WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Notes
Bellevue City Hall
July 21, 2011
Members Present
Dr. Don Davidson, Chair (Mayor, Bellevue); Joan McBride, Vice-Chair (Mayor, Kirkland); Layne Barnes
(Councilmember, Maple Valley); Denise DiSanto (WA Dept. of Ecology); Bruce Dodds
(Councilmember, Clyde Hill); Ted Frantz (Councilmember, Hunts Point); Ava Frisinger (Mayor,
Issaquah); Brian Goodnight (Staff, Snohomish County); Mike Grady (Councilmember, Mercer Island);
Bill Knutsen (King Conservation District); Kirk Lakey (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife); Mike
Mactutis (Staff, Kent); Mike O’Brien (Councilmember, Seattle); Larry Phillips (Councilmember, King
County); Chris Roberts (Councilmember, Shoreline); Gary Smith (Water Tenders/Trout Unlimited);
Frank Urabeck (Citizen)
Others Present
Elizabeth Babcock (NOAA Fisheries Service); Peggy Campbell (Snohomish County); Marci Chew (Mill
Creek); Diana Forman (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Water); Roy George (Alderwood Water District);
Clint Loper (King County); Fred Geotz (Corps of Engineers); Kathy Minsch (Seattle); Sarah Ogier (King
County); Doug Rice (King County); Stacey Rush (Kirkland); Jessica Saavedra (King Conservation
District); Jon Spangler (Redmond); Will Stelle (NOAA Fisheries Service); Kei Yoshida (University of
Tokyo); Linda Grob (WRIA 8 Team); Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz (WRIA 8 Team); Scott Stolnack (WRIA 8
Team); Jean White (WRIA 8 Team).
Introductions
Dr. Don Davidson opened the meeting and invited attendees to introduce themselves.
Public Comment
There was no public comment
Approval of Meeting Notes for July 12, 2011
The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the meeting notes for the July 12, 2011
meeting.
Relationship between Federal Recovery Priorities and WRIA 8 Plan Implementation
Jean White, Watershed Coordinator, welcomed Will Stelle, Northwest Regional Administrator of NOAA
Fisheries, who has had an open invitation since February to address the Salmon Recovery Council (SRC)
in regards to several letters WRIA 8 sent to his agency about NOAA’s Population Recovery Approach
(PRA) and Harvest Resource Management Plan (Harvest Plan). Jean asked Will to talk about 1) the
reason for the PRA and Harvest Plan from a federal perspective and any response he can give at this time
about to WRIA 8’s comment letters, and 2) NOAA’s 5 Year Review of implementation of the Puget
Sound Chinook Recovery Plan and current tribal concerns related to salmon recovery implementation.
Will Stelle reported that these are hard issues, given the current challenges of the recession, jobs, energy
flows, and budget. Debates in 2012 and 2013 will shape the future federal budget. The Pacific Salmon
Fund was fully appropriated at $75-80 million in 2011 in a bi-partisan vote on the floor, but it is unlikely
to be funded at that level the next time. He said we need to shape the salmon program as non-partisan. In
the Puget Sound context things are hard right now. NOAA’s 5 Year review of implementation of the
1
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary
9/15/11
Puget Sound Chinook Plan found that habitat is still declining in Puget Sound. The treaty tribes of Puget
Sound get the implications to their long-term rights if there are not enough salmon to fish, and they have
issued a white paper lambasting the federal government for violating their treaty rights. They are
threatening to sue if more is not done. He said we will be meeting with federal executives later this month
to discuss what can be done to address this topic.
Will said the federal toolbox is quite limited and shrinking. Our capacity is pretty limited. We are asking
ourselves what the really important areas are for improvements to habitat protection, and, working with
the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, we plan to discuss
with you whether or not you share those perspectives. The topics we will be looking at are shorelines,
nearshore, stormwater, etc. In the fall of 2011 we will bring forward our ideas and hope you will be there
to discuss your issues.
On the PRA topic, Will said he felt WRIA 8 is receiving a message from the exercise that is not what we
intended. We grouped the individual runs of Puget Sound salmon in discreet clusters based on hydrogeographic topics, and then rendered judgment about trends of those clusters over time. We articulated
from a biological perspective what is a sensible shape of the family tree of 22 populations of Puget Sound
Chinook. The PRA approach is our science center’s articulation of what is essential or non-essential for
survival of that family tree. This is a technical exercise and part of the recovery plan process, which
involves making judgments and figuring out what populations are really important for overall recovery of
Puget Sound Chinook.
