sources. Annual Funding Package WRIA 9 develops an annual funding package of pro- jects based on anticipated allocations. The proposed funding package is reviewed and approved by the WRIA 9 Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) and Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF). This funding package serves as the WRIA 9 Lead Entity’s habitat project list, as defined in RCW 77.85.050. Several factors are considered when building the annual project list for funding. Primarily, the WRIA supports projects from the list that demonstrate readiness to proceed and have a high likelihood of success, and where WRIA funding is critical to mov- ing the project forward. Project tiering (Chapter VII) will assist the ITC and WEF in making tough fund- ing choices when there are more projects in need than funding available. Project planning efforts with partners have allowed the WRIA to project out-year project funding needs which provides time to antic- ipate funding shortfalls and seek outside support. This long-term planning effort also allows sponsors to align salmon projects with other jurisdictional priorities, like those within their jurisdiction’s Capital Improvement Plans and Transportation Improvement Plans, as well as realistically phase large projects that span multiple years. Yearly, project sponsors assess the status of their projects and funding needs and notify the WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator of their intent to apply for WRIA funding, and for how much. Projects undergo a technical review by WRIA staff and the ITC. For those projects competing for SRFB funding, projects undergo an additional rigorous technical review by the SRFB review panel. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 164 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Salmon Recovery Funding Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) funding is administered through the Recreation and Conser- vation Office (RCO). It is a fund source of combined state salmon funds and federal Pacific Coast Salm- on Recovery Funding (PCSRF). This annual fund is allocated by a SRFB approved interim allocation formula based in NOAA’s Chinook delisting criteria. For several years, the Green/Duwamish watershed has received $295,895 annually to support implemen- tation of the Plan. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR) is co-managed by the Puget Sound Partner- ship and the RCO. This is a Puget Sound specific fund source appropriated through the State budget pro- cess, within RCO’s budget request. In 2007, Governor Christine Gregoire formed PSAR in direct response to the growing need to restore habitat for salmon and other wildlife within Puget Sound. The Green/Duwa- mish has received just over $1.1 million biennially to support implementation of the Plan. RCO serves as the fiduciary for both PSAR and SRFB funding, so all projects funded through SRFB and PSAR are re- viewed and approved through the SRFB process. King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management Funds (CWM) are provid- ed by the King County Flood Control district (KCFCD). The KCFCD is a special purpose government creat- ed to provide funding and policy oversight for flood protection projects and programs in King County. Funding for CWM is a small portion of the tax assess- ment to support salmon recovery projects within the four WRIAs in King County. In 2020, CWM funding was doubled, and WRIA 9 now receives $3.63 million annually to support high priority projects and pro- grams. The FCD approves project lists annually. Other Local, State and Federal Funding Sources – In addition to these funding programs, sponsors are encouraged to compete for other local, state and fed- eral funds. It typically takes multiple funding sources to implement projects due to project complexity and cost. Many projects are initiated with and sustained by local funding provided by the sponsoring juris- diction. Other state and regional grant programs that support salmon recovery include, but are not limited to, the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP), Floodplains by Design (FbD), Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board (FBRB), Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), and Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Addition- ally, many of the projects within King County are supported through the County’s Conservation Futures Tax (CFT), a program passed by the Washington State Legislature in the 1970s to ensure citizens have are afforded the right to a healthy and pleasant environ- ment. This fund specifically protects urban parks and greenways, watersheds, working forests, and salmon habitat as well as critical links connecting regional trails and urban greenbelts. WRIA 9 CWM Funding Allocation High-Priority Capital Projects – CWM funding (> 65%) and all SRFB/PSAR capital funding. The WRIA invests the majority of annual funding on high priority capital projects that protect and restore critical hab- itats. These projects are identified through planning efforts like the Duwamish Blueprint, Middle Green Blueprint, and the Lower Green River Corridor plan- ning process. More recently, projects incorporated in this Plan Update were solicited from partner organi- zations. Regreen the Green small grant program - Up to $500,000 of CWM funding. This grant program orig- inated in 2016 after the completion of the “Re-Green the Green Revegetation Strategy” to support imple- mentation of the priority sites identified in the plan. It has served as a primary source of funding to those focusing on revegetation efforts along critical areas in the Green/Duwamish. Additionally, this program has supported successful coalition building, landowner outreach campaigns, and network development that helps achieve broader Plan engagement goals. Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management – Up to 10% of CWM funding. This funding is essential to informing adaptive management and maximizing return on investment with respect to salmon recovery. This funding allocation also supports the Green River smolt trap managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Stewardship, Engagement and Learning – Up to 5% of CWM funding. This funding supports Stew- ardship, Engagement and Outreach efforts designed to increase awareness around salmon recovery and promote positive behavior change. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 165 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Outyear Project Planning (6-year HCPIP) WRIA 9 maintains a Habitat Capital Project Imple- mentation Plan (HCPIP) that identifies all projects with expected funding needs for three biennium (6 years). While these numbers are estimates they pro- vide a sense of the magnitude of funding needed per year. This implementation plan supports staff in work- ing with partners to properly sequence and support projects throughout the project life cycle, and to seek out additional funding to compliment WRIA directed funds. In many cases, WRIA directed funding sources are inadequate to support the full scope of a project but enable project sponsors to leverage other local, state and federal funds. The HCPIP will be updated annually based on evolving project needs, and will be published beinnially along with a call for projects. To ensure projects acquire, restore, rehabilitate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they was described in the original project description for the 2020 Salmon Habitat Plan capital project solicitation (or subsequent calls for projects), project sponsors will be required present to the ITC or project work- group (below) for at least one of the significant mile- stones of the project design process. This team will support ranking and tiering of any new proposed large capital restoration projects and pro- vide input on design for WRIA funded projects. Performance Management Projects receiving funding through grants directed by WRIA 9 are often subject to various pressures from other local, state, and regional funders, stakeholders, and interested parties during project development. In order to make sure projects acquire, restore, rehabil- itate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they described in the projects original description for the Salmon Habitat Plan, project sponsors will be required to present to the ITC or project workgroup (below) for at least one of the significant milestones of the project design process. For very large projects that will likely seek PSAR Large Capital funding, or large-scale complex projects with multiple objectives, the WRIA may request sponsor design teams include a WRIA technical representative to support WRIA 9 salmon recovery project priorities. An ad hoc project workgroup will be established to support elements of project development, made up of three to five members of the ITC. This team will rank and tier newly proposed large capital restoration projects and provide input on design for WRIA-fund- ed projects. The goal of this workgroup would be to provide feedback that will maximize salmon benefits, incorporate lessons learned from previous projects, ensure projects meet the highest possible outcomes for salmon, and help reduce project costs by address- ing issues early in design. It is anticipated that project sponsors will work with the Habitat Project Coordinator to present to the project workgroup or the ITC as follows, or if major changes/updates were made to the design: 1. Alternatives analysis - Project Workgroup 2. 30% design - Full ITC 3. 90% design - Full ITC Project sponsors are expected to maintain fidelity to the original habitat deliverables. Naturally projects will evolve as more is learned about project design and feasibility. The project sponsor is responsible for alerting the WRIA if substantive modifications to the original scope are required. Modifications to the scope of the project may invoke a full project team review to affirm the project tier and may require subsequent approval from the ITC or WEF. Failure to notify the WRIA of these changes, or use of funding outside of the approved scope, could result in the withholding of future funding or constitute a breach of contract. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 166 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 167 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Adaptive Management Framework The 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan outlined a sci- ence-based blueprint for prioritizing Chinook salmon recovery efforts in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. This Plan Update reflects an ongoing commitment to adaptive management to ensure prioritization and sequencing of investments reflect best available science and maximize benefits to Chinook salmon, in terms of established viable salmon population criteria. WRIA 9 convenes a regu- lar Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) to oversee monitoring and adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The ITC informs monitoring pri- orities, evaluates plan implementation and recovery progress, and makes formal policy and funding rec- ommendations to the Watershed Ecosystem Forum. In 2020, WRIA 9 developed a Monitoring and Adap- tive Management Plan (Appendix F) that outlines a framework to: • Prioritize research and monitoring investments to address important data and knowledge gaps; • Support status and trends monitoring to assess es- tablished habitat-related recovery goals and viable salmon population metrics; • Promote collaboration among partners engaged in research and monitoring within the watershed; and • Guide adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines three categories of monitoring intended to help evaluate and inform strategic adaptation of recovery efforts (Figure 31). Each category of monitoring is intended to answer under- lying questions related to implementation progress, effectiveness of actions, and overall impact on Chinook recovery. • Implementation Monitoring: Is the plan being implemented as intended? Are we on track to meet established habitat targets? • Effectiveness Monitoring: Are habitat projects functioning as expected? Are habitat status and trends improving throughout the watershed? • Validation Monitoring: Are salmon recovery efforts benefiting the Green River Chinook salmon population (i.e., VSP criteria)? Are the underlying scientific assumptions of the plan accurate? AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary. Periodic assessment of these questions allows wa- tershed partners to reassess plan implementation, underlying recovery strategies, and/or reallocate resources to maximize outcomes. Implementation Monitoring The Plan Update outlines numeric targets for key habitats (Table 2, Chapter IV) linked to Chinook salmon productivity and recovery. The targets are intended to inform tracking and assessment of plan implementation (i.e., projects constructed, specific habitat gains, funding secured) in relation to estab- lished long-term goals. Regular evaluation of imple- mentation progress feeds into an adaptive manage- ment decision framework (Figure 32). This framework connects decision makers (i.e., Watershed Ecosystem Forum) with important monitoring and research find- ings, informing corrective actions to recovery strate- gies when necessary. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is designed to assess if hab- itat restoration projects are functioning as intended and achieving physical and biological performance standards. It includes both project-level and cumula- tive habitat conditions. Capital habitat project imple- mentation can take over a decade from conceptual design to construction and costs millions of dollars. Effectiveness monitoring is essential to ensure large capital investments maximize benefits to salmon and help identify potential design improvements and cost efficiencies that can be adapted into future projects. FUNDING PROJECTS PROGRAMS PROJECT Routine – Physical – Biological Enhanced CUMULATIVE HABITAT CONDITIONS GREEN POPULATION ONGOING RESEARCH & DATA GAPS IMPEMENTATIONMONITORING EFFECTIVENESSMONITORING VALIDATIONMONITORING COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 168 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework. Routine Monitoring Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether restored habitat is functioning the way it was intended 3-10 years after the project is built. Project specific monitoring plans should be designed to assess project-specific goals and objectives. Project sponsors are encouraged to begin development of a monitoring plan at the project’s 30 percent design milestone to allow for pre-project monitoring that can be essential for verifying if future changes are due to the project’s actions or natural variability. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 2) outlines routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations based on project type and subtype. The highlighted indicators and metrics are designed to be relatively affordable and consistent with regulatory permit monitoring requirements. Project sponsors are generally expect- ed to undertake routine monitoring for WRIA-funded projects and report monitoring results to the ITC. Enhanced Fish Monitoring Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish use a restoration project type. Unlike routine project monitoring, which asks whether a certain type of habitat was created and sustained, enhanced monitoring is meant to evaluate how fish utilize the habitat, and which restoration techniques convey the most benefit. Projects should be evaluated with a combination of Before-After Control-Impact or reference/control sites research designs. Enhanced fish monitoring is outside the scope of monitoring for many project sponsors, nor is it frequently required by regulatory agencies. Due to the costs associated with enhanced monitoring, WRIA 9 intends to contin- ue to financially support enhanced fish monitoring of select projects. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 3) also outlines a prioritization framework (certainty of bene- fit, process-based vs. engineered design, project type frequency, and project cost) for WRIA-directed invest- Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 WRIA 9 Adaptive Management Decision Framework YES NO YES NO DON’TKNOW YES NO YES NO FACTORS LIMITING IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS · regulations· enforcement · incentives HABITAT LOSSES OFFSET GAINS · increase funding FUNDING INSUFFICIENT · education/outreach · incentives· acquisition LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES OR WILLINGNESS · permitting· stang · funding strategy INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES OR CAPACITY · new metric· funding for monitoring · Monitoring Plan adjustment INFORMATION GAPS 2010_10102L_w9_AM_flowchart.ai Was the target achieved? Is the work complete ? Does Strategic Assessment information change the understanding of current context? · fish use/habitat · climate change · water quality Does the metric need to be revisited to evaluate 2030 target? Implement towards 2030 target Protect restored habitat Why? No further changes to recommendations PAGE 169 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 170 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update ments to support enhanced monitoring. Monitoring results should be reported to the ITC and inform necessary maintenance and/or design modifications. Cumulative Habitat Conditions The Salmon Habitat Plan outlines a suite of projects, programs, and policies intended to improve cumula- tive habitat conditions across the watershed. Monitor- ing status and trends in cumulative habitat conditions allows us to assess the overall effectiveness of plan implementation. It provides data on the net change (improving, no change, degrading) in specific habitat conditions over time that supports evaluation of hab- itat restoration in relation to ongoing impacts to, and loss of, habitat. This information will help identity any gaps in the watershed’s approach to salmon recov- ery and help (re)direct partner resources to potential areas of concern. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 4) outlines priority habitat metrics recommended for inclusion as part of a periodic cumulative habitat as- sessment that are consistent with the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report 2005-2011 (ITC 2012). The WRIA 9 ITC should complete a cumulative habitat conditions every five years. Validation Monitoring Viable Salmon Population Criteria The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) developed the viable salmon population (VSP) concept as a tool to assess the conservation status of a population. NOAA defines a viable sal- monid population as “an independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental varia- tion, and genetic diversity changes over a 100- year time frame” (McElhany, et al. 2000). Four parameters are used to assess population status: abundance, productivity; spatial structure, and diversity. These measures of population status indicate whether the cumulative recovery actions in our watershed are improving the population’s overall viability and long- term resilience. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 5) outlines recom- mended metrics to evaluate VSP criteria that should be monitored to assess the population status of the Green River Chinook salmon population. Additional NOAA-approved VSP targets are presented in Chap- ter IV, Table 1. Although VSP parameters are not a direct measurement of habitat conditions, habitat availability, distribution and quality are inherently reflected in VSP criteria. Tracking trends in the rec- ommended VSP parameters allows resource man- agers to evaluate how the population is responding overtime to the net impact of conservation actions and ongoing land use development activity in the watershed. Over a long enough timeframe, results can also inform recalibration of recovery strategies if the conservation status of the population does not improve or continues to decline. The VSP concept – and conservation status of Green River Chinook salmon – is influenced by a variety of factors outside the scope of this plan (i.e., habitat). The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan emphasiz- es that the conservation status of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit is ultimately linked to the “Four H’s” – habitat, hydro- power, hatcheries and harvest. “Each of these factors independently affects the (Shared Strategy Develop- ment Committee 2007) status of salmon populations, but they also have cumulative and synergistic effects throughout the salmon life cycle. The achievement of viability at the population and ESU level depends on the concerted effort of all three factors working together, not canceling each other out, and adjusting over time as population conditions change” (Shared Strategy Development Committee 2007). Research and Data Gaps The Salmon Habitat Plan Update reflects an update to the scientific framework (i.e., Strategic Assessment) of the original 2005 Plan. New scientific data improved our understanding of the functional linkages between environmental stressors, habitat, and population productivity, abundance, diversity and spatial distri- bution. This information is reflected in updates to the WRIA 9 recovery strategies and embedded projects, policies, and programs. Best avilable science is used to recalibrate the magnitude and sequencing of our strategic investments, maximizing the effectiveness of our investments. Numerous data gaps and uncertainties remain. Ongoing investments in research and monitoring will be essential to informing adaptive management of recovery strategies and ensuring that plan imple- AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 171 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update mentation and associated funding decisions remain science driven. Additional information on research priorities and data gaps can be found in the Habitat Use and Productivity, Temperature, Climate Change, and Contaminant white papers in Appendices A-D. These papers build on the existing 2004 WRIA 9 Chi- nook Salmon Research Framework which utilized a conceptual life-cycle model to organize and prioritize research efforts to inform recovery planning. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 172 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 173 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Chapter 10: References Anderson, J.H., and P.C. Topping. 2018. “Juvenile Life History Diversity and Freshwater Productivity of Chinook Salmon in the Green River, Washington.” American Fisheries Society 38 (1): 180-193. B.E. Feist, E.R. Buhle, D.H. Baldwin, J.A. Spromberg, S.E. Damm, J.W. Davis, N.L. Scholz. 2017. “Roads to ruin: conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradient.” Ecol. Appl. 27: 2382-2396. Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non-natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. LaConner, WA: Skagit River System Cooperative. Campbell, L., A. Claiborne, N. Overman, and J. Anderson. 2019. Investigating juvenile life history of adult Green River fall Chinook salmon using otolith chemistry. Final Report (Draft), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Campbell, L.A., and A.M. Claiborne. 2017. Successful juvenile life history strategies in returning adult Chinook from five Puget Sound populations. Salish Sea Marine Survival Project - 2017 Annual Report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Colton, J. 2018. An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook salmon in the Green -Duwamish Watershed. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. DeGasperi, C.L. 2017. Green-Duwamish River 2015 temperature data compilation and analysis. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and and H.D. Berry. 2016. “Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175: 106-117. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 174 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Dunagan, C. 2019. “Third Biennial Science symposium - Summary.” University of Washington. Eaton, J.G., R.M. Scheller. 1996. “Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States.” Limnol Oceanogr 41: 109-1115. Engel, J., K. Higgin, and E. Ostergaard. 2017. WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts. WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. EPA. 2008. Aquatic life criteria for contamnants of emerging concern: General challenges and recommendations. Draft White Paper, Prepared by the OW/ORD Emerging Contaminants Workgroup . Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Seattle, WA: Long Live the Kings. Henning, J. 2004. An evaluation of fish and amphibian use of restored and natural floodplain wetlands. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Higgins, Kollin. 2017. “A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon producitvity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004-2016).” J.P. Meador, A. Yeh, E.P. Gallagher. 2018. “Adverse metabolic effects in fish exposed to contaminants of emerging concern in the field and laboratory.” Environ Pollut. 236: 850-861. Jeffres, C.A., J.J. Opperman, and P.B. Moyle. 2008. “Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California River.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 83: 449-458. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, J.L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F. Anulacion, and T.K. Collier, 2007. 2007. “Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of the United States.” Environ. Monit. Assess 124: 167-194. K.T. Peter, Z. Tian, C. Wu, P. Lin, S. White, B. Du, J.K. McIntyre, N.L. Scholz, E.P. Kolodziej. 2018. “Using High-Reso- lution Mass Spectrometry to Identify Organic Contaminants Linked to Urban Stormwater Mortality Syndrome in Coho Salmon.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (18): 10317-10327. King County. 2014. Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources Inventory Area 9: Compre- hensive needs assessment and extrapolation to Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Jim Simmonds and Olivia Wright, Water and Land Resources Division. King County. 2010. Green River external advisory panel report. . Seattle, WA: Prepared by Tetra Tech. King County. 2019. Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River. Seattle, Washington: Prepared by Chris Gregersen, Water and Land Division. King County. 2006. The 2006 Annual Growth Report. King County, Washington. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project Phase 2 Final Report. Prepared by Kollin Higgins, Water and Land Resources Division. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 marine shoreline monitoring and compliance project phase 2 final report. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Kollin HIggins, King County Water and Land Resources Dvision, Science and Technical Support Section. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 175 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update Konrad, C., H. Berge, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen, and J. Guyenet. 2011. “Channel dynamicsin the MIddle Green River, Washington, from 1936-2002.” Northwest Science 85: 1-14. Kubo, J. 2017. Green River temperature and salmon. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. Lestelle, L.C., W.E. McConnaha, G. Blair, and B. Watson. 2005. Chinook slamon use of floodplain, secondary chan- nel, and non-natal tributaries in rivers of western North America. Report prepared for the Mid-Wilamette Valley Council of Governments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Widlife. Lundin, J.I., J.A. Spromberg, J.C. Jorgensen, J.M. Myers, P.M., Zabel, R.W. Chittaro, and et al. 2019. “Legacy habitat contamination as a limiting factor for Chinook salmon recovery in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, USA.” PLoS ONE 14 (3): e0214399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214399. Mauger, G.S, J.H. Casola, H.A Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, T.M.B. Isaksen, L.W. Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of knowledge: Climate change in Puget Sound, Report prepared for the Puget Sound PArtner- ship and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration. Seattle: University of Washington. Mauger, G.S. 2016. “Climate Change and Salmon Habitat – Building Resiliency.” Presentation to the WRIA 9 Imple- mentation Technical Committee. McElhany, P, M.H. Rucklelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. and Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Pop- ulations and the Recovery of Evolutionary Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle: NOAA, NMFS. Meador, J. 2014. “Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon?” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71 (1): 162-180. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2016. “Fine scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish communi- ty: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 557: 1-15. N.L. Scholz, M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, J.S. Labenia, J.K. McIntyre, G.M. Ylitalo, L.D. Rhodes, C.A. Laetz, C.M. Stehr, B.L. French, B. McMillan, D. Wilson, L. Reed, K.D. Lynch, S. Damm, J.W. Davis, T.K. Collier. 2011. “Recurrent die-offs of adult coho salmon returning to spawn in Puget Sound lowland urban streams.” PLoS One 6: e29013. Nelson, T., H. Berge, G. Ruggerone, and J. Cordell. 2013. DRAFT Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliott Bay nearshore. Seattle: King County Water and Land Resources Division. NOAA. 2019. Biological Opinion on Howard Hanson Dam, Operations, and Maintenance, Green River (HUC 17110013) King County, Washington. Portland, OR: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. O’Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife. O’Neil, S.M., A.J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West. 2015. Toxic contami- nants in juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. “The ecology of urban streams.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) PAGE 176 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update R2 Resource Consultants. 2013. “Juvenile salmonid use of lateral habitats in the MIddle Green River, Washington”. A draft data report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.” R2 Resource Consultants. 2014. “Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River, Washington 2011/12 monitoring results.” Reinelt, L. 2014. “Green River System-Wide Improvement Framework, Green River, Washington.” King County Water and Land Resources, October 23. Rice, C.A. 2006. “shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus).” Estuaries and Coasts 29 (1): 63-71. Scholz, Julann A. Spromberg David H. Baldwin Steven E. Damm Jenifer K. McIntyre Michael Huff Catherine A. Sloan Bernadita F. Anulacion Jay W. Davis Nathaniel L. 2016. “Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts.” Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 398-407. Scholz, N. 2019. “A cross-species evaluation of the Pacific salmon urban stream mortality syndrome.” WA Storm- water Center 2019 Annual Research Review. Scrivener, J.C., T.G. Brown, and B.C. Andersen. 1994. “Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) utilization of Hawks Creek, a small and nonnatal tributary of the upper Fraser River.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (5): 1139-1146. Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrel, W Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. “FLoodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival.” Canadian Journal of FIsheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 325-333. Tabor, R.A., and Z.J. Moore. 