Will said WRIA 8 reads the lower ranking of WRIA 8 Chinook populations as though your Chinook
don’t matter, and that is the last thing we want you to feel about the PRA approach. The long-term health
of landscape systems is more important. We don’t over read the implications of the PRA so you
shouldn’t either. The Cedar’s ranking doesn’t mean we don’t care about habitat for lower-tiered
populations. He noted that the PRA is one aspect of the effort to categorize salmon populations, and we
can’t muzzle our science by withdrawing it per WRIA 8’s request. He further said we aren’t going to do
anything with the PRA, except take comments on it, provide written response on those comments,
continue to monitor data, etc. It won’t be used for funding decisions, or habitat, hatchery or harvest
decisions. It is a living kind of status update, and we are not going to initiate a new science process, which
would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Commenting on the Harvest Plan and its relationship to the PRA, Will said we worked to figure out what
level of harvest is okay, and did not disaggregate Puget Sound Chinook into local populations. We
looked at the carrying capacity and numbers of naturally spawning fish in Puget Sound areas, and
analyzed harvest in Alaska, Canada, the Pacific Northwest and Southern U.S. We asked if the harvest
proposal by state and tribes is going to provide for enough escapement of Chinook to the spawning
grounds, and tried to use data on what is available habitat, and how the PRA affects the calculation of
exploitation rate and acceptable level of seeding.
Discussion:
▫ Layne Barnes asked if the fact WRIA 8 populations are rated as tier 3 means there are areas of
improvement. Maybe we could argue for more funding based on the need for improvement? Will
Stelle explained that the basic construct of a healthy salmon tree is a well spread out salmon population.
In the Cedar we have a small localized population. Councilmember Barnes remarked that if we can
double our productivity it will have a positive impact.
▫ Don Davidson reported that the driving force of the Puget Sound Chinook Plan was that none of the
Puget Sound can runs go extinct. In North Lake Washington the run may have been created by the
Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, but now it is naturally-spawning. The Feds’ determination could be
2
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
9/15/11
interpreted by the public as though our populations are throw-away, and he said he was concerned that
the public might grab on to this information and reach a wrong conclusion.
Frank Urabeck complemented Will Stelle for giving a good presentation on what NOAA Fisheries isn’t
going to do with the PRA, but he said it isn’t clear what you are going to use it on. Our concern is that,
based on the PRA, the state and federal government could take our share of funding and give it to
another watersheds. He asked what the point is of keeping the PRA if it isn’t going to be used for
anything. Will Stelle responded that the structure of our sequencing is a habit. We have chosen not to
try and take this characterization into a prioritization scheme for funding restoration. No one is going to
use the PRA for funding decisions to my knowledge, and we won’t use it to calibrate our risk meters
for habitat/harvest, but we won’t just ditch the PRA. We are still wedded to the notion of
understanding the salmon family tree, and all the populations are not all equal.
Larry Phillips echoed Frank Urabeck’s funding comments, saying that a diminished pot of funds makes
every dollar more precious. He said we put a lot of money into salmon recovery, and though we
haven’t seen huge improvements in our runs, would probably have been worse if we hadn’t made those
investments. Councilmember Phillips said we need to continue to use the investments, but it is frankly
scary as to how the PRA could be used. He added that he is not willing to export King County citizens’
money elsewhere if we are being undermined in our efforts to secure funding. Will Stelle explained that
if you think you are being hindered, give us some advice on how to deal with this. He said the current
strategy is to just leave the PRA alone, otherwise its muzzling science, so we can’t just get rid of it.
Elizabeth Babcock, NOAA Fisheries, responded that all populations have to improve in Puget Sound.
She said there are some things you’ve been able to do here in an urban watershed that haven’t been
done anywhere else, such as the Green Shorelines work, which could be exported to other WRIAs. She
suggested WRIA 8 let our organization know if you need us to step in and write a letter. Will Stelle
added that we are not going to write a letter that says “WRIA 8 is better than WRIA 7”.
Mike Grady noted that under ESA we do 60-80 Section 7 consultations within this watershed per year,
and he inquired how the PRA affects those consultations. Will Stelle responded not at all.
Kirk Lakey noted that each population has a different strategy. In this climate of diminishing funds, it’s
important to present local governments with the best available science without becoming too political.
If we are not going to be able to buy property anymore because we can’t afford it, we need to protect
what we have. On the harvest end, he inquired about the implications for Orca. Will Stelle said there is
a pretty strong correlation with Chinook abundance and Orca birthrates. We are convening three
workshops starting next week with the Canadians to look at abundance and orca productivity. We will
make a judgment about whether or not we are going to have to open up harvest plans, and that’s why
we shortened the term of the harvest plans to three years rather than five years.
Larry Phillips commented that part of our conversation today was around potential for litigation, and he
said we should consider bringing that back as a topic.
Don Davidson said SRC will let NOAA Fisheries know if we hear the PRA is being used for anything
that hurts WRIA 8’s recovery efforts. Will Stelle asked that the SRC also let NOAA Fisheries know how
we can help WRIA 8.
Cedar River Restoration/Recreational Safety Update, Part 2
Clint Loper, King County, continued his presentation from the July SRC meeting. He said managing
natural wood at floodplain restoration project sites creates an emerging policy area for the county: sites
are likely to recruit more wood; are a critical approach for meeting regional goals for salmon and
floodplain management; wood is managed at these sites per current county natural woods protocols; and
as more projects are completed, new management tools will be needed to meet goals without increasing
risk to property and recreation users. Lessons learned from Cedar Rapids project are: evaluate and plan
for range of geomorphic outcomes; make sure there is adequate engineering calculation and design, and
construction oversight; design redundancy, higher factors of safety, stable production at site margins; and
plan for adaptive management. Clint said the county wasn’t thorough enough with community outreach
3
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary
9/15/11
before Cedar Rapids was built, and erred in not letting folks know that floodplain restoration sites are
inherently unpredictable, and the river moving is an expected outcome.