2018. Restoration monitoring of Mapes and Taylor Creeks, two nonnatal Lake Washington tributaries for juvenile Chinook salmon. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns, and M.M. Charles. 2011. “Use of nonnatal tributaries for lake-rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington basin, Washington.” Northwest Science 85 (3): 476-491. Toft, J.D., A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R. Cordell, and E.E. Flemer. 2013. “Ecological responses and physical sta- bility of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline.” Ecological Engineering 57: 97-108. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A., Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. “Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound.” North American Journal of FIsheries Management 27: 465-480. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: King County, Washington. July 1. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingcountywashington,US. Varanasi, U., C Edmundo, T.H. Arkoosh, D.A Misitano, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, T.K. Collier, B.B. McCain, and J.E. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyn- chus tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-8, NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service. WA Dept. of Commerce. 2017. Puget Sound Mapping Project. Olympia, 11 01. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serv- ing-communities/growth-management/puget-sound-mapping-project/. WRIA 9 . 2012. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Watershed Eco- system Forum. AGENDA ITEM #6. e) Published by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING City of Algona City of Auburn City of Black Diamond City of Burien City of Covington City of Des Moines City of Enumclaw City of Federal Way City of Kent King County City of Maple Valley City of Normandy Park City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Tacoma City of Tukwila Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 KCIT-DCE file: 2102_10102L_W9SHP-REPORT.indd ROGER TABOR AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AGENDA ITEM #6. e) AB - 2899 City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jul 2021 SUBJECT/TITLE: Agreement for Professional Services with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for Design of the West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements Project, WTR-27-04184 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Utilities Committee DEPARTMENT: Public Works Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Ian Fitz-James, Civil Engineer III EXT.: 7208 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Funding for this agreement in the amount of $216,343 is available from the approved 2021 Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the Water Pump Stations Rehabilitation project (425.455530). There is sufficient funding in the budget to cover the agreement. The 2021 project budget with the second quarter adjustment is $400,000, which will cover the cost of design, staff time for project management, and contingencies. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The West Hill Booster Pump Station located on West Perimeter Road at the Renton Municipal Airport was constructed in 1985 to serve the West Hill 495 Operational Area and a portion of Skyway Water and Sewer District’s service area per an existing agreement between the city and the district. The pump station has one 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) diesel driven fire pump, two 600 gpm domestic pumps, and no backup power. Based on the analyses performed as part of the 2019 Water System Plan Update, the West Hill 495 Operational Area has been identified as having a storage deficit under future demand projections for 2029 and 2039. A preliminary design report was completed in 2018 and the recommendations included replacement of the existing pumps, installation of an emergency backup power generator, and upgrades to the existing mechanical, electrical, and control systems to bring the facility up to current codes and city standards. The city previously selected RH2 Engineering, Inc. as the engineering consultant for the Project through a request for a statement of qualifications and proposal issued in May 2016. An agreement for Phase I of the project was executed on September 19, 2016 (CAG-16-153) for an initial study/scoping. An agreement for Phase II of the project was executed on January 24, 2018 (CAG-18-011) for preliminary design. The proposed agreement is for Phase III of the project, design and services during bidding. Under this agreement, the consultant will perform the following: • Update the hydraulic calculations to verify pumping capacity to meet projected water demand in the West Hill operational area. • Provide support services for pre-application meeting(s), environmental review, and building permit application. • Develop 60% design plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate for the city’s review. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) • Develop 90% design plans, specifications, and cost estimate and attend review meeting(s) with city staff. • Develop 100% bid ready plans and specifications and assist the city with response to the bidders’ inquiries during the bidding period. EXHIBITS: A. Agreement B. Vicinity Map STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $216,343 for design and services during bidding for the West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements project. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) AGREEMENT FOR WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (WTR #27-04184) THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference purposes only as , is by and between the City of Renton (the “City”), a Washington municipal corporation, and RH2 Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”), a Washington corporation. The City and the Consultant are referred to collectively in this Agreement as the “Parties.” Once fully executed by the Parties, this Agreement is effective as of the last date signed by both parties. 1. Scope of Work: Consultant agrees to provide consulting and design and bidding services as specified in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein and may hereinafter be referred to as the “Work.” 2. Changes in Scope of Work: The City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order changes to the Work consisting of additions, deletions or modifications. Any such changes to the Work shall be ordered by the City in writing and the Compensation shall be equitably adjusted consistent with the rates set forth in Exhibit C or as otherwise mutually agreed by the Parties. 3. Time of Performance: Consultant shall commence performance of the Agreement pursuant to the schedule(s) set forth in Exhibit B. All Work shall be performed by no later than May 31, 2022. 4. Compensation: A. Amount. Total compensation to Consultant for Work provided pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $216,343, plus any applicable state and local sales taxes. Compensation shall be paid based upon Work actually performed according to the rate(s) or amounts specified in Exhibit C. The Consultant agrees that any hourly or flat rate charged by it for its Work shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) unless otherwise agreed to in writing or provided in Exhibit C. Except as specifically provided herein, the Consultant shall be solely responsible for payment of any taxes imposed as a result of the performance and payment of this Agreement. B. Method of Payment. On a monthly or no less than quarterly basis during any quarter in which Work is performed, the Consultant shall submit a voucher or invoice in a form specified by the City, including a description of what Work has been performed, the AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 2 OF 10 name of the personnel performing such Work, and any hourly labor charge rate for such personnel. The Consultant shall also submit a final bill upon completion of all Work. Payment shall be made by the City for Work performed within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt and approval by the appropriate City representative of the voucher or invoice. If the Consultant’s performance does not meet the requirements of this Agreement, the Consultant will correct or modify its performance to comply with the Agreement. The City may withhold payment for work that does not meet the requirements of this Agreement. C. Effect of Payment. Payment for any part of the Work shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any remedies it may have against the Consultant for failure of the Consultant to perform the Work or for any breach of this Agreement by the Consultant. D. Non-Appropriation of Funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or allocated for payment under this Agreement for any future fiscal period, the City shall not be obligated to make payments for Work or amounts incurred after the end of the current fiscal period, and this Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all remaining Work for which funds are allocated. No penalty or expense shall accrue to the City in the event this provision applies. 5. Termination: A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause by giving ten (10) calendar days’ notice to the Consultant in writing. In the event of such termination or suspension, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, worksheets, models and reports, or other material prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to the City, if any are required as part of the Work. B. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City, the Consultant shall be entitled to payment for all hours worked to the effective date of termination, less all payments previously made. If the Agreement is terminated by the City after partial performance of Work for which the agreed compensation is a fixed fee, the City shall pay the Consultant an equitable share of the fixed fee. This provision shall not prevent the City from seeking any legal remedies it may have for the violation or nonperformance of any of the provisions of this Agreement and such charges due to the City shall be deducted from the final payment due the Consultant. No payment shall be made by the City for any expenses incurred or work done following the effective date of termination unless authorized in advance in writing by the City. 6. Warranties And Right To Use Work Product: Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant will perform all Work identified in this Agreement in a professional and AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 3 OF 10 workmanlike manner and in accordance with all reasonable and professional standards and laws. Compliance with professional standards includes, as applicable, performing the Work in compliance with applicable City standards or guidelines (e.g. design criteria and Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction). Professional engineers shall certify engineering plans, specifications, plats, and reports, as applicable, pursuant to RCW 18.43.070. Consultant further represents and warrants that all final work product created for and delivered to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be the original work of the Consultant and free from any intellectual property encumbrance which would restrict the City from using the work product. Consultant grants to the City a non- exclusive, perpetual right and license to use, reproduce, distribute, adapt, modify, and display all final work product produced pursuant to this Agreement. The City’s or other’s adaptation, modification or use of the final work products other than for the purposes of this Agreement shall be without liability to the Consultant. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7. Record Maintenance: The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and Work provided in the performance of this Agreement and retain such records for as long as may be required by applicable Washington State records retention laws, but in any event no less than six years after the termination of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to and copies of any records related to this Agreement as required by the City to audit expenditures and charges and/or to comply with the Washington State Public Records Act (Chapter 42.56 RCW). The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8. Public Records Compliance: To the full extent the City determines necessary to comply with the Washington State Public Records Act, Consultant shall make a due diligent search of all records in its possession or control relating to this Agreement and the Work, including, but not limited to, e-mail, correspondence, notes, saved telephone messages, recordings, photos, or drawings and provide them to the City for production. In the event Consultant believes said records need to be protected from disclosure, it may, at Consultant’s own expense, seek judicial protection. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for all costs, including attorneys’ fees, attendant to any claim or litigation related to a Public Records Act request for which Consultant has responsive records and for which Consultant has withheld records or information contained therein, or not provided them to the City in a timely manner. Consultant shall produce for distribution any and all records responsive to the Public Records Act request in a timely manner, unless those records are protected by court order. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 9. Independent Contractor Relationship: AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 4 OF 10 A. The Consultant is retained by the City only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement. The nature of the relationship between the Consultant and the City during the period of the Work shall be that of an independent contractor, not employee. The Consultant, not the City, shall have the power to control and direct the details, manner or means of Work. Specifically, but not by means of limitation, the Consultant shall have no obligation to work any particular hours or particular schedule, unless otherwise indicated in the Scope of Work or where scheduling of attendance or performance is mutually arranged due to the nature of the Work. Consultant shall retain the right to designate the means of performing the Work covered by this agreement, and the Consultant shall be entitled to employ other workers at such compensation and such other conditions as it may deem proper, provided, however, that any contract so made by the Consultant is to be paid by it alone, and that employing such workers, it is acting individually and not as an agent for the City. B. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or Social Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to Consultant or any employee of the Consultant. C. If the Consultant is a sole proprietorship or if this Agreement is with an individual, the Consultant agrees to notify the City and complete any required form if the Consultant retired under a State of Washington retirement system and agrees to indemnify any losses the City may sustain through the Consultant’s failure to do so. 10. Hold Harmless: The Consultant agrees to release, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, elected officials, employees, officers, representatives, and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, arbitrations, mediations, proceedings, judgments, awards, injuries, damages, liabilities, taxes, losses, fines, fees, penalties, expenses, attorney’s or attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or litigation expenses to or by any and all persons or entities, arising from, resulting from, or related to the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in its performance of this Agreement or a breach of this Agreement by Consultant, except for that portion of the claims caused by the City’s sole negligence. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, (Validity of agreement to indemnify against liability for negligence relative to construction, alteration, improvement, etc., of structure or improvement attached to real estate…) then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, Consultant’s liability shall be only to the extent of Consultant’s negligence. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 5 OF 10 It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided in this Agreement constitute Consultant’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. The Parties have mutually negotiated and agreed to this waiver. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11. Gifts and Conflicts: The City’s Code of Ethics and Washington State law prohibit City employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving any gift, gratuity or favor from any person, firm or corporation involved in a contract or transaction. To ensure compliance with the City’s Code of Ethics and state law, the Consultant shall not give a gift of any kind to City employees or officials. Consultant also confirms that Consultant does not have a business interest or a close family relationship with any City officer or employee who was, is, or will be involved in selecting the Consultant, negotiating or administering this Agreement, or evaluating the Consultant’s performance of the Work. 12. City of Renton Business License: The Consultant shall obtain a City of Renton Business License prior to performing any Work and maintain the business license in good standing throughout the term of this agreement with the City. Information regarding acquiring a city business license can be found at: https://www.rentonwa.gov/Tax Information regarding State business licensing requirements can be found at: http://dor.wa.gov/doing-business/register-my-business 13. Insurance: Consultant shall secure and maintain: A. Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of $1,000,000 for each occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate for the Term of this Agreement. B. In the event that Work delivered pursuant to this Agreement either directly or indirectly involve or require Professional Services, Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions coverage shall be provided with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence. "Professional Services", for the purpose of this section, shall mean any Work provided by a licensed professional or Work that requires a professional standard of care. C. Workers’ compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington, shall also be secured. D. Commercial Automobile Liability for owned, leased, hired or non-owned, leased, hired or non-owned, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 6 OF 10 limit, if there will be any use of Consultant’s vehicles on the City’s Premises by or on behalf of the City, beyond normal commutes. E. Consultant shall name the City as an Additional Insured on its commercial general liability policy on a non-contributory primary basis. The City’s insurance policies shall not be a source for payment of any Consultant liability, nor shall the maintenance of any insurance required by this Agreement be construed to limit the liability of Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. F. Subject to the City’s review and acceptance, a certificate of insurance showing the proper endorsements, shall be delivered to the City before performing the Work. G. Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two (2) business days of their receipt of such notice. 14. Delays: Consultant is not responsible for delays caused by factors beyond the Consultant’s reasonable control. When such delays beyond the Consultant’s reasonable control occur, the City agrees the Consultant is not responsible for damages, nor shall the Consultant be deemed to be in default of the Agreement. 15. Successors and Assigns: Neither the City nor the Consultant shall assign, transfer or encumber any rights, duties or interests accruing from this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 16. Notices: Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate party at the address which appears below (as modified in writing from time to time by such party), and given personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, by facsimile or by nationally recognized overnight courier service. Time period for notices shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date of receipt, EXCEPT facsimile delivery will be deemed to have commenced on the first business day following transmission. Email and telephone may be used for purposes of administering the Agreement, but should not be used to give any formal notice required by the Agreement. CITY OF RENTON Ian Fitz-James, Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7208 ifitzjames@rentonwa.gov Fax: (425) 430-7241 CONSULTANT Chris Roberts 22722 29th Dr. Suite 210 Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: (425) 951-5358 croberts@rh2.com Fax: (425) 951-5401 AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 7 OF 10 17. Discrimination Prohibited: Except to the extent permitted by a bona fide occupational qualification, the Consultant agrees as follows: A. Consultant, and Consultant’s agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers with regard to the Work performed or to be performed under this Agreement, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation or preference, age (except minimum age and retirement provisions), honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification in relationship to hiring and employment, in employment or application for employment, the administration of the delivery of Work or any other benefits under this Agreement, or procurement of materials or supplies. B. The Consultant will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical, sensory or mental handicaps, or marital status. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training. C. If the Consultant fails to comply with any of this Agreement’s non-discrimination provisions, the City shall have the right, at its option, to cancel the Agreement in whole or in part. D. The Consultant is responsible to be aware of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations that may affect the satisfactory completion of the project, which includes but is not limited to fair labor laws, worker's compensation, and Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and will comply with City of Renton Council Resolution Number 4085. 18. Miscellaneous: The parties hereby acknowledge: A. The City is not responsible to train or provide training for Consultant. B. Consultant will not be reimbursed for job related expenses except to the extent specifically agreed within the attached exhibits. C. Consultant shall furnish all tools and/or materials necessary to perform the Work except to the extent specifically agreed within the attached exhibits. D. In the event special training, licensing, or certification is required for Consultant to provide Work he/she will acquire or maintain such at his/her own expense and, if AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 8 OF 10 Consultant employs, sub-contracts, or otherwise assigns the responsibility to perform the Work, said employee/sub-contractor/assignee will acquire and or maintain such training, licensing, or certification. E. This is a non-exclusive agreement and Consultant is free to provide his/her Work to other entities, so long as there is no interruption or interference with the provision of Work called for in this Agreement. F. Consultant is responsible for his/her own insurance, including, but not limited to health insurance. G. Consultant is responsible for his/her own Worker’s Compensation coverage as well as that for any persons employed by the Consultant. 19. Other Provisions: A. Approval Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City and Consultant represents and warrants that such individuals are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the City or Consultant. B. General Administration and Management. The City’s project manager is Ian Fitz- James, Water Utility Engineer. In providing Work, Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s contract manager or his/her designee. C. Amendment and Modification. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties. D. Conflicts. In the event of any inconsistencies between Consultant proposals and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. Any exhibits/attachments to this Agreement are incorporated by reference only to the extent of the purpose for which they are referenced within this Agreement. To the extent a Consultant prepared exhibit conflicts with the terms in the body of this Agreement or contains terms that are extraneous to the purpose for which it is referenced, the terms in the body of this Agreement shall prevail and the extraneous terms shall not be incorporated herein. E. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be made in and shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. Consultant and all of the Consultant’s employees shall perform the Work in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. F. Joint Drafting Effort. This Agreement shall be considered for all purposes as prepared by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one party or the AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 9 OF 10 other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of negotiation, drafting or execution. G. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action brought by any party to enforce or interpret this Agreement or any of its terms or covenants shall be brought in the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, King County, Washington, or its replacement or successor. Consultant hereby expressly consents to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of such court even if Consultant is a foreign corporation not registered with the State of Washington. H. Severability. A court of competent jurisdiction’s determination that any provision or part of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable shall not cancel or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. I. Sole and Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not incorporated are excluded. J. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates set forth in the description of the Work is essential to the Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. K. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in the Agreement to anyone other than the Parties, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and no one else. L. Binding Effect. The Parties each bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement, and to the partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of the Agreement. M. Waivers. All waivers shall be in writing and signed by the waiving party. Either party’s failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver and shall not prevent either the City or Consultant from enforcing that provision or any other provision of this Agreement in the future. Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach unless it is expressly waived in writing. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) PAGE 10 OF 10 N. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have voluntarily entered into this Agreement as of the date last signed by the Parties below. CITY OF RENTON By:_____________________________ CONSULTANT By:____________________________ Armondo Pavone Mayor Tony V. Pardi President _____________________________ Date _____________________________ Date Attest _____________________________ Jason A. Seth City Clerk Approved as to Legal Form By: __________________________ Shane Moloney City Attorney Contract Template Updated 5/21/21 AGENDA ITEM #6. f) 1 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX EXHIBIT A Scope of Work City of Renton West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements Design and Services During Bidding June 2021 Background The City of Renton (City) has identified the need for standby generator and booster pump station (BPS) improvements at its West Hill BPS to increase pump station reliability and redundancy and to meet future demand projections in the West Hill 495 operational area . RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) previously completed an initial study of the proposed BPS improvements at the West Hill BPS and a preliminary design which included a land/topographic survey, preparation of preliminary (30-percent) design plans and cost estimate, and preparation of a preliminary design report. The City requested the services of RH2 to finalize the design and coordinate permit compliance for the BPS improvements. The final design will include re-evaluation of the BPS hydraulics; preparation of 60- and 90-percent design plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost; preparation of final bid documents; and services during bidding. The City had previously determined that the installation of an enclosed, weatherproof sound-attenuated standby generator, automatic transfer switch, fuel tank, and load bank are required at the pump station for backup power. A shelter with open sides is proposed for the generator due to the non-residential and industrial areas where this pump station is located. Additional backup power improvements include electrical power distribution and service equipment upgrades, and generator screening and security. In addition to the backup power improvements, the City is requesting the replacement of the existing diesel engine fire pump with an electric motor prime mover. This will require both mechanical and electrical system improvements to replace the equipment and supply power to the new motor. Additional mechanical improvements will include replacement of the existing vertical turbine pumps and removal of the existing diesel fuel tank. Electrical and control improvements will i nclude replacement of the motor control center (MCC) and across -the-line motor starters with a new MCC and variable frequency drives (VFDs), replacement of the electrical service equipment, replacement of the remote telemetry panel with a new Allen-Bradley based programmable logic controller (PLC) and operator interface (OI), and replacement of the pump station light fixtures with energy efficient LED lighting. Existing electrical wiring will also be mostly replaced throughout the pump station. Electrical raceways will be reused when possible. RH2 will rely on the accuracy and completeness of any information, data, or materials generated or provided by the City or others in relation to this work. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 2 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX The following is a detailed description of the tasks that will be completed as part of this Scope of Work for the final design of the pump station improvements at the West Hill BPS. Additional engineering services for construction administration phases may be authorized by the City as part of a future contract or amendment. Task 1 – Project Management Services Objective: Manage RH2’s project team and maintain frequent client communications. Maintain project schedules and prepare monthly invoices and budget status summaries. Approach: Provide direction, coordination, and oversight to the RH2 project team. Organize, manage, and coordinate technical disciplines as described herein, and implement quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) reviews to execute this Scope of Work in close coordination with City staff. Document and retain information generated during the execution of the project. Prepare monthly invoices and budget status summaries , including a summary of tasks completed during the invoice period and a budget spending curve. Prepare for and attend progress meetings with City staff as requested via MS Teams. Progress meetings are estimated to be thirty (30) minutes in length. Prepare meeting agenda and minutes. A total of twenty (20) progress meetings are assumed in the Fee Estimate based on a bi-weekly schedule. Prepare for and attend a project kickoff/restart meeting via MS Teams with City Engineering and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) staff prior to starting the hydraulic evaluation and 60-percent design work. Kickoff/restart meeting is estimated to be one (1) hour in length . Prepare meeting agenda and minutes. Create, maintain, and update a project design schedule in Gantt chart format using MS Project. Monitor, modify, and update the project schedule throug hout the design phase to determine potential impacts of proposed changes. Adjust the schedule to reflect the current status of the project and revisions made to this Scope of Work. RH2 Deliverables: • Monthly invoices and budget status summaries in PDF format. • Meeting agendas and minutes in PDF format. • Project schedule updates in PDF format and MS Project. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 3 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX Task 2 – Hydraulic Evaluation Objective: Update the preliminary design calculations for the proposed West Hill BPS improvements to reflect the data presented in the City’s 2021 Water System Plan Update. Approach: Update West Hill 495 Operating Area supply and storage capacity calculations through the City’s 20-year planning period with proposed West Hill BPS capacity improvements and updated future demand projections from the City’s 2021 Water System Plan Update. Include capacity calculations for normal operating conditions and conditions with the West Hill Reservoir out of service for maintenance. Document the proposed West Hill BPS capacity and configuration recommendations via technical memorandum to the City. Review future West Hill BPS pump operating conditions and pump exercising abilities and discuss with the City via one (1) MS Teams video meeting. Meeting shall be approximately one (1) hour in length. Assumptions: • The updated calculations will not require deviations in the proposed pump or motor capacities presented in the preliminary design report. • No additional hydraulic analysis with the City’s hydraulic water model will be performed as part of this contract. • The system head curve prepared as part of the preliminary design report is still applicable. Provided by the City: • Review and comment on the proposed West Hill BPS capacity and configuration recommendations. • Discussion regarding West Hill BPS operating conditions and pump exercising. RH2 Deliverables: • Proposed West Hill BPS capacity and configuration recommendations via technical memorandum in PDF format. • Minutes from meeting regarding West Hill BPS operating conditions and pump exercising. Task 3 – 60-Percent BPS Improvements Design Objective: Prepare 60-percent design plans that illustrate the BPS site work, electrical work, structural work, and related improvements. Prepare 60 -percent technical specifications and an estimate of probable construction cost. Approach: Prepare structural calculations for the generator shelter design. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 4 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX Update mechanical plans and details for BPS piping requirements and final configurations. Prepare 60-percent site and utility plans for space required for generator and shelter, maintenance access, impervious surfaces, and construction staging activities. Develop 60-percent mechanical, structural, site, and control details. Prepare 60-percent electrical and control plans. Develop design of electrical systems for operating appurtenances at the pump station. Work is to include designing the power distribution system, motor control, and lighting system, sizing raceways and conductors, designing the telemetry panel, and preparing electrical equipment and generator details. Submit plans to Puget Sound Energy for review of power requirements. Meet with Puget Sound Energy if necessary. Prepare technical specifications using RH2’s modified Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format (Divisions 1 through 18) and combine with the City’s prepared construction contract documents and general conditions. Prepare 60-percent estimate of probable construction cost. The 60-percent estimate of probable construction cost is considered a Class 2 (30-percent to 75-percent) estimate per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) system for process industries. Perform internal QA/QC review of the 60-percent plans and specifications. Provide the City with an overview of the permits required for the project and an estimated timeline for each permit. Meet with the City via MS Teams or in-person, if conditions allow, to review 60-percent design plans, technical specifications, and estimate. Prepare meeting agenda and minutes and distribute to attendees. Meeting shall be approximately one (1) hour in length. Assumptions: • It is anticipated that the 60-percent review comments will be constrained to details that were developed subsequent to the 30-percent review submittal, or that were revised or unresolved during the 30-percent review process. Provided by City: • Standard construction contract documents and general conditions. • Meeting attendance and review comments as red-lined markups to 60-percent design plans and specifications. RH2 Deliverables: • 60-percent plans and details that identify the major site, structure, mechanical, and electrical layouts and related details in PDF. • 60-percent plans submittal to Puget Sound Energy in PDF format. • 60-percent design technical specifications and front-end documents in PDF format. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 5 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX • 60-percent estimate of probable construction cost i n PDF format. • List of permits required for the project with estimated timeline for each permit in PDF format. • Meeting agenda and minutes responding to the City’s review comments in PDF format. Task 4 – 90-Percent BPS Improvements Design Objective: Prepare 90-percent design plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost, incorporating the results of other tasks and review comments on 60-percent design from City staff. Approach: Prepare 90-percent design plans for the BPS and update plans based on P uget Sound Energy comments. The following plans are anticipated: • General information and details (two (2) sheets). • Sitework (two (2) sheets): existing site, grading, utilities, stormwater, and access. • Structural (four (4) sheets): exterior elevations, floor and foundation plan, roof plan, structural sections, and details. • Mechanical (three (3) sheets): major, minor, and details. • Electrical (eight (8) sheets): legend, one-line diagram, electrical site plan, power and signal plan, lighting and receptacle plan, electrical equipment details, electrical details, and schedules. • Emergency power system (one (1) sheet). • Control (seven (7) sheets): control logic diagrams, panel layouts, telemetry power and communications diagram, and telemetry input/output wiring diagrams. Finalize project details. Update the technical specifications based on the City’s review comments to 90-percent complete. Prepare 90-percent estimate of probable construction cost. The 90-percent estimate is considered a Class 1 (65-percent to 100-percent) estimate per the AACE system for process industries. Perform internal QA/QC review of the 90-percent plans and specifications. Meet with the City via MS Teams or in-person, if conditions allow, to review 90-percent design plans, specifications, and estimate. Prepare meeting agenda and minutes and distribute to attendees. Meeting shall be approximately one (1) hour in length. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 6 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX Assumptions: • It is anticipated that the 90-percent review comments will be constrained to details that were developed subsequent to the 60-percent review submittal, or that were revised or unresolved during the 60-percent review process. Provided by City: • Meeting attendance and review comments as red-lined markups to 90-percent design plans and specifications. RH2 Deliverables: • Construction plans, details, and technical specifications for 90 -percent review and Building Permit submittal in PDF format. • 90-percent estimate of probable construction in PDF format. • Meeting agenda and minutes identifying the City’s review comments in PDF format. Task 5 – Permitting Objective: Support the City in obtaining necessary permit approvals for the proposed improvements . Approach: Coordinate with the City’s Planning staff regarding the project improvements and anticipated permit requirements based on RH2’s review of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), and prepare pre-application meeting request materials . Coordinate with City project staff for a pre-application meeting immediately upon notice to proceed. Work with City project staff to review, finalize, and submit pre-application meeting request. Attend pre-application meeting and document meeting discussions for subsequent permit coordination. It is assumed City Planning and review staff will prepare formal meeting minutes; not RH2. Support the City’s preparation of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and accompanying Land Use application forms. This subtask assumes RH2 support will be limited to technical quantities and input for checklist completion and providing electronic copies of 60-percent design plans to accompany the City’s permit submittals; up to four (4) hours of RH2 staff time is assumed. City project staff will submit prepared applicati ons for City Planning reviews/processing. Support the City’s preparation of a Commercial Building Permit (CBP) application, including preparing and providing NREC Energy Code checklists, and providing supporting plans, structural calculations, and checklists. Preparation of structural calculations to be attached to the CBP is included in Task 3. Plans will be from the 60- or 90-percent plan sets prepared under Tasks 3 and 4, respectively. Following City project staff submittal of the CBP application for City review, respond to resubmittal request, if needed. This subtask assumes RH2 support will be limited to 1) preparation of energy code checklists; 2) providing electronic copies of plans, structural calculations, and checklists for City CBP submittal; and 3) responding to one (1) AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 7 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX resubmittal request, as needed; up to twenty (20) hours of RH2 staff time is assumed for these efforts. Support the City’s preparation of Electrical and Mechanical Permit applications. This subtask assumes RH2 support will be limited to providing electronic copies of plans for these permit submittals. Plans will be from the 60 - or 90-percent plan sets prepared under Tasks 3 and 4, respectively. Up to two (2) hours of RH2 staff time is assumed. City project staff will submit prepared applications along with the CBP. Prepare a Project Report to meet Washington State Department of Health (DOH) Water System Design Manual and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requirements and submit report to DOH on behalf of the City. Document the project background and objectives, BPS sizing, and BPS design criteria. Submit the Project Report detailing the analysis, results, and recommendations to the City for review. Prepare DOH Project Approval Form, letter of introduction, and Project Report for submittal to DOH. Provide up to ten (10) hours of additional support to the City during permit submittals/reviews. Assumptions: • Up to three (3) RH2 staff members will attend the pre-application meeting. • This Scope of Work assumes the projec t was included in the Council-adopted Water System Plan, and meets the definition of a small utility, which is outright permitted in the Industrial – Medium (IM) zone per RMC Table 4-2-060. Consequently, it is assumed no Administrative Conditional Use Permit will be required. • The required site work will be installed within the subject parcel, and no public (City or State owned) right-of-way (ROW) will be entered; thus, no ROW review/permitting is needed. • The proposed project improvements will not trigger a drainage review. This Scope of Work does not include the preparation of a stormwater report. • The project will not trigger Civil Construction Permit reviews through the City. • The project will not disturb more than one (1) acre of land nor will it discharge surface waters to waters of the state; therefore, no Construction Stormwater General Permit is anticipated. • The City will pay all permit and review fees. • RH2 makes no guarantee regarding the DOH review schedule or the extent of revisions or resubmittals necessary for Project Report approval. Four (4) hours associated with a single Project Report resubmittal is included in the Fee Estimate. Provided by City: • Payment of all permit fees. • Review of pre-application meeting package, submittal to City Planning, and attendance. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 8 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX • SEPA Checklist, Land Use, CBP, Electrical and Mechanical permit applications and submittal to the City’s Planning and Building departments. • Review and comment on the draft Project Report and coordinate with DOH , as needed for Project Approval. RH2 Deliverables: • Draft pre-application meeting package in PDF format and attendance at meeting. • Supporting 60- and/or 90-percent plans, Energy Code checklists, and structural calculations to accompany City permit submittals in PDF format. • DOH Project Approval Form, letter of introduction, and Project Report in PDF format and one (1) hard copy. Task 6 – Bid-Ready Plans and Specifications Objective: Prepare bid-ready project plans and specifications. Approach: Prepare bid-ready plans, technical specifications, and construction contract documents per City review comments. Prepare a bid-ready estimate of probable construction cost. The bid-ready estimate is considered a Class 1 (65-percent to 100-percent) estimate per the AACE system for process industries. RH2 Deliverables: • Bid-ready design plans, technical specifications combined with City prepared construction contract documents and general conditions, and estimate of probable construction cost in PDF format. Task 7 – Services During Bidding Objective: Assist the City with the bidding and award process for the construction of the West Hill BPS improvements. It is assumed that the City will advertise the project and be the main point of contact for bidders. RH2 will atten d the bid opening. Approach: Prepare bid advertisement and coordinate the timing and placement of the bid advertisement with the City. The City will submit the advertisement to the appropriate publications. Attend one (1) pre-bid walkthrough with prospective bidders. Respond to approximately twenty (20) contractor and supplier technical questions during bidding. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) City of Renton Exhibit A West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements – Design and SDB Scope of Work 9 6/25/2021 1:28:20 PMZ:\PROJECTS\DATA\REN\S40\2021 WEST HILL BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS\CONTRACT\DESIGN\PSA_EXH A_SOW_WEST HILL BPS IMPROVEMENTS_DESIGN AND SDB_REV-2.DOCX Prepare up to two (2) addenda if determined necessary to clarify, revise, or change the construction plans, technical specifications, or project conditions during the bidding process. Each addenda is estimated to include approximately five (5) clarifications, five (5) responses to contractor questions, three (3) specification revisions, and three (3) plan revisions. Attend the bid opening and prepare a bid tabulation. Review bidders’ qualifications and prepare a letter of recommendation of award. Create electronic conformed for construction contract documents for contractors. Prepare two (2) sets of 11-inch by 17-inch color plans and two (2) sets of specifications for internal use. Provided by City: • Submission of the advertisement to the appropriate publications and payment of fees. • Attendance at pre-bid walkthrough with prospective bidders. • Issuance of addenda as needed. RH2 Deliverables: • Bid advertisement in PDF format. • Attendance at pre-bid walkthrough. • Responses to contractor or supplier questions via telephone or email. • Up to two (2) addenda in PDF format. • Bid tabulation in PDF format. • Letter of recommendation of award in PDF format. • Conformed for construction contract documents in PDF format. • Two (2) sets of 11-inch by 17-inch color plans and two (2) sets of conformed for construction contract documents for internal use. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) 6/25/2021 1:32:00 PM Z:\Projects\Data\REN\S40\2021 West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements\Contract\Design\PSA_EXH B_Schedule_West Hill BPS Improvements_Design and SDB_Rev-1.docx Exhibit B: Time Schedule of Completion City of Renton West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements Design and Services During Bidding ANTICIPATED NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: September 1, 2021 Task Anticipated Completion Task 1 – Project Management Services May 31, 2022 Task 2 – Hydraulic Evaluation September 30, 2021 Task 3 – 60-Percent BPS Improvements Design December 10, 2021 Task 4 – 90-Percent BPS Improvements Design March 11, 2022 Task 5 – Permitting April 8, 2022 Task 6 – Bid-Ready Plans and Specifications April 8, 2022 Task 7 – Services During Bidding May 31, 2022 ANTICIPATED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: May 31, 2022 AGENDA ITEM #6. f) Overhead % Fee % Negotiated Rate Per Hour RATE LIST 185.45%12%RATE Professional I 47.23 87.59 16.18 $151.00 Professional II 51.92 96.29 17.79 $166.00 Professional III 56.93 105.57 19.50 $182.00 Professional IV 61.31 113.69 21.00 $196.00 Professional V 66.00 122.39 22.61 $211.00 Professional VI 70.06 129.94 24.00 $224.00 Professional VII 75.07 139.22 25.71 $240.00 Professional VIII 78.20 145.02 26.79 $250.00 Professional IX 78.20 145.02 26.79 $250.00 Control Specialist I 42.85 79.47 14.68 $137.00 Control Specialist II 46.61 86.43 15.96 $149.00 Control Specialist III 51.30 95.13 17.57 $164.00 Control Specialist IV 55.68 103.25 19.07 $178.00 Control Specialist V 59.12 109.63 20.25 $189.00 Control Specialist VI 63.50 117.75 21.75 $203.00 Control Specialist VII 68.19 126.45 23.36 $218.00 Control Specialist VIII 71.00 131.68 24.32 $227.00 Technician I 35.97 66.71 12.32 $115.00 Technician II 39.10 72.51 13.39 $125.00 Technician III 44.42 82.37 15.21 $142.00 Technician IV 47.86 88.75 16.39 $153.00 Technician V 52.24 96.87 17.89 $167.00 Technician VI 57.24 106.15 19.61 $183.00 Technician VII 61.93 114.85 21.21 $198.00 Technician VIII 65.37 121.23 22.39 $209.00 Administrative I 23.46 43.51 8.04 $75.00 Administrative II 27.53 51.05 9.43 $88.00 Administrative III 33.16 61.49 11.36 $106.00 Administrative IV 39.10 72.51 13.39 $125.00 Administrative V 44.73 82.95 15.32 $143.00 CAD/GIS System $27.50 CAD Plots - Half Size $2.50 CAD Plots - Full Size $10.00 CAD Plots - Large $25.00 Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11" $0.09 Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14" $0.14 Copies (bw) 11" X 17" $0.20 Copies (color) 8.5" X 11" $0.90 Copies (color) 8.5" X 14" $1.20 Copies (color) 11" X 17" $2.00 Mileage $0.56 Subconsultants 15% Outside Services At Cost EXHIBIT C-1 Consultant Fee Determination- Summary Sheet (Negotiated Hourly Rates of Pay) 2021 Fee Schedule SubConsultant: RH2 Engineering, Inc. Negotiated Cost Rate Rates listed are adjusted annually. AGENDA ITEM #6. f) March 29, 2021 RH2 Engineering, Inc. 22722 29th Drive SE, Ste 210 Bothell, WA 98021 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2019 ICR Risk Assessment Review Dear Myra Sachs: Assessment review of your Indirect Cost Rate (ICR), we have accepted your proposed FYE 2019 ICR of 185.45% of direct labor. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with your firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 705-7019 or via email consultantrates@wsdot.wa.gov. Regards; ERIK K. JONSON Contract Services Manager EKJ:ah AGENDA ITEM #6. f) EXHIBIT C-2 Fee Estimate City of Renton West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements Design and Services During Bidding Jun-21 Description Project Manager Principal Project Engineer Project Engineer Project Engineer Project Engineer Staff Engineer Staff Engineer Staff Engineer Permitting Permitting Project Accounting Administrative Support Total Hours Total Labor Total CADD Total Mileage Total Printing Total Expense Total Cost Classification Professional VII Professional IX Professional V Professional V Professional V Professional V Professional I Professional I Professional II Professional V Professional II Administrative II Administrative IV $240.00 $250.00 $211.00 $211.00 $211.00 $211.00 $151.00 $151.00 $166.00 $211.00 $166.00 $88.00 $125.00 Chris Roberts Tony Pardi Ryan Feskens Mark Braaksma Jon Conner Ryan Withers Mitchell Dean Leily Mojarab Danielle Dorr Alicia Pettibone Jenny Sandifer Tracy Hill Julie Self Task 1 Project Management Services 30 -12 --------4 8 54 11,084$-$84$56$140$11,224$ 1.1 Provide direction, coordination, and oversight to RH2 team 6 ------6 1,440$-$-$-$-$1,440$ 1.2 Document and retain information 2 ----------4 6 980$-$-$-$-$980$ 1.3 Prepare monthly invoices and budget status summaries 6 ----------4 4 14 2,292$-$-$36$36$2,328$ 1.4 Prepare for and attend progress meetings with City staff 10 -10 ---------20 4,510$-$84$-$84$4,594$ 1.5 Prepare for and attend kickoff/restart meeting with City 2 -2 ---------4 902$-$-$-$-$902$ 1.6 Create, maintain, and update project schedule 4 -----------4 960$-$-$20$20$980$ Task 2 Hydraulic Evaluation -2 7 --16 ------2 27 5,603$-$-$-$-$5,603$ 2.1 Update supply and storage capacity calculations --1 --8 ------9 1,899$-$-$-$-$1,899$ 2.2 Document proposed capacity and configuration recommendations -2 4 --6 -----2 14 2,860$-$-$-$-$2,860$ 2.3 Review pump operating conditions with City --2 --2 ------4 844$-$-$-$-$844$ Task 3 60-Percent BPS Improvements Design 36 6 102 66 26 8 110 124 58 2 --10 548 99,396$7,728$56$241$8,024$107,420$ 3.1 Prepare structural calculations ----8 ---20 ---28 5,008$550$-$-$550$5,558$ 3.2 Update mechanical plans and details --20 ----40 ----60 10,260$1,100$-$-$1,100$11,360$ 3.3 Prepare 60-percent site and utility plans --20 ----40 ----60 10,260$1,100$-$-$1,100$11,360$ 3.4 Develop 60-percent mechanical, structural, site, and control details --20 -12 --40 30 ---102 17,772$1,925$-$-$1,925$19,697$ 3.5 Prepare 60-percent electrical and control plans 14 --50 --106 -----170 29,916$2,613$-$123$2,735$32,651$ 3.6 Submit plans to Puget Sound Energy for review 4 --4 --4 -----12 2,408$110$28$-$138$2,546$ 3.7 Prepare technical specifications and general conditions 4 -24 8 2 8 --4 --8 58 11,486$110$-$18$128$11,614$ 3.8 Prepare 60-percent estimate of probable construction costs 2 -4 4 ---4 4 ---18 3,436$220$-$-$220$3,656$ 3.9 Perform internal QA/QC review of 60-percent design 6 6 6 -2 ------2 22 4,878$-$-$100$100$4,978$ 3.10 Provide City with an overview of permits required --2 -2 ----2 --6 1,266$-$-$-$-$1,266$ 3.11 Meet with City to review 60-percent design 6 -6 ---------12 2,706$-$28$-$28$2,734$ Task 4 90-Percent BPS Improvements Design 24 8 40 28 10 -44 46 34 ---8 242 44,452$3,300$28$418$3,746$48,198$ 4.1 Prepare 90-percent design plans 8 -20 20 8 -40 40 30 ---166 29,108$2,915$-$400$3,315$32,423$ 4.2 Finalize project details 1 -4 2 --4 4 ----15 2,714$220$-$-$220$2,934$ 4.3 Update the technical specifications 2 -8 4 1 ---2 --4 21 4,055$55$-$18$73$4,128$ 4.4 Prepare 90-percent estimate of probable construction costs 1 -2 2 1 --2 2 ---10 1,929$110$-$-$110$2,039$ 4.5 Perform internal QA/QC review 6 8 ---------4 18 3,940$-$-$-$-$3,940$ 4.6 Meet with City to review 90-percent design 6 -6 ---------12 2,706$-$28$-$28$2,734$ Task 5 Permitting 9 2 10 6 5 18 -7 2 8 15 -6 88 17,206$248$-$65$313$17,519$ 5.1 Coordinate and attend pre-application meeting 2 -2 ------2 5 1 12 2,279$-$-$1$1$2,280$ 5.2 Support City SEPA and Land Use permit submittals 1 -1 ----1 -1 --4 813$28$-$-$28$841$ 5.3 Support City CBP submittal and respond to resubmittal request 1 -2 2 1 --6 2 1 4 1 20 3,533$220$-$1$221$3,754$ 5.4 Support City Electrical and Mechanical permit submittals 1 -1 ---------2 451$-$-$-$-$451$ 5.5 Prepare DOH Project Report and submittal package 2 2 2 4 4 16 ---2 4 4 40 8,052$-$-$63$63$8,115$ 5.6 Provide up to 10 hours of additional permit support 2 -2 --2 ---2 2 -10 2,078$-$-$1$1$2,079$ Task 6 Bid-Ready Plans and Specifications 4 -9 9 --16 16 ----4 58 10,090$825$-$118$943$11,033$ 6.1 Prepare bid-ready plans and specifications 4 -8 8 --16 16 ---4 56 9,668$825$-$118$943$10,611$ 6.2 Prepare bid-ready estimate of probable construction cost --1 1 --------2 422$-$-$-$-$422$ Task 7 Services During Bidding 16 -26 14 --4 8 ----6 74 14,842$330$56$118$504$15,346$ 7.1 Prepare bid advertisement 1 -2 --------2 5 912$-$-$-$-$912$ 7.2 Attend pre-bid walkthrough 4 -4 ---------8 1,804$-$28$-$28$1,832$ 7.3 Respond to contractor or supplier questions 2 -8 8 --------18 3,856$-$-$-$-$3,856$ 7.4 Prepare up to two (2) addenda 2 -8 4 ---8 ----22 4,220$220$-$-$220$4,440$ 7.5 Attend bid opening and prepare letter of recommendation 6 ----------2 8 1,690$-$-$-$-$1,690$ 7.6 Create conformed for construction contract documents 1 -4 2 --4 ----2 13 2,360$110$28$118$256$2,616$ PROJECT TOTAL 119 18 206 123 41 42 174 201 94 10 15 4 44 1091 202,673$12,430$224$1,016$13,670$216,343$ Z:\Projects\Data\REN\S40\2021 West Hill Booster Pump Station Improvements\Contract\Design\PSA_EXH C-2_FEE_West Hill BPS Improvements_Design and SDB_Rev-2.xlsx 6/29/2021 1:10 PM AGENDA ITEM #6. f) 7,943 662 West Hill Booster Pump Station This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 6/30/2021 Legend 4500225 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Feet Notes 450 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov City and County Labels Parcels City and County Boundary <all other values> Renton Streets Parks Waterbodies 2019.sid Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 West Hill Booster Pump Station Renton Municipal Airport Cedar RiverRainier Ave NAGENDA ITEM #6. f) 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    RESOLUTION NO. ________      A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE  2021/2022 CITY OF RENTON FEE SCHEDULE.  WHEREAS, on November 23, 2009, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5509, which  removed many fees from the Renton Municipal Code and consolidated them into the 2010 City  of Renton Fee Schedule brochure, which has been subsequently amended; and   WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the City Council passed Resolution No. 4422, adopting  an amended fee schedule for 2021 and 2022; and  WHEREAS, on May 3, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution No. 4433, adopting an  amended fee schedule in order to make periodic updates and corrections to and reorganize the  fee schedule and to incorporate fee amendments included in the City’s 2021 Carry Forward and  1st Quarter budget amendment; clarify the timing of payment of publication fees in Section I of  the fee schedule; remove “Boat Launch Rates: Additional sticker (launching permit)” from Section  IV.2 of the fee schedule; set forth land use review fees for revisions and modifications to  conditional use permits and plats in Section XII.2 of the fee schedule;  update Section XII.3 of the  fee schedule to (1) clarify that pursuant to RMC 9‐10‐9, public agencies are subject to franchise  permit fees and (2) add fee exceptions for certain work by individual homeowners, certain  moving activities, and certain work in the CD (Center Downtown) zone; and  WHEREAS, it is necessary to approve an amended fee schedule to make periodic updates  as part of the City’s 2021 2nd Quarter budget amendment;    AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______  2  WHEREAS, it is further necessary to approve an amended fee schedule updating Section  XII.1 of the fee schedule to change demolition permit fees from a flat rate fee to a fee calculated  based on building valuation; and  WHEREAS, it is further necessary to approve an amended fee schedule setting forth public  works fees for public reimbursement of electrical service and setting forth public works fees for  conduit lease rates in Section XII.3 of the fee schedule; and   WHEREAS, it is further necessary to approve an amended fee schedule to add the  multifamily tax exemption application fee pursuant to RMC 4‐1‐220 and add the assessed current  market value for replacement tree fee in lieu in Section XII.6 of the fee schedule;    NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:   SECTION I. The fee schedule is amended and replaced with the 2021‐2022 City of  Renton Fee Schedule brochure, which is attached hereto and adopted by this reference (“Fee  Schedule”).  An updated copy of the Fee Schedule shall at all times be filed with the City Clerk as  required by Ordinance No. 5509.  SECTION II. The amended Fee Schedule adopted by Section I of this resolution shall be  effective upon passage and approval of this resolution, and thereafter act as the City of Renton's  Fee Schedule for all fees or charges referenced therein. The Fee Schedule shall remain in effect until  amended or otherwise replaced by the City Council. In the event the Fee Schedule is not amended  prior to the year 2023, the fees specified for the year 2022 shall continue to apply into and beyond  2023 until amended by the City Council.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) RESOLUTION NO. _______  3  PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _______________________, 2021.        ______________________________  Jason A. Seth, City Clerk      APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _______________________, 2021.        ______________________________  Armondo Pavone, Mayor          Approved as to form:      ______________________________  Shane Moloney, City Attorney    RES:1880:6/15/21  AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) Rev. June 2021 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) Table of Contents Page SECTION I. MISCELLANEOUS FEES 1 SECTION II. MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE 2 SECTION III. City CENTER PARKING FEES 3 SECTION IV. AQUATIC FEES 3 SECTION V. CARCO THEATER (REPEALED) 3 SECTION VI. PARKS AND FACILITIES USE AND RENTAL 3 SECTION VII. COMMUNITY CENTER PASS CARD & FEES 4 SECTION VIII. AIRPORT CHARGES 5 SECTION IX. ANIMAL LICENSES FEES* ‐ RMC 5‐4‐25 SECTION X. BUSINESS LICENSES 5 SECTION XI. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT LICENSES 5 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES 5 Building Fees:5 Land Use Review Fees:7 Public Works Fees: 8 Technology Surcharge Fee 12 Impact Fees: 12 Miscellaneous Fees: 13 SECTION XIII. FIRE DEPARMENT FIRE MARSHAL FEES (RFA) 13 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION I. MISCELLANEOUS FEES 2021 2022 1. Maps: a. Zoning maps ‐ standard 11 x 17 $4 $4 b.  Zoning maps ‐ large 24 x 36 $12 $12 c.  Comprehensive Plan map ‐ standard 11 x 17 $4 $4 d.  Comprehensive Plan map ‐ large 24 x 36 $12 $12 e.  Precinct maps $5 $5 2. Plat: a.  First page $2 $2 b.  Each additional page $1 $1 3. Photocopies:  a.  Each 8.5" x 11" or 8.5" x 14"$0.15 $0.15 b.  Each 11" x 17"$0.20 $0.20 c.  Each 8.5" x 11" or 8.5" x 14" color $0.25 $0.25 4. Budget: a.  City's Budget $10 $10 b.  N/C N/C 5. Audio or Video Recording Copies: a.Audio recording, each copy $2 $2 b.Video recording, each copy $2 $2 6. Regulations and Plans: a.Comprehensive Plan and Map $30 $30 b.Title IV, Development Regulations: (i) Text and Zoning Map $110 $110 (ii) Text only $100 $100 c.Individual Chapters of Development Regulations $10 $10 d. Renton Municipal Code (two volumes)$400 $400 e.Code Supplements, per year: (i) Titles I ‐ III and VI ‐ X $70 $70 (ii) Title IV $70 $70 7. Miscellaneous Services: a.Certification and Notary Fees ‐ Clerk's Certification $10 $10 b.Notary Public Attestation or Acknowledgement or as $10 $10 otherwise provided for in RCW 42.28.090, per signature c.Hold Harmless Agreements and other similar documents $20 $20 not otherwise provided for d.Lamination of licenses, pictures $6 $6 e.Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Loan Program: (i) Application Fee $200 $200 (ii) Loan Origination Fee $150 or 0.25% of loan amount,  whichever is greater $150 or 0.25% of loan  amount, whichever is  greater (iii) Closing Costs (including any legal fees)50% of total actual costs 50% of total actual costs 8. Miscellaneous Charges for Police Services: a.Police Reports per page $0.15 $0.15 b.Record Checks (Written Response) $5 $5 c.Photographs ‐ Digital on CD $2 $2 d.Photographs ‐ black & white or color ‐ Cost of developing film Cost Cost e.Fingerprint Cards $5 $5 (i) Each additional card $1 $1 9. Charges for Fire Documents: a.Fire reports per page $0.15 $0.15 b.Fire investigative report on CD $2 $2 c.First copy ‐ black & white or color ‐ Cost of developing film Cost Cost d.Additional copy ‐ black & white or color ‐ Cost of developing film Cost Cost 10. Computer Listings: a.City of Renton new business list $10 $10 b.List of all business licenses $20 $20 c.Copies requested to be faxed, local number $3 $3 d.Copies requested to be faxed, long distance number (i) One (1) ‐ five (5) pages $10 $10 (ii) Six (6) or more pages (ten (10) page limit)$20 $20 11. Utility Fee: a.Special Request Water Meter Reading $30 $30 b.Utility New Account Setup $25 $25 c.Utility Billing Account Transfer (tenant billing form)$5 $5 d.Water utility outstanding balance search requested by $25 $25 fax, messenger, or letter 12. Schedule of Fines for False Alarms ‐ Security/Burglar: (effective February 1, 2019) a.One‐time Registration Fee $25 $25 b.Annual Registration Renewal N/C N/C c.First False Alarm in a registration year*N/C N/C d.Second False Alarm in a registration year*$100 $100 e.Third or more False Alarm in a registration year*$250 $250 f.Late Payment Fee $25 $25 City's Budget to other municipality or quasi‐municipal corporation or other nonprofit charitable or education organization 1 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION I. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 g.Unregistered Alarm System Fee $50 $50 *A registration year shall mean January 1 thru December 31 each year. 13. NSF Check Fees $25 $25 14. Veteran Park Tile: Three lines $75 $75 15. Electronic Records: a.Photocopies or printed copies of electronic records, per page $0.15 $0.15 b.Scanning paper records, per page $0.10 $0.10 c.Electronic files or attachments uploaded for electronic delivery (email, cloud‐based data storage service, or $0.05 $0.05 other means of electronic delivery), for each four (4) files d.Transmission of records in an electronic format or for the use of agency equipment to send the records $0.10 $0.10 electronically, per gigabyte (GB) 16. Document Recording Fees: a.Actual Costs Actual Costs b.Miscellaneous charges associated with document recording, such as courier fees Actual Costs Actual Costs 17. Publication Fees:  Actual Costs Actual Costs SECTION II. MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE 2021 2022 1. a.Weekday: (i) 18 Hole $39 $39 (ii) 9 Hole $29 $29 (iii) 18 Hole, Senior $30 $30 (iv) 9 Hole, Senior $22 $22 (v) 18 Hole, Junior $21 $21 (vi) 9 Hole, Junior $17 $17 b.Weekend: (i) 18 Hole $46 $46 (ii) 9 Hole $29 $29 2. Club Rental*: a.Regular $25 $25 b.Premium $50 $50 3. Golf Cart Fees*: a.18 Hole $34 $34 b.18 Hole Single Rider $26 $26 c.9 Hole $22 $22 d.9 Hole Single Rider $16 $16 e.Trail Fee $15 $15 4. Driving Range Fees*: a.Large Bucket $11 $11 b.Small Bucket $6 $6 c.Warm‐up Bucket $4 $4 5. Lesson Fees: a.1/2 Hour Private $45 $45 b.1 Hour Private $65 $65 c.1/2 Hour Series Private $160 $160 d.1 Hour Series Private $240 $240 e.Group Series $100 $100 f.1/2 Hour Private, Junior $25 $25 g.Playing Lesson(3‐hole minimum/9‐hole maximum) per hole $15 $15 * Rates include Washington State Sales Tax (WSST) *The charges identified in RCW 42.56.120(3)(b) (and referenced above) may be combined to the extent that more than one  type of charge applies to copies produced in response to a particular request. The actual cost of any digital storage media or  device provided by the agency. Alternatively, the City may charge a flat fee of up to $2 for the entire request as long as the cost  of uploading and transmitting the electronic records is reasonably estimated to equal or exceed that amount. Only one $2 flat  fee per request is authorized for electronic records produced in installments. When records are provided electronically on a CD, DVD, thumb drive, flash drive, or other electronic device, the requestor will be charged for the cost of the electronic storage  device. The City may charge an actual‐cost service charge for requests that require use of IT expertise to prepare data  comilations or provide customized electronic access services when not used by the City for other purposes. A cost estimate and  explanation will be provided to the requestor before incurring the costs. Option to waive charges.  The City may waive charges associated with fulfilling a request.  The decision will be based on  various factors, including the volume and format of the responsive documents. The decision to assess fees for fulfilling a public  records request shall be made on a consistent and equitable basis, dependent primarily upon the amount of staff time required  for copying, scanning, shipping, uploading, and/or transmitting the records associated with fulfilling a request. Certified copies.  If the requestor is seeking a certified copy of a City record, an additional charge of $1.00 per each complete  document may be applied to cover the additional expense and time required for certification. The applicant shall pay all document recording fees charged by King county and all administrative fees charged by the title company  for processing. Payment in full shall by submitted to the City before documents are sent for recording. The applicant shall pay all Publication fees charged by publication outlet used by the City (The Seattle Times or equivalent).  Payment in full shall be made to the City prior to public hearing, permit approval or issuance, whichever comes first. Note:  Should Section I fees due total less than $4.00 and no other fee is due to the City at the same time, the department  administrator may authorize to waive the entire amount due at their discretion. Green Fees*:  For purposes of this section, "weekend" shall mean Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. "Weekday" shall mean the remaining  four days of the week. "Junior" shall mean ages 17 and under, "Senior" shall mean ages 62 and over.  Off‐season and promotional rates determined by management; posted on website. 2 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION III. City CENTER PARKING FEES 2021 2022 1. City Center Parking Garage Fees: Parking rates for retail parking will be as follows: a.Zero (0) ‐ two (2) hours N/C N/C b.Two (2) ‐ four (4) hours $2 $2 c.Four (4) ‐ six (6) hours $4 $4 d.Six (6) ‐ (10) hours $6 $6 e. 10 hours or more $10 $10 f.Monthly pass‐holders, tax included $35 $35 SECTION IV. AQUATIC FEES 2021 2022 1. Admission for the Aquatic Center shall be as follows: a.Regular Session: (i) Infants ‐ under 1 year N/C N/C (ii) Youth ‐ 1 to 4 years $6 $6 (iii) Ages 5 and up $11 $11 (iv) Lap swim ‐ water walking only $5 $5 b.Season Pass: (i) Resident infants ‐ under 1 year N/C N/C (ii) Non‐resident infants ‐ under 1 year N/C N/C (iii) Resident ages 1 and up $60 $60 (iv) Non‐resident ages 1 and up $120 $120 c.Miscellaneous Rates: (i) Resident regular session per person rate (group rates)*$12 $12 (ii) Non‐resident regular session per person rate $16 $16 (iii) Locker Rental $0.25 $0.25 d.Canopy Rental Fees*: (includes canopy and admission for one leisure swim session): (i) Henry Moses Party Tent #1  (10' x 20' for up to twenty‐five (25) guests on wave pool): (1) Resident Rate, per session $450 $450 (2) Non‐resident Rate, per session $550 $550 (ii) Henry Moses Party Tent #2  (10' x 20' for up to twenty‐five (25) guests): (1) Resident Rate $400 $400 (2) Non‐Resident Rate $500 $500 (iii) Henry Moses Party Tent #3 (10' x 10' for up to ten (10) guests): (1) Resident Rate, per session $200 $200 (2) Non‐resident Rate, per session $240 $240 e.Resident Rate all inclusive*$1,800 $1,800 f.Non‐resident Rate all inclusive*$2,300 $2,300 *Sales tax not included in the rental fee g.Swim Lesson Program: Fees and associated descriptions are published in the "What's Happening " Renton Activities Guide h.End‐of‐year School Party Rentals: (i) Renton School District (1) 001 ‐ 299 students $1,900 $1,900 (2) 300 ‐ 399 students $2,250 $2,250 (3) 400 ‐ 499 students $2,400 $2,400 (4) 500 ‐ 599 students $2,550 $2,550 (ii) Other Schools and Districts (1) 001 ‐ 299 students $2,450 $2,450 (2) 300 ‐ 399 students $2,850 $2,850 (3) 400 ‐ 499 students $3,150 $3,150 (4) 500 ‐ 599 students $3,360 $3,360 2. Boat Launch Rates: a.Daily resident ‐ 7 days a week $10 $10 b.Daily Non‐resident ‐ 7 days a week $20 $20 c.Overnight resident ‐ 7 days a week $20 $20 d.Overnight Non‐resident ‐ 7 days a week $40 $40 e.Annual parking permit ‐ resident $60 $60 f.Annual parking permit ‐ non‐resident $120 $120 g.$50 $50 SECTION V. CARCO THEATER (REPEALED)2021 2022 SECTION VI. PARKS AND FACILITIES USE AND RENTAL 2021 2022 1. Outlying Picnic Shelters (Cedar River Trail, Liberty Park, Phillip Arnold Park, Teasdale Park and Heritage Park) Maximum of 50 people: a.Resident 10am‐7pm $140 $140 b.Non‐resident 10am‐7pm $280 $280 2. Gene Coulon Beach Park Shelters (South #1, South #2 and Creekside) Maximum of 75 people: a.Resident 10am‐7pm $140 $140 b.Non‐resident 10am‐7pm $280 $280 e.South Shelters 1 & 2 Resident rate $300 $300 f.South Shelters 1 & 2 Non‐resident rate $600 $600 3. Gene Coulon Beach Park Shelters (North Shelter): a.Resident 10am‐7pm $160 $160 b.Non‐resident 10am‐7pm $320 $320 *Group Rates: Group rates offer guaranteed admission for the group. In order to qualify for a group rate, the group must consist  of ten (10) or more persons, and the session must be scheduled in advance. Please note that the number of groups may be  limited each day. Staff has the authority to offer discounted daily rates for partial sessions or Renton‐only events. Fishing Tournaments at Coulon Beach (additional rental fee if using the Pavilion area for weigh in and or electricity at the current  rental rate) per event 3 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION VI. PARKS AND FACILITIES USE AND RENTAL (CONTINUED)2021 2022 4. Tennis, Basketball and Sand Volleyball court rate per hour (Tournament Play Only): a.Tennis court $10 $10 b.Park basketball court $10 $10 c.Sand volleyball court $10 $10 5. Catering and Event Rate (All city parks apply): a.Resident half day $200 $200 b.Resident full day $350 $350 c.Non‐resident half day $400 $400 d.Non‐resident full day $700 $700 6. a.Each $50 $50 7. a.Resident rate per hour $10 $10 b.Non‐resident rate per hour $25 $25 c.Special Event Permit Fee $85 $85 8. Piazza Park Open Space Event Rental a.Full day rental  10am ‐ 7pm $500 $500 9. Photo Shoots per hour: a.Commercial Film and Photo Shoots per hour $300 $300 10. Electrical Spider Box rental: a.      Electrical spider box rental per box, per event, with special event approval $100 $100 11. Athletic Field Rental, Lights and Prep Fees: a.Sports field rental per hour ‐ resident $25 $25 b.Sports field rental per hour ‐ non‐resident $30 $30 c.Renton Area Youth Sports Agencies, per hour $6 $6 d.Field prep for softball/baseball ‐ resident per occurrence $30 $30 e.Field prep for soccer ‐ resident per occurrence $45 $45 f.Custom Field prep ‐ resident per occurrence $100 $100 g.Field prep for softball/baseball ‐ non‐resident per occurrence $35 $35 h.Field prep for soccer ‐ non‐resident per occurrence $50 $50 i.Custom Field prep ‐ non‐resident per occurrence $100 $100 j.Field lights all sports ‐ resident per hour $25 $25 k.Field lights all sports ‐ non‐resident per hour $30 $30 12. Banquet & Classroom Rental ‐ Community Center & Senior Activity Center: a.Friday evening 5 hour minimum ‐ resident $650 $650 b.Weekend Rates 10 hour minimum ‐ resident $1,300 $1,300 c.Extra hours ‐ per hour ‐ resident $130 $130 d.Friday 5 hour minimum ‐ non‐resident $750 $750 e.Weekend Rates 10 hour minimum ‐ non‐resident $1,500 $1,500 f.Extra hours ‐ per hour ‐ non‐resident $150 $150 g.Kitchen charge ‐ per hour $100 $100 h.Banquet Room ‐ Mon ‐ Fri ‐ daytime ‐ resident/hr 3 hour min $85 $85 i.Banquet Room ‐ Mon ‐ Fri ‐ daytime ‐ non‐resident/hr 3 hour min $90 $90 j.Damage deposit $550 $550 k.Contract violation fee ‐ per hour $200 $200 l.Cancellation Fee ‐ Less than 90 days $550 $550 13. Classroom and Gymnasium Rental ‐ Renton Community Center: a.Resident single gym athletic ‐ per hour $45 $45 b.Non‐resident single gym athletic ‐ per hour $50 $50 c.Resident double gym athletic ‐ per hour $90 $90 d.Non‐resident double gym athletic ‐ per hour $100 $100 e.Resident single gym non‐athletic $550 $550 f.Non‐resident single gym non‐athletic $675 $675 g.Resident double gym non‐athletic $1,100 $1,100 h.Non‐resident double gym non‐athletic $1,350 $1,350 i.Carpet fee single gym ‐ resident & non‐resident $325 $325 j.Carpet fee double gym ‐ resident & non‐resident $650 $650 k.Classroom resident $35 $35 l.Classroom Non‐resident $40 $40 14. Birthday Party Packages: a.Party package ‐ resident $65 $65 b.Party package ‐ non‐resident $75 $75 15. Facility Rental ‐ Neighborhood Center: a.Meeting room ‐ resident $35 $35 b.Gymnasium ‐ resident $35 $35 c.Meeting room ‐ non‐resident $40 $40 d.Gymnasium ‐ non‐resident $40 $40 16. Farmer's Market a.10x10 Lot $40 $40 b.Half Lot $20 $20 c.Application fee $30 $30 d.Electrical fee $5 $5 17. Reader Board a.One day/day of event $110 $110 b.Two weeks prior to event $275 $275 SECTION VII. COMMUNITY CENTER PASS CARD & FEES 2021 2022 Fees and associated descriptions are published and available in the "Let's Go Renton" Recreation Guide. Inflatable and big toy rate:  Note: Along with rental fee for the use of City facility for each inflatable or big toy, Applicant or Renter shall provide proof of  insurance naming the City of Renton as additional insured. Open Space Area in the Parks (Cascade, Teasdale, Phillip Arnold, Cedar River, Earlington, Gene Coulon, Glencoe, Kennydale Lions,  Sunset, and Riverview Parks): 4 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION VIII. AIRPORT CHARGES 2021 2022 1.Airport Fuel Flow Charge:  per gallon $0.08 $0.08 2.JetA Fuel Flow Charge:  per gallon $0.10 $0.10 3.Transient airplane parking daily $8 $8 4.Hangar wait list, one time fee $100 $100 5.Tie‐down wait list, one time fee $25 $25 6.Lost gate card fee per occurrence $50 $50 7.T‐Hangar, Non‐Refundable Move‐in Fee $250 $250 8.Penalty for violation of Minimum Standards/Airport Rules & Regulations (each occurrence)$500 $500 9.Penalty for Movement Area Incursions (each occurrence), assessed to sponsor/tenant $500 $500 SECTION IX. ANIMAL LICENSES FEES* ‐ RMC 5‐4‐2 2021 2022 1.Altered Animal Annual License $30 $30 2.Unaltered Animal Annual License $50 $50 3.Economically Qualified Resident Special Lifetime License $0 $0 4.Duplicate Tag $10 $10 5.Late Charge $30 $30 SECTION X. BUSINESS LICENSES 2021 2022 1. General Business License: a.Registration Fee $150 $150 b.Appeal of Business License Decision $250 $250 2. Penalties: a.The penalty to reinstate an expired business license $50 $50 b.The penalty  for failure to obtain a business license $250 $250 c. SECTION XI. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT LICENSES 2021 2022 1. Every person applying for a adult entertainment license  shall pay the applicable nonrefundable application fee: a.Adult Entertainment Business License $750 $750 b.Entertainer $75 $75 c.Manager $75 $75 d.License Replacement $10 $10 2. Penalties: a.Civil Penalty, per violation $1,000 $1,000 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES 2021 2022 1. Building Fees: a.Building and Demolition Permit Fees:1 (i) Base Fee/Valuation $1.00 to $500.00 $34 $34 (ii) Valuation $501.00 to $2,000.00 $34 + $3.83 x each $100 value $34 + $3.83 x each $100  value (iii) Valuation $2001.00 to 25,000.00 $88.75 + $17.59 x each $1,000  value $88.75 + $17.59 x each  $1,000 value (iv) Valuation $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $493.26 + $12.60 x each  $1,000 value $493.26 + $12.60 x each  $1,000 value (v) Valuation $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $808.26 + $8.77 x each $1,000  value $808.26 + $8.77 x each  $1,000 value (vi) Valuation $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1,225.76 + $7.04 x each  $1,000 value $1,225.76 + $7.04 x each  $1,000 value (vii) Valuation $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00  $4,039.76 + $5.93 x each  $1,000 value $4,039.76 + $5.93 x each  $1,000 value (viii) Valuation $1,000,001.00 and up $7,006.01 + $4.57 x each  $1,000 value $7,006.01 + $4.57 x each  $1,000 value b.Combination Building Permit Fees*1 (i) Plumbing up to 3,000 sq ft $256 $256 (ii) Plumbing over 3,000 sq ft $282 $282 (iii) Mechanical up to 3,000 sq ft $205 $205 (iv) Mechanical over 3,000 sq ft $231 $231 (v) Electrical up to 3,000 sq ft $231 $231 (vi) Electrical over 3,000 sq ft $282 $282 * Combination Building Permit fees are required for each new single family residential structure c.Building Plan Check Fee1 (i) Initial Building Plan Check Fee*65% of permit fee 65% of permit fee (ii) Additional Building Plan Check Fee 50% of initial plan Check Fee 50% of initial plan Check  Fee d.Demolition Permit Fee: (i)Residential $125 $125 (ii)Commercial $272 $272 e. d State Building Code Fee: (i) Non‐residential projects:$25 $25 (ii) Residential projects:$6.50 $6.50 (1) Each additional unit after first unit:$2 $2 5%‐15% * Building Plan Check Fee is in addition to the building permit fees, demolition permit fees, and combination building permit  fees.  The plan check fee is equal to 65% of the building permit fee, or the demolition permit fee, or the combination  building permit fee.  Includes three (3) review cycles. 5%‐15% *Please note, impounded animals are subject to license fees, microchipping costs, and other out‐of‐pocket costs as specified in  RMC 6‐6‐2. Failure to pay the license fee within one day after the day on which it is due and payable pursuant to subsection C7 of Chapter  5 of the RMC shall render the business enterprise subject to a penalty of (5%) of the amount of the license fee for the first  month of the delinquency and an additional penalty of (5%) for each succeeding month of delinquency, but not exceeding a  total penalty of (15%) of the amount of such license fee. 5 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 1. Building Fees: (continued) f.Electrical Permit Fees: (i) Residential Fees ‐ Single ‐Family and Duplex (1) New Service ‐ Single Family and Duplex1 (a) Up to 200 AMP $217 $217 (b) Over 200  AMP $231 $231 (2) Service Changes/New Circuits ‐ Single Family and Duplex: (a) Change up to 200 AMP $169 $169 (b) Change over 200 AMP $179 $179 (c) Any new circuits added to above price is per each up to a maximum of $80.00 $21 $21 (d) Minimum fee for remodel/addition of new circuits without a service charge $169 $169 (e) Cooling system circuit for new or replaced appliance $75 $75 (ii) Multi‐Family, Commercial and Industrial Fees: (1) Value of work: $1.00 to $500.00 $66 $66 $500.01 to $1,000.00 $49 + 3.5% of  value $49 + 3.5% of  value $1,000.01 to 5,000.00 $86.10 + 3.05% of value $86.10 + 3.05% of value $5,000.01 to $50,000.00 $245.70 + 1.8% of value $245.70 + 1.8% of value $50,000.01 to $250,000.00 $1,183.35 + 1.05% of value $1,183.35 + 1.05% of  value $250,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,939.60 + 0.85% of value $3,939.60 + 0.85% of  value $1,000,000.01 and up $12,759.60 + 0.47% of value $12,759.60 + 0.47% of  value (iii) Temporary Electrical Services $169 $169 (iv) Miscellaneous Electrical Fees (1) Job Trailers $169 $169 (2) Signs per each $169 $169 (3) Mobile Homes $169 $169 (4)50% of commercial fees  Minimum $169 50% of commercial fees  Minimum $169 g.House Moving* ‐ minimum per hour Inspection Fee:$154 $154 h.Inspection Fee For Condominium Conversions $154 on 1st unit / $21 each  add'l unit $154 on 1st unit /  $21 each add'l unit i.Manufactured/Mobile Home Installation Fees*: (i) Within a manufactured home park $154 $154 (ii) Outside of a manufactured home park Building Permit Fees Building Permit Fees j.Mechanical Permit Fees:1 (i) Residential ‐ Mechanical Permit base fee plus itemized fees below:$53 $53 (1)$21 $21 (2) Boiler or Compressor $21 $21 (3)$21 $21 (4) Ventilation/exhaust fan $21 $21 (5) Fuel Gas Piping (each gas piping system up to 6 outlets)$21 $21 (ii) Commercial or Multi‐Family ‐ Mechanical Permit base fee plus itemized fees below:$77 $77 (1)$36 $36 (2) Boiler or Compressor $77 $77 (3) Refrigeration System $77 $77 (4)$77 $77 (5) Incinerator: Installation or relocation of each  $103 $103 (6)$36 $36 (7) Fuel Gas Piping (each gas piping system up to 6 outlets)$36 $36 k.Plumbing Permit Fees:1 (i) Residential ‐ Plumbing Permit base fee plus itemized fees below:$53 $53 (1)$10 $10 (2) Water Service: For meter to house $10 $10 (3) Per fixture for repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping $10 $10 (4) Per drain for rainwater systems   $10 $10 (5) Per lawn sprinkler system, includes backflow prevention $10 $10 (6) Per vacuum breaker or backflow protection device on tanks, vats, etc.$10 $10 (7) Per interceptor for industrial waste pretreatment $10 $10 Per plumbing fixture (e.g., sink, shower, toilet, dishwasher, tub, etc.) or set of fixtures on one trap Commercial Hood: Installation of each served by a mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood each  Appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for  which no other fee is listed in this code Low Voltage Work (e.g., alarm systems; thermostats; computer, data, or phone lines; fiber optics, cable  television, etc.) Exemption: Residential telephone communication systems, thermostats, security systems, and cable television installations are  exempt from fees *This covers only the Building Section inspection of the structure prior to move. There is a separate additional fee charged  by the Public Works Department to cover the actual house move permit. A building permit is also required in order to site  the structure on the new site. *  Includes plan review and inspection fees for the foundation (electrical, plumbing, mechanical, sewer and water  connection fees are in addition to the below amounts). Heating system (furnace, heat pump, suspended heater, fireplace, wood stove, etc.).  A/C system (air  conditioner, chiller or Air Handling Unit (VAV) including ducts and vents) Appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for  which no other fee is listed in this code Heating system (furnace, heat pump, suspended heater, fireplace, wood stove, etc.).  A/C system (air  conditioner, chiller or Air Handling Unit (VAV) including ducts and vents) 6 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 1. Building Fees: (continued) (8) Fuel Gas Piping: (each gas piping system up to 6 outlets)$21 $21 (ii) Commercial or Multi‐Family: Plumbing Permit base fee plus itemized fees below:$77 $77 (1)Per plumbing fixture (e.g., sink, shower, toilet, dishwasher, tub, etc.) or set of fixtures on one trap $15 $15 (2) Water Service: For meter to building $15 $15 (3) Per fixture for repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping $15 $15 (4) Per drain for rainwater systems   $15 $15 (5) Per lawn sprinkler system, includes backflow prevention $15 $15 (6) Per vacuum breaker or backflow protection device on tanks, vats, etc.$15 $15 (7) Per interceptor for industrial waste pretreatment $15 $15 (8) Fuel Gas Piping: (each gas piping system up to 6 outlets)$26 $26 (9) Medical Gas Piping: (each gas piping system up to 6 outlets)$77 $77 l.Sign Permit Fees: (i) Permanent Signs: (1) Roof, projecting, awning, canopy, marquee, and wall signs $256 $256 (2) Freestanding ground and pole signs  $256 $256 (ii) Temporary and Portable Signs: (1) Real Estate Directional Signs, pursuant to RMC 4‐4‐100J2, permit valid for a 12‐months period $77 $77 (2) Grand Opening Event Signs, pursuant to RMC 4‐4‐100J6d(i) $77 $77 (3) Event Signs, pursuant to RMC 4‐4‐100J6d(ii) and (iii) per sign, per promotion $51 $51 (4)$128 $128 (5) Commercial Property Real Estate Banner each sign permit is valid for 12 months.$77 $77 (6) Decorative Flags fee is per entrance and valid until flag(s) are removed $77 $77 m.Miscellaneous Fees: (i) Inspection Fees: (1) Minimum Housing Inspection $128 $128 (2) WABO ‐ Adult Family Home; Misc building inspection $128 $128 (3) Reinspection Fee; Misc building inspection $128 $128 (ii) Plan Review Fees: (1) Electrical, Plumbing, or Mechanical Permits (percentage of permit fee)40% 40% (2) Additional Plan Review Fees: Over three review cycles (percentage of plan review fee)50% 50% (3) Miscellaneous Plan Review: hourly fee.$128/hr $128/hr (iii)2 X Permit Fee 2 X Permit Fee 2. Land Use Review Fees: a.General Land Use Review: (i) Additional Animals Permit $50 $50 (ii) Address Change $105 $105 (iii) Annexation: (1) Less than 10 acres $5,250 $5,250 (2) 10 acres or more $5,250 $5,250 (iv) Appeal of: (1) Hearing Examiner's Decision $500 $500 (2) Administrative Decision $500 $500 (3) Environmental Decision $500 $500 (v) Binding Site Plan (total fee for both preliminary and final phases)$5,280 $5,280 (vi) Code Text Amendment N/C N/C (vii) Comprehensive Plan Map or Text Amendment (each)$5,250 $5,250 (viii) Conditional Use Permit: (1) HEX $3,300 $3,300 (2) Administrative $1,600 $1,600 (3) Revision (minor, administrative) 50% of Application Fee 50% of Application Fee (4) Revision (major)Application Fee Application Fee (ix) Critical Areas Exemption N/C N/C (x) Critical Areas Permit $1,250 $1,250 (xi)100% of 100% of  contract cost contract cost (xii) Development Agreement $10,000 $10,000 (xiii)100% of cost 100% of cost (xiv) Environmental Checklist Review $1,600 $1,600 (xv) Environmental (SEPA) Addendum $1,600 $1,600 (xvi) Fence Permit (special)$160 $160 (xvii) Grading and Filling Permit (Hearing Examiner)$5,410 $5,410 (xviii) Landscape Review Fee $160 $160 (xix) Legal Lot Segregation N/C N/C (xx) Lot Consolidation $510 $510 (xxi) Lot Line Adjustment $1,090 $1,090 (xxii)Manufactured/Mobile Home Park: (1) Tentative $1,090 $1,090 (2) Preliminary $3,250 $3,250 (3) Final $1,600 $1,600 (xxiii)Open Space Classification Request $155 $155 (xxiv) Plats: (1) Preliminary Short Plat $5,410 $5,410 (2) Final Short Plat $2,705 $2,705 (3) Preliminary Plat $10,830 $10,830 A‐Frame Signs, pursuant to RMC 4‐4‐100J5 Charge is for the first sign, all subsequent signs are $50.00 Work commencing before permit Issuance:  Where work for which the permit is required is started prior to obtaining  the permit, a special investigation fee in an amount equal to twice the permit fee shall be charged. The special  investigation fee shall be paid in addition to the required permit fees. 1 Per Res. 4422, fees for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be waived as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022.  Critical Areas Review Fee:  for those projects that propose impacts to critical areas and will be billed at the cost of  contract biologist’s review.1 Environmental Impact Statement Cost include the coordination, review and appeal. Draft and Final2 7 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 2. Land Use Review Fees: (Continued) (4) Final Plat $5,410 $5,410 (5) Minor Plat Amendment 50% of Application Fee 50% of Application Fee (6) Major Plat Amendment Application Fee Application Fee (xxv) Planned Urban Development: (1) Preliminary Plan $5,410 $5,410 (2) Final Plan $2,700 $2,700 (xxvi) Reasonable Use Exception: (a) In conjunction with land use permit $510 $510 (b) Stand alone $1,540 $1,540 (xxvii) Public Arts Exemption N/C N/C (xxviii) Rezone  $5,250 $5,250 (xxix) Routine Vegetation Management Permit without Critical Areas  $105 $105 (xxx) Shoreline‐Related Permits: (1) Shoreline Permit Exemption N/C N/C (2) Substantial Development Permit $2,700 $2,700 (3) Conditional Use Permit $3,250 $3,250 (4) Variance $3,250 $3,250 (xxxi) Site Development Plan (Site Plan or Master Plan  which includes design review fee for projects subject to RMC 4‐3‐100): (1) Hearing Examiner Review $3,800 $3,800 (2) Administrative Review  $2,700 $2,700 (3) Modification (minor, administrative)  50% of current site  plan review fee 50% of current site  plan review fee (4)Application Application  Fees Fees (xxxii) Small Cell Permit, per site3 $510 $510  (xxxiii) Special Permit (Hearing Examiner) $2,700 $2,700 (xxxiv) Street Naming (Honorary) (1) Application $250 $250 (2) Installation $250 $250 (xxxv) Temporary Use Permits: (1) Tier 1 $105 $105 (2) Tier 2 $205 $205 (xxxvi) Variance (per each variance requested) Administrative or Hearing Examiner $1,330 $1,330 (xxxvii) Waiver or Modification of Code Requirements cost is per request $260 $260 (xxxviii) Zoning Compliance Letter $480 $480 b.Miscellaneous Fees: (i) Permit review staff overtime (applies only if permit review is requested by the applicant to be performed $175/hr 175/hr on Saturdays, Sundays, observed City of Renton holidays, and non‐holiday Monday‐Fridays outside of the  hours of  city staff regular work schedule) c. 3. Public Works Fees: a.Franchise Application Fee1 $5,000 $5,000 b.Franchise Permit Fees: 1,2 (i) (1) Small work, including trenching less than 60 linear feet or installation of 6 or less utility poles $600 $600 $600 $600 (3) Other public agencies constructing utilities within City right‐of‐way $600 $600 (ii) Master Lease Agreement including Site License Addendum, Small Cell Only (1) Master Lease Agreement Administrative Costs, $100 per staff hour Actual cost Actual cost (2) Pole Reservation, per pole $120 $120 (3) Administrative Fee, $100 per staff hour and/or cost of materials $760 deposit + $760 deposit + time and materials time and materials    (i) (a) Tier 1, Daily peak kWh <20 $715.38 $715.38 (b) Tier 2, Daily peak kWh 21 ‐ 40 $1,430.76 $1,430.76 If a franchise agreement does not specify the fee amount, the generic fee, as identified in the following table, shall be collected:  (2) All other work, permit fee plus $60 per hour of inspection applied during regular inspection hours, overtime  inspection rates apply thereafter (4) Public Reimbursement (any costs incurred by the City on behalf of the permit applicant for installation or  operation of site equipment) Modification (major) required new application and repayment of fee required Exception for Projects Vested in the County: For those projects that have vested to a land use permit under the development  regulations of King County, the King County Land Use Review Fee Schedule shall apply, and is hereby adopted by reference. A  copy of that fee schedule has been filed with the City Clerk and is available at the City Clerk’s office for public review. 1Per RMC 4‐3‐050F7, the City may charge and collect fees from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in review of plans, studies, monitoring reports and other documents related to  evaluation of impacts to or hazards from critical areas and subsequent code‐required monitoring. 2When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determines that the EIS shall be prepared,  the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in preparing the EIS. The ERC shall advise the applicant(s) of the projected costs for the  EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. The ERC may determine that the City will contract directly with a consultant for  preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement of the City and applicant  after a call for proposals. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the ERC shall refund any fees collected under this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid.  The City may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this Title relating to the applicant’s proposal. The City shall not collect a  fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this Title, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided  by chapter 42.17 RCW. 3Prior to issuance of a small cell permit, the applicant shall pay the actual administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly related to the City's review of the application, including  plan inspection, and approval, as authorized by RCW 35.21.860(1)(b), as may be amended. 1The fixed application fee established herein is intended to cover the City’s internal administrative costs in processing and administering the franchise.  In addition to the fixed application  fee, the City may require applicants to either directly pay or reimburse the City for external costs reasonably incurred to process the application and/or administer the franchise  agreement.  The City may require applicants to deposit funds in advance to cover legal and/or other professional services fees as they are incurred. Electrical service (annual fee)  8 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 b.Franchise Permit Fees (continued): (c) Tier 3, Daily peak kWh 41 ‐ 60 $2,146.14 $2,146.14 (d) Tier 4, Daily peak kWh 61 ‐ 80 $2,861.51 $2,861.51 (e) Tier 5, Daily peak kWh >81 $3,576.89 $3,576.89 (ii)Actual cost Actual cost (5) All other fees, $100 per staff hour and/or cost of materials Actual cost Actual cost (iii) (1)$10.00 $10.00 (2)$20.00 $20.00 (3)$30.00 $30.00 1Bond required pursuant to RMC 9‐10‐5 c.Latecomers' Agreement Application Fees: (i) Processing fee1 (Nonrefundable)  (1) If amount covered by latecomers’ is $50,000 or less $1,000 $1,000 (2) If amount covered by latecomers' is between $50,000 and $200,000 $2,000 $2,000 (3) If amount covered by latecomers' is greater than $200,000 $4,000 $4,000 (ii) Latecomers' Agreement – Administration and collection fee  (1) if amount covered by latecomers' is $50,000 or less 15% of total 15% of total (2) If amount covered by latecomers' is between $50,000 and $200,000 10% of total 10% of total (3) If amount covered by latecomers' is greater than $200,000 5% of total 5% of total (iii) Segregation processing fee, if applicable $750 $750 d.System Development Charge Tables: (i) Water and Wastewater System Development Charges: (1) 5/8 x 3/4 inch and 1 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $4,450 $4,500 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $594 $601 (c) Wastewater fee3 $3,450 $3,500 (2) 1‐1/2 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $22,250 $22,500 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $2,971 $3,005 (c) Wastewater fee3 $17,250 $17,500 (3) 2 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $35,600 $36,000 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $4,754 $4,807 (c) Wastewater fee3 $27,600 $28,000 (4) 3 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $71,200 $72,000 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $9,508 $9,615 (c) Wastewater fee3 $55,200 $56,000 (5) 4 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $111,250 $112,500 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $14,856 $15,023 (c) Wastewater fee3 $86,250 $87,500 (6) 6 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $222,500 $225,000 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $29,712 $30,046 (c) Wastewater fee3 $172,500 $175,000 (7) 8 inch: (a) Water service fee3 $356,000 $360,000 (b) Fire service fee 1,2 $47,539 $48,073 (c) Wastewater fee3 $276,000 $280,000 (ii) Storm Water System Development Charges: (1) New single family residence (including mobile/manufactured homes)3 $2,000 $2,100 (2) (3)$0.800 $0.084 per sq foot per sq foot e.Administrative Fees for SDC Segregation Request1  $750 + administrative costs  $750 + administrative  costs  f. (i) Water Construction Permit Fees: (1) Water meter tests for 3/4” to 2" meter1 $50 $50 (a) Water meter tests on meters 2" or larger $60 deposit + time and  materials $60 deposit + time and  materials Tier 1, conduit in existing planter strips Tier 3, conduit within signalized intersection crossings, bridges and train tracks Tier 2, conduit outside of planter strips excluding signalized intersection crossings, bridges and train tracks Public Works Construction Permit Fees:   $0.840 per sq foot All other uses charge per square foot of new impervious surface, but not less than $2,000 (2021) or $2,100  (2022) 1 Based upon the size of the fire service (NOT detector bypass meter) 2 Unless a separate fire service is provided, the system development charge(s) shall be based upon the size of the meter installed and a separate fire service fee will not be charged. 3Per Res. 4422, utility system development charges (hookup fees) for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be reduced by 50% as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31,  2022.  1The applicant shall pay the City’s administrative costs for the preparation, processing and recording of the partial payment of the fee(s). If the same segregation is used for more than one  utility’s special assessment district, and/or latecomer’s charge, then only one administrative fee is collected. 2The City may decide to contract with a consultant to perform plan reviews and inspections and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. 1The administration and collection fee is deducted from each individual latecomer fee payment and the balance forwarded to the holder of the latecomer’s agreement pursuant to RMC 9‐ 5, Tender of Fee. Addition to existing single family residence greater than 500 square feet (including mobile/manufactured homes Fee not to exceed $2,000 (2021) or $2,100 (2022) $0.800 per sq foot Conduit Lease Rates per Lineal Foot (annual fee): All other reimbursement  9 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 3. Public Works Fees: (continued) (b) Open and close fire hydrants for fire flow tests conducted by others. Time and materials Time and materials (c) Water service disconnection (cut at main)$275 $275 (d) Meter resets $95 $95 (e) Repair of damage to service $250 $250 (f) Water main connections $560 $560 (g) Water main cut and cap $1,025 $1,025 (h) Water quality/inspection/purity tests $80 $80 (i) Specialty water tests (lead, copper, etc) Cost of test + $70 processing  fee Cost of test + $70  processing fee (j) Water turn ons/offs after hours $185 $185 (k) Installation of isolation valve. $2,000 deposit + time and  materials $2,000 deposit + time and  materials f. (l)$250 + $0.15 $250 + $0.15  per lineal per lineal  foot foot (m) Miscellaneous water installation fees. Time and materials Time and materials (n) Service size reductions $50 $50  (o) Installation fees for ring and cover castings $200 $200  (2) Water meter installation fees – City installed:2 (a) 3/4” meter installed by City within City limits. Installation of stub service and meter setter only.$2,875 $2,875 (i) 3/4" meter drop in only $400 $400 (b) 3/4” meter installed by City outside City limits. Installation of stub service and meter setter only.$2,935 $2,935 (i) 3/4" meter drop in only $400 $400 (c) 1” meter installed by the City.  Installation of stub service and meter setter only.$2,875 $2,875 (i) 1" meter drop in only $460 $460 (d) 1‐1/2" meter installed by the City. Installation of stub service and meter setter only.$4,605 $4,605 (i) 1‐1/2” meter drop in only $750 $750 (e) 2” meter installed by the City. Installation of stub service and meter setter only.$4,735 $4,735 (i) 2" meter drop in only $950 $950 (3)$220 $220 (4) Hydrant Meter fees:1 (a) Hydrant meter permit fee $50 $50 (b) Deposits: (i) 3/4” meter and backflow prevention assembly.$500 $500 (ii) 3” meter and backflow prevention assembly.$2,000 $2,000 (iii) Deposit processing charge, nonrefundable.$25 $25 (c) Meter rental (begins on day of pickup): (i) 3/4” meter and backflow prevention assembly. Per month.$50 $50 (ii) 3” meter and backflow prevention assembly. Per month.$250 $250 (ii) Wastewater and Surface Water Construction Permit Fees:1 (1) Residential: (a) Wastewater permit fee $375 $375 (b) Surface water permit fee $375 $375 (2) Commercial: (a) Wastewater permit fee $375 $375 (b) Surface water permit fee $375 $375 (3) Industrial: (a) Wastewater permit fee $375 $375 (b) Surface water permit fee $375 $375 (4) Repair of any of the above (a) Wastewater permit fee $375 $375 (b) Surface water permit fee $375 $375 (5) Cut and cap/Demolition permit: (a) Wastewater permit fee $375 $375 (b) Surface water permit fee $375 $375 (6)$375 $375 (7)$375 $375 plus King County plus King County sewer rate sewer rate on discharged on discharged amount amount (iii) Right‐of‐way Permit Fees: (1) Single family residence $325 $325 (2) All other uses, excluding those listed $625 $625 (3) Wastewater or storm water service $375 $375 (4) King County ROW Permits/Inspections: (a) Service Installation Only $1,025 $1,025 (b) Utility Extension per 100' of Length (Min 200' Length)$1,025 $1,025 Ground water discharge (temporary connection to wastewater system for discharge of contaminated ground  water over 50,000 gallons) Rate plus billed for current Renton and King County sewer rate on discharged amount (meter provided by property owner) Work in right‐of‐way – construction permit: Utility and street/sidewalk improvements, excluding utilities from other  public agencies which shall be considered under a franchise permit. A bond is required, as stipulated in RMC 9‐10‐5,  Street Excavation Bond. New water line chlorination fee. Fee plus $0.15 per lineal foot for any footage after the first two hundred fifty (250) lineal feet Water meter processing fees – Applicant installed: For meters larger than 2”, the applicant must provide materials and installs.1 Public Works Construction Permit Fees:  (continued) Reinspection for Wastewater or Surface Water Permits 10 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 3. Public Works Fees: (continued) (5) (iv)$525 $525 (v) (1) Standard locate $500 $500 (2) Large project locate $1,000 $1,000 g. (i) (1) $150,000.00 or less 6% of cost 6% of cost (2) Over $150,000.00 but less than $300,000.00. $9,000 + 5% over $150,000 $9,000 + 5% over  $150,000 (3) $300,000.00 and over. $16,500 + 4% over $300,000 $16,500 + 4% over  $300,000 (ii)Standard or minor drainage adjustment review $550 $550  h. Grade and Fill License Fees: Fees shall be based on the highest tier triggered. Grade and Fill Quantity New or Replaced Hard Surface Tier < 50 cy < 2,000 sf 0 50 cy ‐ 499 cy 2,000 sf ‐ 4,999 sf 1 500 cy ‐ 4,999 cy 5,000 sf ‐ < 1 ac 2 5,000 cy ‐ 49,999 cy 1 ac ‐ < 2.5 ac 3 50,000 cy ‐ 99,999 cy 2.5 ac ‐ < 5 ac 4 100,000 cy and larger 5 ac and larger 5 (i) Review/Intake Fee: (1) Tier 0 (no permit required)N/A N/A (2) Tier 1 $466 $466 (3) Tier 2 $621 $621 (4) Tier 3 $932 $932 (5) Tier 4 $1,242 $1,242 (6) Tier 5 $1,553 $1,553 (ii) Inspection/Issuance Fee: (1) Tier 0 (no permit required)N/A N/A (2) Tier 1 $444 $444 (3) Tier 2 $887 $887 (4) Tier 3 $1,183 $1,183 (5) Tier 4 $2,366 $2,366 (6) Tier 5 $3,550 $3,550 (iii) Solid Waste Fills:1.5 x plan 1.5 x plan  check fee check fee (iv) Annual Licenses of Solid Waste Fills:  1.5 x plan 1.5 x plan  check fee check fee i. (i) Filing fee $250 $250 (ii) Processing fee $250 $250 j. (i) Single family and two family uses annually, fee assesed annually plus leasehold excise tax1 if applicable $10.00 + LET1 $10.00 + LET1 (ii)0.5% x Value2 + LET1 0.5% x Value2 + LET1 (iii)Uses with public benefit fee is a per year of assessed value of land adjoining the property, plus leasehold excise tax1, if  applicable. In no case less than $10.00.  0.5% x Value2 + LET1 0.5% x Value2 + LET1 5 ac and larger The plan check fee for solid waste fills shall be one and one‐half (1‐1/2) times the plan checking fees listed above. The fee for a grading license authorizing additional work to that under a valid license shall be the difference between the  fee paid for the original license and the fee shown for the entire project.  The fee for annual licenses for solid waste fills shall be one and one‐half (1‐1/2) times the plan checking fees listed  above. The fee for a grading license authorizing additional work to that under a valid license shall be the difference  between the fee paid for the original license and the fee shown for the entire project. Any unused fee may be carried  forward to the next year. If any work is done before the license is issued, the grading license fee shall be doubled. Release of easement fees: The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in  chapter 9‐1 RMC, Easements. Revocable Right‐of‐way Permit Fees: All uses without public benefit fee is a per month charge assessed annually based on property value2 of land to be  utilized, plus leasehold excise tax1, if applicable.  Cleared or Disturbed  Area < 7,000 sf 7,000 sf ‐ < 3/4 acre 3/4 ac ‐ < 1 ac 1 ac ‐ < 2.5 ac 2.5 ac ‐ < 5 ac 2Per Res. 4422, water meter installation fees for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be reduced by 50% as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022. Public works plan review and inspection fees1,3: All developers, municipal or quasi‐municipal entities, or utility corporations or  companies, except those specifically exempted, shall pay fees under this Section. Exempted entities include City‐franchised  cable TV, cable modem, natural gas, telecommunications, and electrical power. The fee will be based upon percentages of the  estimated cost of improvements using the following formula.  Street and utility plan review and inspection fees; estimated construction cost2: The applicant must submit separate,  itemized cost estimates for each item of improvement subject to the approval by the Public Works Plan Review  Section. 1Includes three (3) review cycles. Additional reviews will be charged $1,500 each. 2Construction cost shall be based on the City's bond quantity worksheet and shall include all project related improvements outside of the building envelopes, including, but not limited to,  all costs required to construct the following: paved parking lots, private sidewalks or walkways; private and public storm water management facilities; temporary erosion and  sedimentation control facilities; water quality facilities; public and private streets; public and private sanitary sewers; public water main improvements; required off‐site street, bike and  pedestrian improvements; street lighting improvements; required landscaping and street tree improvements; and site grading and mobilization costs. 3If deemed necessary by the City in its sole discretion, the City will contract with one or more consultants to provide plan reviews and/or inspections with the related costs and expenses  payable by the applicant. Exception: No permit fee shall be charged for individual homeowners for work in street rights‐of‐way for street  tree or parking strip irrigation systems or work associated with City of Renton capital improvement projects or  City funded projects. No permit fee shall be charged for moving pods or moving trucks in the right‐of‐way  provided that they are in the right‐of‐way for no more than three (3) days. No permit fee shall be charged for  use of the right‐of‐way in the CD zone, provided ground disturbing activity is not proposed.  Street light system fee, per new connection to power system  Utility Locate Refresh Fee (Fee is due each time excavator calls in for locate refresh during 45‐day locate ticket) 1Per Res. 4422, fees for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be waived as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022.  11 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 3. Public Works Fees: (continued) (iv) Insurance Required:   (v) Exception for Public Agencies:  2Right‐of‐way value shall be based on the assessed value of the land adjoining the property as established by the King County Assessor k. (i) Filing fee $500 $500 (ii) Appraised Value of Vacated right‐of‐way: (1) Less than $25,000 $750 $750 (2) $25,000 to $75,000 $1,250 $1,250 (3) Over $75,000 $2,000 $2,000 l. (i) (ii) (iii) m.Water or Sewer ‐ Redevelopment: (i) Fee(s) based upon meter(s) proposed for final project minus fee(s) based upon meter existing on site. n.Miscellaneous Fees: (i) Re‐inspection Fee $128 $128 (ii) Plan Revision following Permit Issuance: (1)$250 $250 (2)$1,500 $1,500 (iii) Street Frontage Improvements Fee‐In‐Lieu: (1) Street with existing storm drainage main line $113/LF $113/LF (2) Street with existing conveyance ditch $128/LF $128/LF (iv)$125/hr $125/hr (v)$175/hr $175/hr (vi)Actual cost Actual cost 4. Technology Surcharge Fee 5.0% 5.0% 5. Impact Fees: a. School Impact Fees: (i) Issaquah School District (1) Single Family Fee $18,213 $18,213 (2) Multi Family, Duplex, & Accessory Dwelling Fee (ADU)$12,043 $12,043 (ii) Kent School District (1) Single Family Fee $5,692.85 $5,692.85 (2) Multi Family, Duplex, & Accessory Dwelling Fee (ADU)$2,404.63 $2,404.63 (iii) Renton School District1 (1) Single Family Fee $7,681 $7,681 (2) Multi Family, Duplex, & Accessory Dwelling Fee (ADU)$4,989 $4,989 (iv) School Impact Fee Administration 5% x School Impact Fee 5% x School Impact Fee b. Transportation Impact Fees:1 (i) Light Industrial, per sq foot $9.50 $9.50 (ii)Apartment, per dwelling & Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) $6,717.10 $6,717.10 (iii) Church, per sq foot $5.36 $5.36 After hours inspection (applies to inspections performed on Saturdays, Sundays, observed City of Renton holidays,  and non‐holiday Monday‐Fridays outside the hours of 7:00am to 3:30pm) Permit review staff overtime (applies only if permit review is requested by the applicant to be performed on  Saturdays, Sundays, observed City of Renton holidays, and non‐holiday Monday‐Fridays outside of the hours of  city  staff regular work schedule) Public Works Reimbursement (any work performed by City forces or under City contract on behalf of a permit  applicant to repair damage to the City infrastructure caused by the permit applicant or contractor under its control,  or any and all roadway or right‐of‐way cleanup efforts performed by City forces or under City contract that resulted  from the work performed by the permit applicant or contractors under its control. An additional technology surcharge shall be required for all fees included in the  following Subsections of Section XII, Development  Fees, of the City of Renton Fee Schedule Brochure: Subsection 1, Building Fees; Subsection 2, Land Use Review Fees, except for  appeals, critical areas review fee, and direct EIS costs; Subsections b, e, f, g and h of subsection 3, Public Works Fees; and Section XIII, Fire Department Fire Marshall Fees 1Fee shall be paid annually (non‐prorated), and shall be nonrefundable, nontransferable (from one portion of the property to another) and shall not constitute a credit to the system  development charge due at the time of permanent use of the utility system. The application for temporary connection shall consist of a detailed plan and a boundary line of the proposed  development service area for use in the fee determination. Credit for existing water or sewer service: Any parcel that currently has water and or sewer service is eligible for a prorated  system development charge. Minor (Results in a change 10% or less than the cost of construction based on the City's bond quantity  worksheet. Excludes minor adjustments that are approved by the City to be shown on record drawings.) Major (Results in a change of greater than 10% of the cost of construction based on the City's bond quantity  worksheet.) Water Fee; Annual fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the current system development charge applicable to the size  of the temporary water meter(s).1 Wastewater Fee; Annual fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the current system development charge applicable to  the size of the temporary domestic water meter(s).1 30% of system development  charge 30% of system  development charge 30% of system development  charge 30% of system  development charge 1There is hereby levied and shall be collected a leasehold excise tax on that act or privilege of occupying or using public owned real or personal property through a leasehold interest at the  rate established by the State of Washington Street and Alley vacation Fees: The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in  chapter 9‐14 RMC, Vacations. Processing and completion fee, payable upon Council approval of the vacation and upon administrative  determination of appraised value of vacated right‐of‐way. Temporary connections to a City utility system may be granted for a one‐time, temporary, short‐term use of a portion of the  property for a period not to exceed three (3) consecutive years: Storm Water Fee; Fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the current system development charge applicable to that  portion of the property.1 30% of system development  charge 30% of system  development charge Public Liability and property damage insurance is also required pursuant to RMC 9‐2‐5B, Minimum Permit  Requirements for Excess Right‐of‐Way Use. a no‐fee permit may be issued only when the applicant is a public agency  and when the proposed use of the right‐of‐ way provides a direct service to the public (e.g., Metro applications for right‐of‐way for bus shelters). 12 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XII. DEVELOPMENT FEES (CONTINUED)2021 2022 5. Impact Fees: (continued) (iv)Coffee/Donut Shop, no drive up, per sq foot $221.09 $221.09 (v)Coffee/Donut Shop, with drive up, per sq foot $232.24 $232.24 (vi) Condominium & Duplexes per dwelling $5,645.22 $5,645.22 (vii)Convenience market ‐ 24 hour, per sq foot $221.81 $221.81 (viii)Daycare, per sq foot $48.88 $48.88 (ix)Drinking Place, per sq foot $61.53 $61.53 (x)Drive‐in bank, per sq foot $139.77 $139.77 (xi)Fast food, no drive‐up, per sq foot $141.85 $141.85 (xii) Fast food, with drive‐up, per sq foot $180.72 $180.72 (xiii)Gas station with convenience store, per pump $65,313.08 $65,313.08 (xiv)Gas station, per pump $87,322.30 $87,322.30 (xv) General office, per sq foot $14.58 $14.58 (xvi)Health/fitness club, per sq foot $36.02 $36.02 (xvii) Hospital, per sq foot $7.79 $7.79 (xviii)Hotel, per room $4,287.51 $4,287.51 (xix) Manufacturing, per sq foot $7.15 $7.15 (xx)Marina, per boat berth $2,286.67 $2,286.67 (xxi) Medical office, per sq foot $32.94 $32.94 (xxii) Mini‐warehouse, per sq foot $2.57 $2.57 (xxiii)Mobile home, per dwelling $6,431.27 $6,431.27 (xxiv) Motel, per room $3,930.22 $3,930.22 (xxv)Movie theater, per seat $643.13 $643.13 (xxvi)Nursing home, per bed $1,786.46 $1,786.46 (xxvii) Restaurant: sit‐down, per sq foot $60.95 $60.95 (xxviii)Senior housing ‐ attached, per dwelling $2,929.80 $2,929.80 (xxix) Shopping center, per sq foot $26.58 $26.58 (xxx)Single family house, per dwelling $10,861.69 $10,861.69 (xxxi) Supermarket, per sq foot $65.81 $65.81 (xxxii) Net New PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip (Proposed ‐ Existing), per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip $7,145.85 $7,145.85 c.Park Impact Fees:1    (i) Single family $2,914.99 $2,914.99 (ii) Multi‐family: 2 units, Duplexes, & Accessory Swelling Unit (ADU) $2,366.28 $2,366.28 (iii) Multi‐family: 3 or 4 units $2,251.97 $2,251.97 (iv) Multi‐family: 5 or more units $1,977.62 $1,977.62 (v) Mobile home $2,069.07 $2,069.07 d.Fire Impact Fees1: (i) Residential ‐ single family (detached dwellings & duplexes), per dwelling unit $829.77 $829.77 (ii) Residential ‐ multi family & Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), per dwelling unit $964.53 $964.53 (iii) Hotel/motel/resort, per sq foot $1.29 $1.29 (iv) Medical care hook $3.92 $3.92 (v) Office, per sq foot $0.26 $0.26 (vi) Medical/dental office, per sq foot $1.99 $1.99 (vii) Retail, per sq foot $1.25 $1.25 (viii) Leisure facilities, per sq foot $2.36 $2.36 (ix) Restaurant/lounge, per sq foot $5.92 $5.92 (x) Industrial/manufacturing, per sq foot $0.15 $0.15 (xi) Church, per sq foot $0.56 $0.56 (xii) Education, per sq foot $0.72 $0.72 (xiii) Special public facilities, per sq foot $4.48 $4.48 *(i)‐(ii) is per unit *(iii)‐(xiii) is per square foot e.Independent Fee Calculation Review (or unless otherwise established by School District or Renton Regional Fire Authority)$500 $500 f.Impact Fee Deferral Administration: (i) Each Lot, Single Family Dwelling, or Condominium $85 $85 (ii) Each Multi‐family Building $85 $85 6. Miscellaneous Fees a.Multifamily Tax Exemption Application $1,000.00 $1,000.00 b.Tree Fee in lieu (per diameter inch measured at 4.5 feet above grade)$225.00 $225.00 SECTION XIII. FIRE DEPARMENT FIRE MARSHAL FEES (RFA)2021 2022 a.Fire plan review and inspection fees: (i) $0 to $249.99 $35 $35 (ii) $250.00 to $999.99 $35 + 2%  of the cost $35 + 2%  of the cost (iii) $1,000.00 to $4,999.99 $60 + 2%  of the cost $60 + 2%  of the cost (iv) $5,000.00 to $49,999.99 $175 + 1.5%  of the cost $175 + 1.5%  of the cost (v) $50,000.00 to $99,999.99 $400 + 1.2%  of the cost $400 + 1.2%  of the cost (vi) $100,000.00 and above $900 + .75%  of the cost $900 + .75%  of the cost (vii)$125 $125 (viii) Violation/Second Re‐Inspection after 30‐day period (whenever 30 days or more have passed since Fire Department  notification of a violation, which required a first re‐inspection, and such violation has not been remedied or granted  an extension) $150 $150 1 Per Res. 4422, fees for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be waived as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022.  Construction Re‐inspection. Fee is per hour with a 2 hour minimum. The minimum may be assessed if the requested inspection does not meet the approval of the inspector. 13 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) City of Renton Fee Schedule 2021‐2022 SECTION XIII. FIRE DEPARMENT FIRE MARSHAL FEES (RFA) (CONTINUED)2021 2022 (ix) (x) Preventable Fire alarm fee: (1) First, second, and third preventable alarms N/C N/C (2) Fourth and fifth preventable alarms in a calendar year, fee is per each alarm.$75 $75 (3)$150 $150 (xi) Late Payment Penalty $35 $35 b.Fire Permit type: (i)$100 $100 (ii) Permits for Mobile food facilities that have passed a fire and life safety inspection in another jurisdiction that $50 $50 has reciprocity with Renton RFA (iii) Hazardous materials and HPM facilities yearly $175 $175 (iv) Construction permit:  (v) Replacement for lost permit, per each $35 $35 (vi) (vii) Underground tank removal permit (commercial)See Fire plan review and  construction permit fees See Fire plan review and  construction permit fees (viii) Underground tank removal or abandonment‐in‐ place permit (residential)$84 $84 (ix)$125 $125  (x) NSF check fees $25 $25  (xi)3% 3% Other requested inspection when not required by the fire code.  Fee is per hour with a minimum 1 hr when approved  by the Fire Marshal, such as home daycares RFA technology surcharge fee applied to Fire Department Fire Marshal Fees, subsection a. (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi) and  subsection b. (iii) 20% of plan review fee ‐ Min.  $52 20% of plan review fee ‐  Min. $52 Hazardous production materials permit (for businesses storing, handling, or using hazardous production materials as  regulated in the fire code) permit is yearly $175 $175 Sixth preventable alarm and successive preventable alarms in a calendar year, fee is per each alarm. Operational fire code permit (issued in accordance with Section 105.6 of the IFC) fee is yearly (includes items such as  fire special events, covered stages, mobile food facilities, hot works, etc.) Third Re‐Inspection/Pre‐Citation Follow‐Up Inspection when re‐inspections are required beyond the first and second  re‐inspections $250 $250 14 AGENDA ITEM # 8. a) 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    RESOLUTION NO. ________    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING COUNCIL  POLICY 800‐12.    WHEREAS, the Council desires to update, revise, and modernize Policy No. 800‐12,  Contracting Authority, to reflect current practices, updated legal requirements and/or improved  efficiencies, and to clarify administrative matters, including contract approval authority, which  the Council delegates to the Mayor and/or defers to the Mayor’s role to supervise the  administrative affairs of the City in order to maintain an efficiently operated government;  NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The Council hereby amends the City of Renton Policy & Procedure 800‐12,  Contracting Authority, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth.  SECTION II.  All contracts previously executed consistent with the amended Policy No.  800‐12 and applicable administrative policies are ratified.    PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ______ day of _______________________, 2021.        ______________________________  Jason A. Seth, City Clerk       APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ______ day of _______________________, 2021.        ______________________________  Armondo Pavone, Mayor       AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) RESOLUTION NO. ________  2  Approved as to form:      ______________________________  Shane Moloney, City Attorney    RES:1882:7/7/2021scr/clb     AGENDA ITEM # 8. b)   POLICY & PROCEDURE    Subject:  CONTRACTING AUTHORITY     Index: LEGISLATIVE  Number: 800‐12     Effective Date:      Supersedes:    2/11/2019    Page:    1 of 5  Staff Contact:    CAO  Approved By:    Resolution #________  on   ____/____/___      1.0 PURPOSE:    To maintain an efficient form of government, it is necessary for the Council to delegate  contract approval authority to the Mayor for specific types of contracts without prior City  Council review or subsequent ratification.     2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED:    Mayor and departments/divisions    3.0 REFERENCES:    Applicable Administrative Policies (currently Policy & Procedure 250‐02)  RCW 35A.11.010 and 020 (Council Authority and Powers of Council)  RCW 35A.12.065 (Pro Tempore Appointments)  RCW 35A.12.100 (Authority and Powers of Mayor)  Chapter 39.04 RCW (Public Works Procurement)  RCW 39.04.155 (Small Works Roster Contract Procedures)  RCW 39.04.280 (Competitive Bidding Requirements – Exemptions)  Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act)    4.0 POLICY:    4.1 All statutory bidding and contracting requirements, as set forth in State law shall  be followed.    4.1.1 The Mayor is authorized to establish and/or use a small works roster or  rosters and develop procedures for the administration thereof for all  contracts up to $350,000.     4.2 To assist in contract management and retention, all contracts should include a  date by which full performance of the contract shall be complete.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) CONTRACTING AUTHORITY  p. 2  4.3 All contracts should, before presentation to Council, be approved as to from by  the City Attorney Department.    4.4 All contracts shall be memorialized in writing and filed in the City Clerk Division.    4.5 The City Council shall receive an informational list of all contracts every quarter.  This list shall include, but not be limited to, date of expiration, amount of contract,  department responsible for the contract, expected completion date of contract,  and summarized scope of work. Contract Amendments exceeding the greater of  $100,000 or 10% of the original contract amount shall be highlighted within the  list.    4.6 Except as otherwise specified herein, the Mayor or his or her designee has  authority to approve and sign the following types of contracts without need for  separate Council approval or ratification:    4.6.1 All contracts for which the Original Contract Value is less than $100,000.    4.6.2 All contracts settling claims, litigation or threatened litigation for which the  Original Contract Value, less any contribution from a City insurance policy,  does not exceed $250,000.    4.6.3 All contracts awarded pursuant to small works procedures adopted and  administered by the Mayor pursuant to Section 4.1.1 herein.    4.6.4 All contracts, with an Original Contract Value between $100,000 and  $300,000 that contain specific intelligence information, the nondisclosure  of which is essential to effective law enforcement, so long as sufficient  funding is budgeted for the expenditure, and the Chair of the Public Safety  Committee is notified of the contract prior to its execution so that he or  she can, if he or she deems appropriate, request such contract be brought  to the full Council for approval.    4.6.5 Contract Amendments for which the Amendment Value does not exceed  $100,000.    4.6.6 Contracts and/or Contract Amendments specifically authorized by other  Council action.    4.6.7 Work Orders issued pursuant to RCW 39.10.450 so long as the overarching  Job Order Contract was previously approved by Council.    4.6.8 Annual technology hardware, software, or services renewal agreements  including annual license renewals, subscription services, support and  AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) CONTRACTING AUTHORITY  p. 3  maintenance extensions, and general services renewals which do not  exceed $250,000.    4.6.9 Acquisitions of easements, right‐of‐way or title incident to a City public  works project budgeted by the City Council.    4.7 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4.6 of this policy, the  following types of contracts require advance Council approval prior to the Mayor  or designee’s signature:    4.7.1 Any contract for the sale or purchase of real estate except for acquisitions  of easements, right‐of‐way or title incident to a City public works project  budgeted by the City Council.     4.7.2 Any contract to lease or otherwise encumber (e.g. via license or access  agreement) City‐owned real estate for a period of more than one (1) year  unless the contract provides the City with an option to terminate the lease  early without cause or damages by providing no more than six (6) months’  notice of termination.    4.7.3 Public Works contracts that require award by the City Council pursuant to  Chapter 39.04 RCW.    4.7.4 Any contract that transfers risk to the City of third party claims arising out  of a contractor’s misconduct or negligence if the risk transferred thereby  would not be covered by the City’s insurance policies. Any such provision  in a contract that is not approved by the Council shall be void and  unenforceable.    4.7.5 Any interlocal agreement entered into under the express authority of  Chapter 39.34 RCW.    4.7.6 Any contract that, pursuant to applicable law, requires authorization from  the City Council.    4.7.7 Any Contract or Contract Amendment for which the Mayor is not  authorized to approve by Section 4.6 of this policy.    4.8 Work on a contract requiring City Council approval should not commence until  such approval has been granted as authorized in this policy. However, work  outside of the contract’s original scope due to changed conditions on a public  works construction project may proceed prior to formal approval of a Contract  Amendment that exceeds the Mayor’s approval authority, if the Mayor or  designee determines such additional work is necessary to be performed without  AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) CONTRACTING AUTHORITY  p. 4  delay in order to avoid increased costs or other inefficiencies.  Promptly after  authorizing work that staff determines will require a Council approved Contract  Amendment, the Mayor or designee will provide the City Council with notice of  the work authorized pursuant to this Section.  Once the cost of the work  authorized pursuant to this Section is determined, a Contract Amendment will be  presented to the Council for ratification.      4.9 In the event an emergency situation arises which necessitates a deviation from  this policy or applicable bidding or procurement laws, the Mayor may, pursuant  to RCW 39.04.280, declare an emergency situation exists, waive competitive  bidding requirements, and award all necessary contracts on behalf of the City ot  address the emergency situation. Within two weeks of awarding an emergency  contract, the Mayor shall provide Council with a written finding of the existence  of the emergency and notice of the contract(s) awarded pursuant to the authority  granted in this section. Such finding and notice shall be memorialized with the City  Clerk and published on the City’s website and/or in the next Council agenda  packets, as the City Clerk deems appropriate.    5.0 DEFINITIONS:    5.1 Amendment Value: Amendment Value is the dollar value of all Consideration  provided by the City to the other contracting party or parties as consideration for  an individual Contract Amendment. Calculation of Amendment Value should be  calculated consistent with the guidelines for calculating Original Contract Value.    5.2 Consideration: A value of exchanged or promised to be exchanged. Consideration  can be in the form of a service, money, and/or property, and can also be a promise  not to do something that the contracting party would otherwise be lawfully  permitted to do.    5.3 Contract: Any agreement (written, oral, or implied) with another entity that legally  binds the City to provide Consideration.    5.4 Contract Amendment: A modification or change in terms to a previously executed  Contract, regardless of form or label (e.g. addendum, amendment, change  order…).    5.5 Emergency: Unforeseen circumstance beyond the control of the City that either  a) present a real, immediate threat to the proper performance of essential  functions, or b) will likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily  injury, or loss of life, if immediate action is not taken.    5.6 Mayor: The elected Mayor of the City of Renton, his or her designee(s), and/or a  pro tempore Mayor appointed temporarily pursuant to RCW 35A.12.065.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. b) CONTRACTING AUTHORITY  p. 5    5.7 Original Contract Value: Original Contract Value is the dollar value of all  Consideration provided by the City to the other contracting party or parties in the  original contract. Calculation of Contract Value involving services or property  exchanged should include a reasonable estimate of the fair market value of  services and property provided by the City as Consideration.    6.0 PROCEDURES:    Procedural matters regarding bidding and contracting are the responsibility of the  Administration. This includes, but is not limited to, formally designating those who may  approve and/or sign contracts on the Mayor’s behalf and developing/updating  procurement policies and procedures designed to comply with applicable laws.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. b)      CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    ORDINANCE NO. ________    AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE  INTERIM ZONING CONTROLS FOR THE URBAN CENTER (UC) ZONE ESTABLISHED  BY ORDINANCE NO. 6012, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, DECLARING AN  EMERGENCY, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.     WHEREAS, the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan policy for the Urban Center (UC) zone  is as follows, “Zone lands that are located within Renton’s Designated Regional Growth Center, if  there is a potential for the creation of dense employment, destination retail, recreation, or public  gathering space with the Urban Center (UC) zone. The Urban Center zoned areas have large  parcels of land with the potential for large scale redevelopment opportunities that will create a  mixed‐use retail, employment, and residential center. UC zoning implements the Commercial  Mixed Use land use designation.” Policy U‐17 [sic; “Policy L‐17” appears to have been intended];  and  WHEREAS, the purpose of the UC zone, as partly stated in Subsection 4‐2‐020.T of the  Renton Municipal Code, is as follows, “The Urban Center Zone (UC) is established to provide an  area for pedestrian‐scale urban mixed‐use development that supports the residential and  employment goals of Renton’s Urban Center;” and  WHEREAS, a development agreement between the City of Renton and The Boeing  Company (King County Recording Number: 20031210001637) governing many of the use and  development standards in the UC zone sunsetted on December 31, 2020; and  WHEREAS, without said development agreement there are insufficient zoning controls  for new development in the UC zone, as compared to the zoning controls of other commercial  AGENDA ITEM # 8. c)   2  zones in the City, thereby limiting the City’s ability to further the aforementioned policy and  purpose of the zone; and   WHEREAS, on January 25, 2021 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6012 after  determining there was a need for interim zoning controls for the Urban Center (UC) zone; and  WHEREAS, City staff have initiated a work program to update UC zone development  standards but additional time is necessary to complete said work program; and  WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 19, 2021, to consider an  extension of the interim zoning controls established in Ordinance No. 6012;   NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION I. The above recitals are adopted as findings of fact in support of this interim  zoning control ordinance adopted herein pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, and  are found to be true and correct in all respects.  SECTION II. The interim zoning controls imposed by Ordinance No. 6012 are hereby  extended and shall remain in effect until October 31, 2021, unless ended earlier by subsequent  City Council action, or unless subsequently extended by the City Council pursuant to state law.  SECTION III. A public hearing was held on July 19, 2021.  SECTION IV. If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this  ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,  such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other  Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. c)   3  SECTION V. The City Council declares an emergency for the protection of the public  welfare and to enable the purpose and intent of this ordinance to be accomplished. This  ordinance shall take effect immediately when passed by the City Council. The City Clerk shall  cause to be published a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper.  The summary  shall consist of this ordinance’s title.     PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2021.                         Jason A. Seth, City Clerk    APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2021.                         Armondo Pavone, Mayor    Approved as to form:             Shane Moloney, City Attorney  Date of Publication:      ORD:2157:7/13/2021    AGENDA ITEM # 8. c) 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    ORDINANCE NO. ________    AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE III  OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE, RENAMING AND REORGANIZING CITY  DEPARTMENTS AND POSITIONS, UPDATING REFERENCES TO RENAMED  DEPARTMENTS, AMENDING THE 2021 SALARY SCHEDULE ADOPTED BY  ORDINANCE NO. 5991 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO.  6017, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.     WHEREAS, over the last two years, new and changing priorities have been brought to the  forefront by our community, leadership, and employees. As a result, the City’s Business Plan has  been refreshed and refocused; and  WHEREAS, the City can more effectively work towards the goals of the Business Plan by  creating and adapting departments with more cohesive, right‐sized divisions and programs that  can be unified in purpose by a common mission; and  WHEREAS, the 2021 Salary Schedule was adopted on November 9, 2020 by Ordinance  No. 5991 and was subsequently amended on May 3, 2021 by Ordinance No. 6017;   NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION I. All portions of the Renton Municipal Code in this ordinance not shown in  strikethrough and underline edits remain in effect and unchanged.  SECTION II. Title III of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as shown on Exhibit A,  attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.  SECTION III. The City Clerk shall, to the extent possible, revise and replace all references  in the Renton Municipal Code that refer to the “Administrative Services” or "Community  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  2  Services" departments and administrators to accurately reflect this Ordinance's renaming of the  departments.  SECTION IV. To the extent the reorganization authorized by this Ordinance results in a  need for revising substantive sections of the Renton Municipal Code to reflect the new division  of responsibilities between departments, references to departments or administrators in the  existing Renton Municipal Code should be interpreted to reflect the intent of this Ordinance and  be updated by way of future ordinance(s) as outdated references are discovered.  SECTION V. The City Council hereby adopts amended job classifications and pay ranges  for City employees for 2021 as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by this  reference, as of the effective dates shown therein.     SECTION VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this  ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,  such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other  section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.  SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication  of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper.  The summary shall consist of this  ordinance’s title.      PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2021.                         Jason A. Seth, City Clerk    AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  3  APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2021.                         Armondo Pavone, Mayor    Approved as to form:             Shane Moloney, City Attorney  Date of Publication:      ORD:2171:7/12/21     AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  4                  EXHIBIT A  RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE III         AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  5  Title III  DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICERS  1 Executive Services Department       2 Community Services Parks and Recreation Department       3 Department Of Community And Economic Development       4 Administrative Services Finance Department       5 Fire And Emergency Services Department Equity, Housing, and Human Services Department       6 Human Resources And Risk Management Department       7 Public Works Department       8 Police Department       9 City Attorney Department      10 Municipal Court          AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  6  CHAPTER 1    EXECUTIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT    SECTION:  3‐1‐1: Establishment Of Department  3‐1‐2: Chief Administrative Officer Mayor’s Office  3‐1‐3:    Mayor’s Office Chief Administrative Officer  3‐1‐4: City Clerk Divisions  3‐1‐5: Hearing Examiner Function  3‐1‐6: Communications Division Public Defense Service Standards  3‐1‐7: Public Defense Service Standards  3‐1‐8: Emergency Management Division  3‐1‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby established the Executive Services Department, consisting of separate offices  that are established and grouped for budget organization purposes, not as a delegation  collectively responsible for a portion of the sovereign power of government.   3‐1‐2 MAYOR’S OFFICE:  The Mayor’s Office shall be responsible for the coordination of internal and external issues and  programs, and have the responsibility to coordinate and direct overall city operations, budgets  and policy formulation consistent with applicable state law and powers vested in the Mayor by  the City Council.    3‐1‐23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:  A. Position Established And Appointment: There is hereby established the position of Chief  Administrative Officer who shall be the chief appointed official in the City. The Chief  Administrative Officer shall be appointed by, report to, and serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.  Appointment of the Chief Administrative Officer shall be subject to confirmation by a majority  of the City Council.  B. Duties: The Chief Administrative Officer shall manage the various departments as  established in this title and shall have general oversight of all City departments as delegated by  the Mayor. The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible for the City’s general  operations, public relations and governmental affairs. The Chief Administrative Officer shall  perform other administrative duties as prescribed by the Council and/or directed by the Mayor.  C. Qualifications: The Chief Administrative Officer must have those qualifications deemed  necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Chief Administrative Officer job  classification.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  7  3‐1‐3 MAYOR’S OFFICE:  The Mayor’s Office shall be responsible for the coordination of various internal and external  issues and programs, and have the responsibility to coordinate and direct overall city  operations, budgets and policy formulation.   3‐1‐4 CITY CLERK DIVISIONS:  A.  City Clerk Division:  A1. Division Established And Appointment: There is hereby established the division of  the City Clerk. The position of City Clerk shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor, subject  to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.  B2. Duties: The City Clerk shall have all of the powers granted and duties imposed by  authority of the laws of the state of Washington and ordinances of the City now existing or  subsequently adopted. The City Clerk shall be a full‐time, non‐civil service position who shall  be in charge of the City Clerk Division. The City Clerk, or deputy as assigned by the City  Clerk, shall attend all meetings of the City Council and keep a complete record of the  proceedings thereof; and have custody of the City’s seal, the original roll of ordinances, the  original contracts, deeds and certificates relative to the title of any property of the City and  such other documents as are required to be deposited with the City. The City Clerk, or  deputy as assigned by the City Clerk, shall attest all public instruments and official acts of  the Mayor and shall provide certified copies of original records as may be required and  make such charge therefor as provided by the City of Renton Fee Schedule. The City Clerk,  or deputy as assigned by the City Clerk, shall accept service for the City during normal office  hours pursuant to RCW 4.28.080(2).  C3. Qualifications: The City Clerk must have those qualifications deemed necessary for  this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s City Clerk job classification.  D4. Designation Of Public Records Officer:  1a. The Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, requires that all state and local  government agencies “appoint and publicly identify a public records officer whose  responsibility is to serve as a point of contact for members of the public in requesting  disclosure of public records and to oversee the agency’s compliance with the public  records disclosure requirements” under Washington law.  2b. The City Clerk or designee is hereby designated as the public records officer for the  City of Renton. Members of the public may direct requests for disclosure of public  records of the City of Renton to:  City Clerk  City Clerk’s Office  7th Floor, Renton City Hall  1055 S. Grady Way,  Renton, WA 98057  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  8  3c. Notice of the designation of the City of Renton’s public records officer shall be made  in a manner reasonably calculated to provide notice to the public of such designation,  said notice to include, but not be limited to, the following: posting at City Hall and other  City of Renton buildings, posting on the City’s Internet web site, regular broadcasting on  the City’s government cable television channel, and inclusion in appropriate City  publications.   B. Communications and Engagement Division: The Communications and Engagement Division  shall be responsible for providing Renton residents and businesses with critical, relevant and  timely information, engaging Renton residents and connecting them with opportunities to be  involved and facilitating opportunities for dialogue, and overseeing City‐wide internal and  external communications including media relations, web and electronic communications and  printed materials and publications.  C. Emergency Management Division: The Emergency Management Division shall be  responsible for City‐wide emergency migration, preparedness, response, and recovery  programming.  D. Information Technology Division: The Information Technology Division shall be responsible  for strategically planning, organizing, coordinating, and implementing City‐wide technological  solutions.    3‐1‐5 HEARING EXAMINER FUNCTION:  The Chief Administrative Officer shall cause to be provided the services of a one or more  Hearing Examiners who will interpret, review, and implement land use regulations and make  quasi‐judicial decisions as provided in this Chapter and other ordinancesthe Renton Municipal  Code or for decisions delegated by the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, or City  Administrators.   3‐1‐6 COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION:  A. Division Established And Appointment: There is hereby established the Communications  Division. The position of Communications Director shall be filled by appointment by the Chief  Administrative Officer.   B. Duties: The Communications Division shall be responsible for providing Renton residents  and businesses with critical, relevant and timely information, engaging Renton residents and  making them aware of opportunities to be involved and initiating community dialogue and  overseeing City‐wide internal and external communications including media relations, web and  electronic communications and printed materials and publications.  C. Qualifications: The Communications Director must have the qualifications deemed  necessary for this job by the Mayor, as indicated on the Communications Director’s job  classification.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  9  3‐1‐76 PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICE STANDARDS:  A. Service Delivery: The executive branch will have exclusive oversight of the provision of  public defense services. The City will provide for indigent defense through contracting with  public defense counsel (“counsel”) in keeping with RCW 10.101.030, within the terms of such  individual contracts.   B. Duties And Responsibilities Of Counsel: Counsel shall follow the duties and responsibilities  set forth in the individual contract. Among other things, all public defense services shall be  provided to all clients in a manner which meets or exceeds the standards set forth by the Rules  of Professional Conduct, the Washington State Bar Association, case law and applicable court  rules. These case duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, a thorough  investigation of the facts; research of relevant law; communication with each client about the  known facts; applicable law and local court rules, possible and likely disposition or verdict,  scheduling, and hearing and/or trial preparation; appropriate motion practice; and vigorous  representation of the client. In addition to the standards provided in this section, counsel shall  be required to comply with such additional provisions established in the individual contract  including maintenance of professional liability insurance. Finally, public defense services should  only be provided to those persons who meet the criteria set forth in RCW 10.101.010(1) or (2).  If a public defense service provider is appointed to a person who does not meet these criteria,  the public defense service provider must immediately bring this to the attention of the court  and the Executive Branch designee.  C. Qualifications Of Counsel: Counsel shall be licensed to practice law in the State of  Washington, be members in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association, comply  with all applicable rules relating to the practice of law that have been and will be promulgated  by the Washington State Supreme Court and be capable of performing all necessary duties  stated in the individual contract. Counsel shall have the requisite skill to perform each of the  required duties and responsibilities. Legal interns employed by counsel shall meet the  requirements set out in Admission to Practice Rule 9.  D. Training, Supervision, Monitoring, And Evaluation: The training, supervision, and monitoring  of counsel and staff shall be the sole responsibility of counsel, except as provided in the  individual contract. Evaluation of counsel shall be as provided in the individual contract. All  training and supervision shall conform to the standards set by the Rules of Professional  Conduct, the Washington State Bar Association, case law and applicable court rules. Consistent  with RCW 10.101, attorneys providing public defense services must attend training approved by  the Office of Public Defense at least once per calendar year.  E. Disposition Of Client Complaints: A method to respond promptly to client complaints shall  be established in the individual contract. Generally, counsel should immediately respond to the  complaint, and if the complaint is still not resolved, the individual contract shall specify to  whom the complaint shall be forwarded in the Executive Department.  F. Compensation: Compensation of counsel shall be established through negotiation of an  individual contract for public defense services, and determined generally by number of cases  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  10  appointed. However, through negotiation there can be compensation that includes base  monthly compensation, so long as the average per case compensation is in accordance with  RCW 10.101.030 and comparable with surrounding jurisdictions of like services and time. In  determining compensation, Renton shall consider counsel’s training, experience, general court  practices, including but not limited to the ability of counsel to withdraw upon disposition or  other circumstance, nature of plea bargaining practices of the City of Renton’s Prosecutor,  experience and the nature and extent of services requested, court calendaring, in court time,  and time and labor required of the attorneys undertaking the defender services. Services that  require extraordinary fees such as investigation, expert witness services, support or other  services will be separate and distinct from per case compensation or base compensation and  defined in the individual contract.  G. Case Load Limits And Types Of Cases: The types of cases for which representation is to be  provided and maximum recommended number of cases which each attorney shall be expected  to handle shall be established by the individual contract. Attorney caseloads shall allow counsel  to give each client the time and effort necessary to provide effective representation. Case load  recommended limits should be determined by the number and type of cases being accepted,  the years of experience of the attorney, the years of City experience the attorney may have, the  court’s general practices with regard to acceptance of pleas and withdrawal of counsel. As  noted above, public defense services should only be provided to those persons who meet the  criteria set forth in RCW 10.101.010(1) or (2).  H. Administrative And Client Support Services: Administrative costs of providing  representation and necessarily incurred in the day‐to‐day management of the individual  contract shall be addressed in the individual contract. Renton will make available a meeting  space for client appointments close to the Court. Counsel shall staff his/her office with an  appropriate number of support staff and other support services and maintain contacts with  social service agencies in order to refer clients to services as needed.   I. Reporting Procedures: Counsel shall maintain records consistent with RCW 10.101.030 and  10.101.050. Counsel case reporting and management information shall be maintained  independently from client files in order to not disclose any privileged information. All reports  shall be directed to Executive Branch or its designee. All records pertaining to expenses and  billing shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles.  J. Substitution Of Counsel And Assignment Of Contracts: No substitution of counsel for any  appointed case will be approved without prior notification to the appropriate court. Counsel  shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the individual contract without the consent of  Renton.  K. Limitations On Private Practice: Counsel shall only maintain a private practice as the  individual contract specifically allows, and may not interfere with the performance of duties  outlined in the individual contract.  L. Termination Of Contract Or Removal Of Counsel: The termination of an individual contract  for public defense services will be determined by the provisions set forth in the individual  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  11  contract. Removal of counsel from representation by the court normally should not occur over  the objection of both counsel and the client.  M. Prohibition Of Discrimination: With respect to all matters regarding public defense services,  there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any person because of race, color, creed,  gender, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation. The City of Renton  and counsel shall comply with and ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of  1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and all requirements imposed by or  pursuant to regulations of the United States Department of Justice or United States Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission issued pursuant to those titles.   3‐1‐8 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION:  The Emergency Management Division shall be responsible for City‐wide emergency migration,  preparedness, response, and recovery programming.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  12  CHAPTER 2  COMMUNITY SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT  SECTION:  3‐2‐1:    Establishment Of Department   3‐2‐2:    Appointment Of Administrator  3‐2‐3:    Duties Of Administrator  3‐2‐4:    Qualifications Of Administrator  3‐2‐5:    Divisions  3‐2‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby created and established the Community Services Parks and Recreation  Department.  3‐2‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Community Services Parks and Recreation Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor,  subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐2‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The duties of the Administrator shall be to plan, organize, coordinate and direct the City’s  community services parks and recreation functions, oversee the acquisition of parks, facilities,  open space lands, and natural area properties; oversee work plans and provide relevant  information to the Mayor and City Council; and supervise and evaluate the performance of  assigned personnel.   3‐2‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Community Services Parks and Recreation Administrator must possess those qualifications  deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Community Services Parks  and Recreation Administrator job classification.   3‐2‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Parks/Golf Course Division: The Parks/Golf Course staff provides a safe, clean, attractive,  accessible, and well‐maintained environment for the public’s enjoyment of active and passive  recreational opportunities along with natural resource and wildlife preservation and  stewardship.  B. Recreation Division: The Recreation Division promotes and supports a more livable  community by providing opportunities for the public to participate in diverse recreational,  cultural, athletic, and aquatic programs and activities.   C. Facilities Division: The Facilities Division develops and maintains City buildings and manages  the delivery of building‐related services to the public and the City workforce in a safe,  customer‐focused manner.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  13  D. Human Services Division: The Human Services Division, in partnership with the community,  helps provide services, resources, and opportunities so that residents have food, clothing, and  shelter, are healthy and safe, and develop to their fullest capacity.   EC. Neighborhoods, Resources and Events Division: The Neighborhoods, Resources and Events  Division provides leadership, guidance, and resources which connect and engage residents,  neighborhoods, businesses, and the City through diverse opportunities for partnerships,  volunteers, special events, and sister cities, and neighborhood programs.   FE. Renton History Museum: The Renton History Museum is dedicated to the preservation,  documentation and education about the City’s heritage. With the support of the Renton  Historical Society, the Museum cares for a collection of over 90,000 objects and 14,000 historic  photos. The Museum also provides changing and permanent exhibits, programs, publications,  and classroom outreach about local history.  GF. Parks Planning and Natural Resources Division: The Parks Planning and Natural Resources  Division provides a comprehensive and interrelated system of parks, recreation, open spaces,  and trails that responds to locally‐based needs, values and conditions, provides an appealing  and harmonious environment, protects the integrity and quality of the surrounding natural  systems; and creates a sustainable and exemplary urban forest.  H. Libraries: Library services are provided to the City’s residents by King County Library  Services (KCLS). The Community Services Department maintains the oversight of representative  citizen input to the KCLS Board via the Renton Library Advisory Board.      AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  14  CHAPTER 3    DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  SECTION:  3‐3‐1:    Establishment Of Department   3‐3‐2:    Appointment Of Administrator  3‐3‐3:    Duties Of Administrator  3‐3‐4:    Qualifications Of Administrator  3‐3‐5:    Divisions  3‐3‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby created and established the Department of Community and Economic  Development (CED), also referred to as the Community and Economic Development  Department.   3‐3‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Community and Economic Development Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor,  subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐3‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The duties of the Administrator shall be to plan, organize, coordinate and direct the City’s  economic development, planning, and development services functions; oversee work plans and  provide relevant information to the Mayor and City Council; and supervise and evaluate the  performance of assigned personnel. The Administrator shall also be responsible to plan,  organize, coordinate, and direct the activities, services, operations, budgets and policy  formulation of the local, state and federal legislative lobbying activities of the City.  The Administrator shall be responsible to plan, organize, coordinate, and direct the activities,  services, operations, budgets and policy formulation of City economic development services,  including business recruitment and retention.   3‐3‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Community and Economic Development Administrator must possess those qualifications  deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Community and Economic  Development Administrator job classification.   3‐3‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Economic Development Division: The Economic Development Division shall be responsible  for promoting and developing economic activity in the City that strengthens Renton’s tax base  and quality of life through business recruitment and retention programs, marketing of the  Renton community, and the strategic management of intergovernmental relations with  regional, state, and federal officials.  B. Development Services Division: The Development Services Division shall be responsible for  providing review, permitting and inspection services for the City of Renton. These services shall  include, but are not limited to building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, street and utility  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  15  improvements, developer utility extensions, permitting and inspection. The division shall also  provide zoning code enforcement services and maintain files and records of development  projects within the City of Renton.  C. Planning Division: The Planning Division shall be responsible for development and  enforcement of the City’s land use policies and regulations, including the Comprehensive Plan,  zoning, shoreline management, environmental regulations, subdivisions, and use permit  review. The division shall also be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Growth  Management Act (GMA) through the development and management of the City’s  Comprehensive Plan, and establishing implementing framework through development and  administration of the City’s zoning code and development regulations. This division also  maintains property information and other records, manages automated mapping and  geographic information systems and data analysis, and maintains survey documentation.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  16  CHAPTER 4  ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FINANCE DEPARTMENT  SECTION:  3‐4‐1: Establishment Of Department   3‐4‐2: Appointment Of Administrator  3‐4‐3: Duties Of Administrator  3‐4‐4: Qualifications Of Administrator   3‐4‐5: Divisions  3‐4‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby created and established the Administrative Services Finance Department.   3‐4‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Administrative Services Finance Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to  confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐4‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Administrative Services Finance Administrator duties, functions and powers include but are  not limited to the following:  A. Maintain a general accounting system, including but not limited to creating new budgeting,  accounting and reporting funds and consolidating and/or closing such existing funds except as  may otherwise be directed by the state law.  B. Manage the preparation of proposed budgets; monitor revenue receipts and appropriate  expenditures to implement the adopted budget; and present, when necessary, financial,  legislative or policy proposals concerning the Administrative Services Finance Department to  the City Council for approval.  C. Promulgate rules and procedures to administer City tax and license ordinances as required  by RMC Title 5.  D. Conduct and oversee internal and external audits or examinations, including but not limited  to the audits or examinations of:  1. Taxpayer records;  2. Disbursements or refunds of City funds;  3. City financial transactions and activities.  E. Administer City debts, including but not limited to the coordination of debt issuance; ensure  timely processing of periodic debt service payments; ensure compliance with federal, state  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  17  regulations, and bond covenants; provide financial information for ongoing disclosure and  rating agencies surveillance.  F. Collect monies due the City from any source; secure all public funds or investments  belonging to or under the control of the City; and deposit all City funds in such approved  depositories as is appropriate.  G. Administer the City’s investment program consistent with adopted policies and procedures.  H. Submit to the City Council, not less than quarterly, a financial report in sufficient detail to  show the exact financial condition of the City, and submit as of the end of each fiscal year a  comprehensive annual financial report.  I. Supervise and evaluate the performance of assigned personnel.  J. Perform such other and lawful acts and functions necessary to carry out this Chapter and/or  as may be assigned by the Mayor.   3‐4‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Administrative Services Finance Administrator must possess those qualifications deemed  necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Administrative Services Finance  Administrator job classification.   3‐4‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Fiscal Services Division: The Fiscal Services Division shall be responsible to plan, organize,  coordinate and direct the financial and fiscal activities of the City. These shall include budget  development for not only the department but also the entire City, investment of the City’s  working cash capital; day‐to‐day cash control; accounts payables; accounts receivables; and  payroll.  B. Information Technology Division: The Information Technology Division shall be responsible  to strategically plan, organize, coordinate and implement city‐wide technological solutions.   C. Reserved.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  18  CHAPTER 5    FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES EQUITY, HOUSING, AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT    (Repealed by Ord. 5806, 6‐20‐16)    SECTION:  3‐5‐1: Establishment Of Department   3‐5‐2: Appointment Of Administrator  3‐5‐3: Duties Of Administrator  3‐5‐4: Qualifications Of Administrator   3‐5‐5: Divisions    3‐5‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:    There is hereby created and established an Equity, Housing, and Human Services Department.   3‐5‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:   The Equity, Housing, and Human Services Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor,  subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐5‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:   The duties of the Administrator shall be to plan, organize, coordinate, direct and supervise all  Equity, Housing, and Human Services Department functions and divisions; oversee work plans  and provide relevant information to the Mayor and City Council; and supervise and evaluate the  performance of assigned personnel.   3‐5‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:   The Equity, Housing, and Human Services Administrator must possess those qualifications  deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Equity, Housing, and  Human Services Administrator job classification.    3‐5‐5 DIVISIONS:   A. Diversity, Equity, and Outreach Division: The Diversity, Equity, Inclusion,  and Outreach Division will work with the community, commissions, committees, other  departments, and agencies to engage in dialogue and policy work that moves the City towards  a more inclusive, informed, and hate‐free city with equitable outcomes for all in support of  social, economic, and racial justice.   B. Housing Division: The Housing Division will focus on partnerships and leveraging resources  that will lead to an increase in affordable housing options and a decrease housing insecurity  within our community.   C. Human Services Division: The Human Services Division, in partnership with the community,  helps provide services, resources, and opportunities so that residents have food, clothing, and  shelter, are healthy and safe, and develop to their fullest capacity.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  19  CHAPTER 6    HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT    SECTION:  3‐6‐1: Establishment Of Department   3‐6‐2: Appointment Of Administrator  3‐6‐3: Duties Of Administrator  3‐6‐4: Qualifications Of Administrator  3‐6‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby created and established a Department of Human Resources and Risk  Management.   3‐6‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Human Resources and Risk Management Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor,  subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐6‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The duties of the Administrator shall be to develop and implement City Human Resources and  Risk Management policies, programs and projects; provide human resources services and  advice to City departments and employees; manage risk using a variety of tools including the  purchase of insurance, as well as the management of tort liability claims filed against the City,  and identify, analyze, control and minimize the City’s exposure to financial, personnel and  property losses; direct and participate in a variety of professional personnel activities including  recruitment, selection, testing, classification analysis and labor relations; and train, assign,  supervise and evaluate assigned personnel.   3‐6‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Human Resources and Risk Management Administrator must possess those qualifications  deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Human Resources and Risk  Management Administrator job classification.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  20  CHAPTER 7  PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT  SECTION:  3‐7‐1: Establishment Of Department   3‐7‐2: Appointment Of Administrator  3‐7‐3: Duties Of Administrator  3‐7‐4: Qualifications Of Administrator   3‐7‐5: Divisions  3‐7‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby created and established a Department of Public Works which shall be under the  supervision of the Public Works Department Administrator.  3‐7‐2 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Public Works Administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a  majority of the City Council.   3‐7‐3 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The duties of the Administrator shall be to plan, organize, coordinate, direct and supervise all  Public Works Department functions and divisions; oversee work plans and provide relevant  information to the Mayor and City Council; and supervise and evaluate the performance of  assigned personnel.   3‐7‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR:  The Public Works Administrator must possess those qualifications deemed necessary for this  job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s Public Works Administrator job classification.   3‐7‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Transportation Systems Division: The Transportation Systems Division, under the  supervision of the Deputy Public Works Administrator – Transportation, shall plan, design,  construct, operate, and maintain a transportation system that provides safe and efficient  movement of people and goods, enhances environmental quality, and is compatible with local  and regional mobility goals and development objectives. Management of the Renton Municipal  Airport is also included in this division.   B. Utility Systems Division: The Utility Systems Division, including water, sewer, surface water,  and solid waste, under the supervision of the Utility Systems Director, shall ensure water,  wastewater, surface water, and solid waste systems are characterized by quality planning,  engineering, operations, financial integrity, and customer services.  C. Maintenance Services Division: The Maintenance Services Division, including street  maintenance, water maintenance, wastewater maintenance and vehicle fleet maintenance,  shall operate and maintain the City’s infrastructure including streets, sidewalks, bridges,  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  21  equipment, rolling stock, water, wastewater, and surface water utility systems, and the solid  waste utility litter control program.   D. Airport Division: The Airport Division shall be responsible for all aspects of the Renton  Municipal Airport including management and operations of airport properties in compliance  with FAA requirements, management of aviation and non‐aviation property leases, airport  planning, airport capital improvements, financial sustainability, community and tenant  relations, and customer service.  E. Facilities Division: The Facilities Division develops and maintains City buildings and manages  the delivery of building‐related services to the public and the City workforce in a safe,  customer‐focused manner.  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  22  CHAPTER 8  POLICE DEPARTMENT  SECTION:  3‐8‐1: Establishment Of Department   3‐8‐2: Appointment Of Police Chief  3‐8‐3: Duties Of Police Chief  3‐8‐4: Qualifications Of Police Chief   3‐8‐5: Divisions  3‐8‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby established the Renton Police Department.   3‐8‐2 APPOINTMENT OF POLICE CHIEF:  The Police Chief shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the  City Council. The Police Chief shall be excluded from the classified civil service system as  permitted by RCW 41.12.050(2).   3‐8‐3 DUTIES OF POLICE CHIEF:  The Chief of the Police Chief administers the Renton Police Department and has the authority  to make rules and issue orders for the proper functioning of the department, consistent with  law, Council policy, and the rules of the Civil Service Commission.   3‐8‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF POLICE CHIEF:  The Police Chief must possess those qualifications deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor  and his/her designee, indicated on the City’s job description.   3‐8‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Patrol Operations Division: The Patrol Operations Division shall be responsible for  preventing criminal conduct; enforcing laws and ordinances; investigating criminal offenses;  detecting and preserving evidence and property; and apprehending offenders.  B. Patrol Services Division: The Patrol Services Division shall be responsible for providing traffic  enforcement; investigating major motor vehicle accidents; providing parking enforcement;  resolving animal complaints; and planning and organizing special events.  C. Investigation Division: The Investigation Division shall be responsible for conducting criminal  investigations; collecting and disseminating intelligence; recovering stolen property; arresting  offenders; and processing, storing, and releasing evidence and property.  D. Administrative Services Division: The Administrative Services Division shall be responsible  for providing department personnel services, crime prevention, and community relations  programs; fulfilling personnel and department equipment needs; administering a volunteer  AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  23  staff; conducting planning and research; and maintaining professional standards; and providing  a cost effective and safe electronic home detention program.   E. Special Operations Division: The Special Operations Division shall be responsible for  conducting undercover operations; narcotics investigations; resolving critical incidents; and  uniform emphasis patrols.  F. Staff Services Division: The Staff Services Division shall be responsible for recording and  disseminating information to department members and other agencies; organizing and storing  information; and providing security for City Hall.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  24  CHAPTER 9  CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT  SECTION:  3‐9‐1: Establishment Of Department  3‐9‐2: City Attorney  3‐9‐3: Duties Of City Attorney  3‐9‐4: Qualifications Of City Attorney  3‐9‐5: Divisions  3‐9‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT:  There is hereby established the City Attorney Department.   3‐9‐2 CITY ATTORNEY:  A. Position Established: There is hereby established the position of City Attorney.  B. Appointment: The position of City Attorney shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor,  subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council.   3‐9‐3 DUTIES OF CITY ATTORNEY:  Duties: The City Attorney shall report to the Mayor and shall be the legal advisor of the Mayor,  the Council and of all of the officers, commissions and boards of the City in matters pertaining  to their operations in a governmental capacity. The City Attorney shall represent the City in all  litigation, in all courts in which the City is a party or directly interested, except where counsel is  provided by insurance or a risk pool or similar source, and shall prosecute all violations of the  provisions of this Code and act generally as Attorney for the City and the several departments  of the City government, together with such additional duties as the Council may prescribe by  ordinance or which the Mayor’s office may request from time to time.   3‐9‐4 QUALIFICATIONS OF CITY ATTORNEY:  The City Attorney shall be an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Washington and must  possess those qualifications deemed necessary for this job by the Mayor, indicated on the City’s  City Attorney job classification.   3‐9‐5 DIVISIONS:  A. Prosecution Division: The Prosecution Division is responsible for review and prosecution of  all cases in the Renton Municipal Court and any appeals therefrom, including necessary  discovery.  B. Civil Division: The Civil Division is responsible for all other duties to be performed by the City  Attorney Department.      AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  25  CHAPTER 10  MUNICIPAL COURT  SECTION:  3‐10‐1: Establishment Of Municipal Court  3‐10‐2: Term, Qualifications, Appointment, Duties, Authority, and Compensation Of Elected  Judicial Positions  3‐10‐3: Judges Pro Tem And Commissioners  3‐10‐4: Court Sessions  3‐10‐1 ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL COURT:  There is hereby created and established the Municipal Court of the City of Renton (“Municipal  Court”), which shall have jurisdiction and exercise all powers vested in the court by Chapter  3.50 RCW as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, together with such other powers and  jurisdiction as are generally conferred on such courts in Washington, either by common law or  express statute.   3‐10‐2 TERM, QUALIFICATIONS, APPOINTMENT, DUTIES, AUTHORITY, AND COMPENSATION  OF ELECTED JUDICIAL POSITIONS:  A. Judicial Positions – Term and Qualifications: There shall be two (2) full‐time judicial  positions with regular terms filled by election of City of Renton voters. Elections shall be made  in same manner as other elected City positions with terms of four (4) years commencing on  January 1, 1986, and every four (4) years thereafter. Judges filling such positions shall be a  resident and lawfully registered voter in King County, Washington, and an attorney admitted to  practice law before the courts of record of the state of Washington.   B. Appointment: Within thirty (30) days of the creation or vacancy of a judicial position that is  subject to election pursuant to RCW 3.50.055, the Mayor shall appoint a judge to fill such  position with an interim term commencing upon appointment and terminating upon  certification of the next regularly scheduled judicial election. Upon certification of such election  results, the position shall be filled by the candidate elected to fill the position in the next full  four (4)‐year term. The Mayor’s appointment is subject to confirmation by the City Council.   C. Duties and Authority: Full‐time judges shall devote all of their professional time to the  elected or appointed office and shall not engage in the practice of law. Before entering upon  the duties of office, each judge shall take and subscribe to the oath or affirmations required by  RCW 3.50.097. The judges shall have the authority and duty to perform the responsibilities  conferred upon the positions in accordance with the jurisdiction granted to the Municipal Court  and all applicable statutes, ordinances, court rules, and other standards regulating such judicial  positions. The Presiding Judge may by court rule or other lawful procedure establish fines and  penalties for civil infractions or other offenses so long as such fines and penalties are within the  range allowed for such fines and penalties by ordinance, rule, or other law.   AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  26  D. Presiding Judge: The full‐time judges shall select a Presiding Judge, which may rotate or  otherwise be changed pursuant to agreement of the judges. Absent agreement, the judge with  the longest term of service as a judge and/or judge pro tem for the Municipal Court shall act as  the Presiding Judge. If each judge has the same length of service for the Municipal Court, the  default Presiding Judge shall be the judge holding the first numbered judicial position.   E. Compensation: Full‐time Judges shall receive a salary equal to ninety‐five percent (95%) of  the salary for a district court judge as set by the Washington State Citizens’ Commission on  Salaries for Elected Officials. The salary shall automatically be adjusted on the effective date of  the commission’s salary schedule.   3‐10‐3 JUDGES PRO TEM AND COMMISSIONERS:  A. The Presiding Judge may appoint Judges Pro Tem or commissioners who shall act in the  absence, disability or temporary disqualification of the regular Municipal Court Judges, or the  need for additional judicial resources. The Judges Pro Tem or Commissioners shall be qualified  to hold the position of Judge of the Municipal Court.  B. Such Pro Tem Judges and Commissioners shall receive hourly compensation for handling  the calendar on any regular or special court day and for any other judicial services assigned by  the Presiding Judge. Such compensation may be set by the Presiding judge based upon market  rates for Pro Tem Judges so long as funds available for such compensation are available for  expenditure as determined in the City budget.  C. The appointment authority provided in this Section does not apply to regular full‐ or part‐ time positions which are subject to election pursuant to RCW 35.50.055.   3‐10‐4 COURT SESSIONS:  The Municipal Court shall be open for regular session Monday through Friday of each week,  except City and judicial holidays. The time for operation of court and administrative services on  those days shall be established by the Presiding Judge. The Presiding Judge shall have the  authority to establish additional court dates, by order of the Municipal Court, to provide  effective and efficient administration of justice. This Section shall not act as a limitation of  actions of the Municipal Court Judges regarding items such as telephonic approval of search  warrants, issuance of no contact orders, or determinations as to probable cause.      AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) ORDINANCE NO. ________  27                  EXHIBIT B  2021 CITY OF RENTON SALARY TABLE      AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) Grade Code Position Title Monthly Annual Monthly Annual e10 1030 Mayor (1)15,059 180,708 15,059 180,708 e09 1005 City Council President (2)(7)2,050 24,600 e09 1000 City Council Members (2)1,750 21,000 e08 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 12,057 144,684 12,665 151,980 e11 1020 Municipal Court Judge (6)15,051 180,614 15,051 180,614 Salary effective July 2020 - June 30, 2022 Salary is 95% of District Court Judge Salary m53 1035 Chief Administrative Officer (3)13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 15,819 189,828 16,612 199,344 m52 13,307 159,684 13,980 167,760 14,694 176,328 15,438 185,256 16,209 194,508 m51 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 15,819 189,828 m50 12,665 151,980 13,307 159,684 13,980 167,760 14,694 176,328 15,438 185,256 m49 1400 City Attorney (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1102 Parks & Recreation Administrator (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1105 Community & Economic Development Administrator 12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1101 Finance Administrator (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 Equity, Housing & Human Services Administrator (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1104 Human Resources & Risk Mgmt Administrator (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1103 Public Works Administrator (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m49 1201 Police Chief (3)12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 15,059 180,708 m48 12,057 144,684 12,665 151,980 13,307 159,684 13,980 167,760 14,694 176,328 m47 11,764 141,168 12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 14,336 172,032 m46 1535 Police Deputy Chief (4)11,476 137,712 12,057 144,684 12,665 151,980 13,307 159,684 13,980 167,760 m45 1573 Deputy PW Administrator - Transportation (3)11,197 134,364 11,764 141,168 12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 13,641 163,692 m44 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 12,057 144,684 12,665 151,980 13,307 159,684 m43 10,656 127,872 11,197 134,364 11,764 141,168 12,360 148,320 12,983 155,796 m42 1401 Sr Assistant City Attorney 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 12,057 144,684 12,665 151,980 m41 10,145 121,740 10,656 127,872 11,197 134,364 11,764 141,168 12,360 148,320 m40 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 12,057 144,684 m39 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 10,656 127,872 11,197 134,364 11,764 141,168 m38 2178 Airport Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 2011 City Clerk/Public Records Officer 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1403 Chief Prosecuting Attorney 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1500 Court Services Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 Communications & Engagement Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1575 Development Services Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1501 Economic Development Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 2044 Emergency Management Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1207 Facilities Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1210 Fiscal Services Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1212 Information Technology Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 2021 CITY OF RENTON SALARY TABLE NON-REPRESENTED Effective January 1, 2021 STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E ELECTED OFFICIALS MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISORY (NON-UNION) AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) Grade Code Position Title Monthly Annual Monthly Annual 2021 CITY OF RENTON SALARY TABLE NON-REPRESENTED Effective January 1, 2021 STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E m38 1571 Maintenance Services Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 8084 Parks and Trails Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1208 Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1502 Planning Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 2031 Police Commander (5)9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1214 Recreation & Neighborhoods Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1570 Utility Systems Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m38 1572 Transportation Systems Director 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 11,476 137,712 m37 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 10,656 127,872 11,197 134,364 m36 2463 HR Labor Relations & Compensation Manager 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 10,925 131,100 m35 1402 Assistant City Attorney 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 10,656 127,872 m34 2460 Organizational Development Manager 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 10,397 124,764 m33 5015 Budget & Accounting Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2074 Building Official 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 1578 Community Development & Housing Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2021 Current Planning Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2073 Development Engineering Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2411 Financial Services Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2020 Long Range Planning Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2174 Property & Technical Services Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2176 Transportation Design Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2075 Transportation Operations Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2177 Transportation Planning Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 2172 Utility Engineering Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m33 3072 Water Maintenance Manager 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 10,145 121,740 m32 4480 Capital Projects Manager 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 m32 1577 Economic Development Manager 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 m32 4470 Parks Planning Manager 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 m32 3083 Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 9,899 118,788 m31 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 9,657 115,884 m30 2418 Application Support Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 2273 Assistant Development Engineering Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 3073 Fleet Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 2407 GIS Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 2462 Human Resources Benefits Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 2033 Police Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 2409 Risk Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 3071 Street Maintenance Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 3176 Transportation Maintenance Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m30 3070 Waste Water/Special Operations Manager 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 9,422 113,064 m29 3084 Golf Course Manager 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 m29 1522 Human Services Manager 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 m29 1404 Prosecuting Attorney 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 m29 2087 Recreation & Neighborhoods Manager 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 9,194 110,328 m28 3086 Facilities Manager 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 m28 6031 Financial Operations Manager 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 m28 8010 Parks Maintenance Manager 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 m28 5254 Permit Services Manager 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 m28 1116 Tax & Licensing Manager 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 8,968 107,616 m27 2204 Census Program Manager 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 m27 3011 Enterprise Content Manager 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 m27 2578 Housing Programs Manager 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 8,747 104,964 AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) Grade Code Position Title Monthly Annual Monthly Annual 2021 CITY OF RENTON SALARY TABLE NON-REPRESENTED Effective January 1, 2021 STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E m26 2202 Communications Manager 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 8,530 102,360 m25 2086 Head Golf Professional 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m25 2562 Senior Benefits Analyst 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m25 2563 Senior Employee Relations Analyst 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m25 2410 Senior Finance Analyst 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m25 2561 Senior Risk Analyst 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m25 2479 Solid Waste Coordinator 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 8,325 99,900 m24 5112 Deputy City Clerk/Public Records Officer 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 8,122 97,464 m23 3562 Benefits Analyst 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 m23 3563 Employee Relations Analyst 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 m23 2080 Recreation Supervisor 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 m23 2461 Risk Analyst 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 7,925 95,100 m22 2404 Community Events Coordinator 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 m22 1510 Court Services Supervisor 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 m22 8007 Golf Course Supervisor 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 m22 2091 Museum Manager 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 7,732 92,784 m21 2218 Tax & Licensing Auditor, Senior 6,191 74,292 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 7,538 90,456 m20 6,040 72,480 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 7,361 88,332 m19 6150 City Council Liaison 5,895 70,740 6,191 74,292 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 m19 6103 Executive Assistant 5,895 70,740 6,191 74,292 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 7,180 86,160 m18 5416 Payroll Technician III 5,747 68,964 6,040 72,480 6,348 76,176 6,671 80,052 7,005 84,060 m17 5,610 67,320 5,895 70,740 6,191 74,292 6,501 78,012 6,834 82,008 n16 multiple Administrative Assistants (All Depts)5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 6,007 72,084 6,316 75,792 6,631 79,572 n16 5118 Finance Analyst III 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 6,007 72,084 6,316 75,792 6,631 79,572 n16 2217 Tax & Licensing Auditor II 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 6,007 72,084 6,316 75,792 6,631 79,572 n15 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 6,162 73,944 6,477 77,724 n14 5,185 62,220 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 6,007 72,084 6,316 75,792 n13 5115 Finance Analyst II 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 6,162 73,944 n13 2662 Human Resources Specialist 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 6,162 73,944 n13 5316 Payroll Technician II 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 6,162 73,944 n13 2216 Tax & Licensing Auditor I 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 6,162 73,944 n12 4,938 59,256 5,185 62,220 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 6,007 72,084 n11 2488 Assistant Golf Professional 4,813 57,756 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 n11 5139 Human Resources Assistant 4,813 57,756 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 5,864 70,368 n10 5114 Finance Analyst I 4,698 56,376 4,938 59,256 5,185 62,220 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 n10 5216 Payroll Technician I 4,698 56,376 4,938 59,256 5,185 62,220 5,451 65,412 5,726 68,712 n09 6151 Administrative Secretary I EX 4,586 55,032 4,813 57,756 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 5,584 67,008 n08 4,471 53,652 4,698 56,376 4,938 59,256 5,185 62,220 5,451 65,412 n07 4,363 52,356 4,586 55,032 4,813 57,756 5,057 60,684 5,309 63,708 n06 4,255 51,060 4,471 53,652 4,698 56,376 4,938 59,256 5,185 62,220 n05 4,152 49,824 4,363 52,356 4,586 55,032 4,813 57,756 5,057 60,684 NON-UNION (CLERICAL, OTHER) AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) Grade Code Position Title Monthly Annual Monthly Annual 2021 CITY OF RENTON SALARY TABLE NON-REPRESENTED Effective January 1, 2021 STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E n04 4,053 48,636 4,255 51,060 4,471 53,652 4,698 56,376 4,938 59,256 n03 3,958 47,496 4,152 49,824 4,363 52,356 4,586 55,032 4,813 57,756 n02 3,861 46,332 4,053 48,636 4,255 51,060 4,471 53,652 4,698 56,376 n01 5138 Office Specialist 3,772 45,264 3,958 47,496 4,152 49,824 4,363 52,356 4,586 55,032 $6,262 Completion of 5 Yrs Completion of 10 Yrs Completion of 15 Yrs Completion of 20 Yrs Completion of 25 Yrs Completion of 30 Yrs (1)In addition to salary receives annual car allowance of $4800 or use of a city vehicle. (2) (3)Not eligible for Longevity/Education or Uniform Allowance (4)Not eligible for Longevity/Education or Uniform Allowance Eligible for 3% cash premium or 3% into deferred compensation per employee's discretion for passing physical fitness. (5)Receive Education/Longevity & Uniform Allowance based on Union Contract plus eligible for 3% deferred compensation for passing physical fitness. (6)4 year term (7)Council president to be paid $300/month above council members salary. Council members salary set per Salary Commission effective 4/1/20. Council receives 2% of salary for deferred comp. If members are not participating in PERS, they receive an extra 1.4 % of salary for deferred compensation. The City contributes 4% of employee's base wage per year to a deferred compensation account for Management and Non-Represented employees; except for CAO receives 7% per year. 5% Step a14E $313 per month 6% Step a14E $376 per month 7% Step a14E $438 per month 3% Step a14E $188 per month 4% Step a14E $250 per month 2% Step a14E $125 per month NON-REPRESENTED LONGEVITY PAY as of 1/1/2021 Step a14, E = AGENDA ITEM # 8. d) 1  CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON    ORDINANCE NO.         AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY  OF RENTON FISCAL YEARS 2021/2022 BIENNIAL BUDGET, AS ADOPTED BY  ORDINANCE NO. 5991 AND AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 6017, IN THE  AMOUNT OF $(27,164,592) AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.    WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5991 adopting  the City of Renton’s 2021/2022 Biennial Budget; and  WHEREAS, on May 3, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6017 adopting an  amended 2021 City of Renton Salary Table and carrying forward funds appropriated in 2020, but  not expended in 2020 due to capital project interruptions and delays in invoice payments, which  needed to be carried forward and appropriated for expenditure in 2021 requiring an adjustment  to the 2021/2022 Biennial Budget; and  WHEREAS, minor corrections and the recognition of grants, contributions and associated  costs, and new cost items not previously included in the budget require additional adjustments  to the 2021/2022 Biennial Budget; and  WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the 2021/2022 Biennial Budget to consolidate the  Municipal Arts Fund 125 into the General Fund to be consistent with Generally Accepted  Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the City’s annual financial report; and  WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the 2021/2022 Biennial Budget to create the  following new funds: Housing and Supporting Services Fund 130, Renton School District Impact  Mitigation Fund 310, Issaquah School District Impact Mitigation Fund 311, and Kent School  District Impact Mitigation Fund 312, to better track the resources and costs of the City;  AGENDA ITEM # 8. e) ORDINANCE NO. ________  2  NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO  ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION I.   To make minor corrections and recognize grants, contributions and  associated costs not previously included in the 2021/2022 Biennial Budget; to consolidate the  Municipal Arts Fund 125 into the General Fund; and to create Housing and Supporting Services  Fund 130, Renton School District Impact Mitigation Fund 310, Issaquah School District Impact  Mitigation Fund 311, and Kent School District Impact Mitigation Fund 312, the City of Renton’s  2021/2022 Biennial Budget, originally adopted in Ordinance No. 5991 and amended by  Ordinance No. 6017, is hereby amended in the total amount of $(27,164,592) for an amended  total of $674,490,315 over the biennium.  SECTION II.  The City Council hereby adopts the amended 2021/2022 Biennial Budget.  The 2021 2nd Quarter Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund is attached as Exhibit A and the 2022  Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund is attached as Exhibit B.  Detailed lists of adjustments are  available for public review in the Office of the City Clerk, Renton City Hall.  SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper.  The summary shall consist of this  ordinance’s title.  PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2021.                              Jason A. Seth, City Clerk    AGENDA ITEM # 8. e) ORDINANCE NO. ________  3  APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _______________________, 2021.                          Armondo Pavone, Mayor            Approved as to form:             Shane Moloney, City Attorney  Date of Publication:      ORD:2169:6/18/21  AGENDA ITEM # 8. e) ORDINANCE NO. _______ 4   Exhibit A:  2021 2nd Quarter Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund        BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCEFund2021 Beg Fund BalChanges2021  Adj Fund Bal2021 Budgeted RevenueChanges2021 Adjusted Revenue2021 Budgeted ExpenditureChanges2021 Adjusted ExpenditureEnding Fund BalanceReserved/ DesignatedAvailable Fund Balance0XX GENERAL FUND54,456,582    ‐                   54,456,582   113,702,347    (7,273,448)    106,428,899 131,153,840    (13,585,085)  117,568,754 43,316,727    (11,905,500)  31,411,226    110  SPECIAL HOTEL‐MOTEL TAX893,604         ‐                   893,604        225,000            ‐                    225,000        501,197            ‐                    501,197        617,406         617,406         127  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT677,710         ‐                   677,710        97,674              ‐                    97,674          97,674              ‐                    97,674          677,710         677,710         130   HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ‐                     ‐                    ‐                     ‐                       ‐                     ‐                     ‐                       ‐                     ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     135  SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK348,826         ‐                   348,826        24,200              ‐                    24,200           ‐                       ‐                     ‐                    373,026         373,026         140  POLICE SEIZURE 872,449         ‐                   872,449         ‐                       ‐                     ‐                    872,449            ‐                    872,449         ‐                      ‐                     141  POLICE CSAM SEIZURE 150,637         ‐                   150,637         ‐                       ‐                     ‐                    150,637            ‐                    150,637         ‐                      ‐                     215  GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC5,010,629      ‐                   5,010,629     7,493,298         ‐                    7,493,298     7,153,019         ‐                    7,153,019     5,350,908      (2,717,575)    2,633,333      303  COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION1,713,833      ‐                   1,713,833     1,266,283        305,181        1,571,464     1,830,328        250,000        2,080,328     1,204,969      1,204,969      305  TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION3,154,954      ‐                   3,154,954     200,000            ‐                    200,000        172,869            ‐                    172,869        3,182,086      3,182,086      308  REET12,042,269      ‐                   2,042,269     2,250,000         ‐                    2,250,000     2,865,000         ‐                    2,865,000     1,427,269      1,427,269      309  REET23,411,866      ‐                   3,411,866     5,427,680         ‐                    5,427,680     7,066,705         ‐                    7,066,705     1,772,841      1,772,841      31X SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT MITIGATION‐                     ‐                    ‐                     ‐                       ‐                     ‐                     ‐                       ‐                     ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     ‐                     316  MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP20,298,663    ‐                   20,298,663   8,743,218        555,181        9,298,399     28,225,409      1,195,881     29,421,290   175,772         175,772         317  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT16,792,413    ‐                   16,792,413   29,731,028      700,000        30,431,028   44,659,724      760,868        45,420,592   1,802,850      1,802,850      336  NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT16,679           ‐                   16,679           ‐                       ‐                     ‐                    16,679              ‐                    16,679           ‐                      ‐                     346  NEW FAMILY FIRST CENTER DEVELOPMENT8,356,704      ‐                   8,356,704     75,000              ‐                    75,000          872,775            ‐                    872,775        7,558,929      7,558,929      402  AIRPORT OPERATIONS & CIP 7,558,405      ‐                   7,558,405     3,051,767        58,162          3,109,929     8,764,848        600,520        9,365,368     1,302,966      (223,124)       1,079,842      403  SOLID WASTE UTILITY2,771,562      ‐                   2,771,562     22,641,386      313,136        22,954,522   22,589,223      313,107        22,902,330   2,823,754      (400,000)       2,423,754      404  GOLF COURSE SYSTEM & CAPITAL 476,746         ‐                   476,746        2,901,275        225,309        3,126,584     2,634,100        256,319        2,890,418     712,911         (641,550)       71,362           405  WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 40,776,314    ‐                   40,776,314   17,972,403       ‐                    17,972,403   49,071,667      (85,862)         48,985,805   9,762,912      (3,008,354)    6,754,558      406  WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 23,996,217    ‐                   23,996,217   11,786,486       ‐                    11,786,486   28,633,537      3,896            28,637,433   7,145,270      (1,575,451)    5,569,819      407  SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 21,610,356    ‐                   21,610,356   24,185,763      91,504          24,277,267   31,505,106      152,671        31,657,778   14,229,845    (1,871,548)    12,358,297    416  KING COUNTY METRO4,729,749      ‐                   4,729,749     17,607,838       ‐                    17,607,838   17,607,838       ‐                    17,607,838   4,729,749      (380,000)       4,349,749      501  EQUIPMENT RENTAL6,376,259      ‐                   6,376,259     6,554,775        (91,380)         6,463,395     5,289,546         ‐                    5,289,546     7,550,108      7,550,108      502  INSURANCE19,860,208    ‐                   19,860,208   3,533,775         ‐                    3,533,775     3,698,515         ‐                    3,698,515     19,695,468    (17,708,251)  1,987,217      503  INFORMATION SERVICES3,939,941      ‐                   3,939,941     6,614,378         ‐                    6,614,378     7,374,069         ‐                    7,374,069     3,180,249      3,180,249      504  FACILITIES504,167         ‐                   504,167        5,996,730         ‐                    5,996,730     6,168,171        898               6,169,069     331,828         331,828         505  COMMUNICATIONS151,624         ‐                   151,624        1,155,732         ‐                    1,155,732     1,152,826         ‐                    1,152,826     154,530         154,530         512  HEALTHCARE INSURANCE5,773,429      ‐                   5,773,429     12,477,543       ‐                    12,477,543   12,580,831       ‐                    12,580,831   5,670,141      (3,774,249)    1,895,892      522  LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE16,541,245    ‐                   16,541,245   2,705,933         ‐                    2,705,933     1,362,685         ‐                    1,362,685     17,884,493    (17,884,493)   ‐                     304  FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION2,191,452      ‐                   2,191,452     99,000              ‐                    99,000          436,987            ‐                    436,987        1,853,465      1,853,465      611  FIREMENS PENSION7,908,312      ‐                   7,908,312     385,000            ‐                    385,000        210,475            ‐                    210,475        8,082,837      (8,082,837)     ‐                       Total Other Funds228,907,223 ‐                   228,907,223 195,203,165    2,157,092     197,360,258 293,564,889    3,448,298     297,013,187 129,254,294  (58,267,432)  70,986,862   TOTAL ALL FUNDS 283,363,805 ‐                   283,363,805 308,905,512    (5,116,355)    303,789,157 424,718,729    (10,136,787)  414,581,942 172,571,020  (70,172,932)  102,398,088 AGENDA ITEM # 8. e) ORDINANCE NO. ________ 5   Exhibit B:  2022 Adjusted Budget Summary by Fund     BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCEFund 2022 Beg Fund Bal  Changes  2022 Adj.  Fund Bal  2022 Budgeted Revenue  Changes  2022 Adjusted Revenue  2022 Budgeted Expenditure  Changes  2022 Adjusted Expenditure  Ending Fund Balance  Reserved/ Designated  Available Fund Balance 0XX GENERAL FUND37,005,089   6,311,638          43,316,727   123,806,412  (17,190,007)  106,616,405 131,495,705  (17,090,999)        114,404,706 35,528,426    (11,652,376) 23,876,049    110  SPECIAL HOTEL‐MOTEL TAX617,406         ‐                         617,406        200,000          ‐                    200,000         ‐                     ‐                           ‐                    817,406         817,406         127  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT677,710         ‐                         677,710        97,674            ‐                    97,674          97,674            ‐                          97,674          677,710         677,710         130   HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ‐                     ‐                          ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     135  SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK373,026         ‐                         373,026         ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                    373,026         373,026         140  POLICE SEIZURE‐                     ‐                          ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     141  POLICE CSAM SEIZURE‐                     ‐                          ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     215  GENERAL GOVERNMENT MISC DEBT SVC5,350,908      ‐                         5,350,908     4,533,969       ‐                    4,533,969     4,341,920       ‐                          4,341,920     5,542,957      (2,717,575)   2,825,382      303  COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACT MITIGATION1,149,788     55,181               1,204,969     86,500            ‐                    86,500           ‐                     ‐                           ‐                    1,291,469      1,291,469      305  TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION3,182,086      ‐                         3,182,086     200,000          ‐                    200,000        200,000          ‐                          200,000        3,182,086      3,182,086      308  REET 11,427,269      ‐                         1,427,269     2,300,000       ‐                    2,300,000     2,315,000       ‐                          2,315,000     1,412,269      1,412,269      309  REET 21,772,841      ‐                         1,772,841     2,300,000       ‐                    2,300,000     2,750,625       ‐                          2,750,625     1,322,216      1,322,216      31X SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT MITIGATION‐                     ‐                          ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                     ‐                      ‐                    ‐                     316  MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CIP816,472        (640,700)            175,772        2,462,840       ‐                    2,462,840     2,455,962       ‐                          2,455,962     182,650         182,650         317  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT1,863,718     (60,868)              1,802,850     2,200,000       ‐                    2,200,000     583,000          ‐                          583,000        3,419,850      3,419,850      336  NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT‐                     ‐                          ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                     ‐                      ‐                     346  NEW FAMILY FIRST CENTER DEVELOPMENT7,558,929      ‐                         7,558,929      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                           ‐                    7,558,929      7,558,929      402  AIRPORT OPERATIONS & CIP 1,845,324     (542,358)            1,302,966     3,051,767       ‐                    3,051,767     2,927,234      5,241                  2,932,475     1,422,258      (225,548)      1,196,711      403  SOLID WASTE UTILITY2,823,725     29                      2,823,754     23,108,703     ‐                    23,108,703   23,352,023     ‐                          23,352,023   2,580,434      (400,000)      2,180,434      404  GOLF COURSE SYSTEM & CAPITAL 743,922        (31,010)              712,911        2,984,655       ‐                    2,984,655     2,710,966      46,420                2,757,386     940,180         (659,742)      280,438         405  WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 9,677,050     85,862               9,762,912     19,107,026     ‐                    19,107,026   17,442,277    2,196                  17,444,473   11,425,465    (3,045,788)   8,379,677      406  WASTEWATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 7,149,166     (3,896)                7,145,270     12,178,313     ‐                    12,178,313   13,096,699    582                     13,097,281   6,226,302      (1,591,741)   4,634,562      407  SURFACE WATER OPERATIONS & CAPITAL 14,291,013   (61,167)              14,229,845   12,835,489     ‐                    12,835,489   17,074,512    7,857                  17,082,369   9,982,965      (1,872,812)   8,110,153      416  KING COUNTY METRO4,729,749      ‐                         4,729,749     17,695,877     ‐                    17,695,877   17,695,877     ‐                          17,695,877   4,729,749      (380,000)      4,349,749      501  EQUIPMENT RENTAL7,641,488     (91,380)              7,550,108     6,365,614       ‐                    6,365,614     4,370,604       ‐                          4,370,604     9,545,118      9,545,118      502  INSURANCE19,695,468    ‐                         19,695,468   3,561,243       ‐                    3,561,243     3,907,955       ‐                          3,907,955     19,348,756    (17,328,565) 2,020,191      503  INFORMATION SERVICES3,180,249      ‐                         3,180,249     6,736,779       ‐                    6,736,779     6,747,251       ‐                          6,747,251     3,169,777      3,169,777      504  FACILITIES332,726        (898)                   331,828        6,183,470       ‐                    6,183,470     6,357,208      898                     6,358,106     157,192         157,192         505  COMMUNICATIONS154,530        0                        154,530        1,187,600       ‐                    1,187,600     1,184,722       ‐                          1,184,722     157,408         157,408         512  HEALTHCARE INSURANCE5,670,141      ‐                         5,670,141     13,566,817     ‐                    13,566,817   13,683,431     ‐                          13,683,431   5,553,527      (4,105,029)   1,448,498      522  LEOFF1 RETIREES HEALTHCARE17,884,493    ‐                         17,884,493   2,710,067       ‐                    2,710,067     1,444,425       ‐                          1,444,425     19,150,135    (19,150,135) ‐                     304  FIRE IMPACT MITIGATION1,853,465      ‐                         1,853,465     99,000            ‐                    99,000          500,634          ‐                          500,634        1,451,831      1,451,831      611  FIREMENS PENSION8,082,837      ‐                         8,082,837     290,000          ‐                    290,000        200,475          ‐                          200,475        8,172,362      (8,172,362)    ‐                       Total Other Funds130,545,500 (1,291,206)         129,254,294 146,043,403   ‐                    146,043,403 145,440,473  63,194                145,503,668 129,794,029  (59,649,296) 70,144,733   TOTAL ALL FUNDS 167,550,588 5,020,432          172,571,020 269,849,814  (17,190,007)  252,659,808 276,936,178  (17,027,805)        259,908,373 165,322,454  (71,301,672) 94,020,782   2 year total578,755,326  (22,306,362)  556,448,965 701,654,907  (27,164,592)        674,490,315 165,322,454  (71,301,672) 94,020,782   AGENDA ITEM # 8. e)