Clint went over the Rainbow Bend project, which will remove a levee, allowing the river to migrate
through 40 acres of floodplain. The project has undergone an alternatives analysis and thorough risk
evaluation. The county put together a risk catalog for the project which includes: increases in flood
elevations; property or structure erosion; unacceptable channel migration; unacceptable sediment routing
changes; and recreational hazards (per a 2010 survey there are 40 separate places that river users take-out
and put-in on the river). He said we are looking at the tree canopy to see if it’s likely to recruit wood, and
will host upcoming public meetings about planned Cedar River restoration and the project. Construction
is set for 2012-2013. Clint explained that further work at Cedar Rapids will relocate the logjam, mitigate
for its removal (add habitat features), and rebuild the levee setback.
In summary, Clint said rivers are naturally hazardous, and projects that foster natural conditions may
result in increased hazards for recreational users. These projects are less predictable then “hard
engineered” approaches, and we need to develop strategies to address hazards and uncertainty while
allowing projects to achieve habitat and flood goals. Some possible strategies include: helping more of
the users to act responsibly; doing education and outreach (signs, media, school programs); safety
regulations like the 2011 ordinance requiring personal floatation devices while floating or boating the
river; establishing formal put-in and take-out locations; closing river reaches when there are hazardous
conditions; reconsidering project priorities (probably not practicable for salmon recovery); and basing the
restoration approach on best available science. Next steps include: upcoming outreach regarding salmon
recovery and flood plan vision for the Cedar River and upcoming projects; completing the 2011-12 phases
of Cedar Rapids; selecting the alternative, completing 30% design, outreach and public discussion for
Rainbow Bend; and further developing river-wide and county-wide approaches.
Discussion:
▫ Mike Grady praised the presentation, and said we are spending a lot of money on a losing game if we
can’t control public access. Clint Loper responded that he thinks we are well positioned to do that. Last
summer we surveyed the Cedar, looking at natural wood accumulations, and now it is all mapped. The
next step is to look at what tools we want to use to direct use away from our projects, including closing
reaches and takeouts. The Tolt McDonald Park restoration project involved closing a portion of the
river and installing a takeout location at the upstream end of the project. Trails and new parking were
also added so the river users felt that they got something in exchange for the closure of a portion of the
river. Councilmember Grady asked if this information has been shared with FEMA. Clint said that’s a
good point; he hasn’t personally shared it and wasn’t sure if others had.
▫ Larry Phillips reported that off Cedar Grove Road there have been three fatalities on the other side of a
bridge of regional significance. It is a good example of the difficulty of doing restoration in an
urbanizing area. Acquisitions are easier than habitat restoration projects, because property just changes
hands and the change is not so visible. Councilmember Phillips said he thinks King County is going in
a good direction here, which is very important for sustaining salmon recovery. He didn’t think there
was any way to avoid public use of the Cedar River, so we have to be very careful when installing
wood.
▫ Don Davidson called this a perfect example of the high cost of doing habitat restoration in an urban
setting. He commented that he was proud to saying we are getting this done in an urban setting,
because that is the real challenge we face.
▫ Frank Urabeck noted that as a professional engineer who worked for the Corps for 30 years, he thinks
we are evolving and moving in the right direction with installing wood. He asked Jean White where
she wants to go with this, and how the SRC can help. Jean said there was a lot more passion with this
presentation at our last meeting. Restoration on the Cedar River is critical if we want to be successful in
recovering salmon. WRIA 8 needs to support King County’s restoration efforts and help to build
4
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary
9/15/11
public understand and support for these projects. She reported that several WRIA 8 SRC members met
with Christie True (King County Department of Natural Resources Director) on the issue, and we are
planning a field trip for the 70+ volunteers of the Cedar River Salmon Journey who talk to the public
about salmon each fall. She requested people try to help with the story, and attend a November public
meeting on the Cedar.
▫ Bill Knutsen reported that among the grant requests for KCD funding was one for additional pre- and
post-monitoring at Rainbow Bend. The grant will monitor that what’s there now will be there after the
project is completed, and he called it a good investment.
WRIA 8 2012 Legislative Agenda
Jean White said we are proposing the Legislative Agenda be the same as last year’s. On the state side,
this is an off budget year, so please thank your legislators for the PSAR and SRFB funds. This year is an
opportunity to discuss Watershed Investment District (WID) legislation, and she said our plan is to have a
meeting of WRIA 8 leaders who would be interested in having a Cross WRIA meeting on the WID. On
the federal side, priorities include supporting the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund; supporting Puget
Sound as a “Great Waterbody”; and supporting funding to improve fish passage at the Ballard Locks. The
locks request is not coming from the salmon side this year, but from the operational side. Jean said we
will be contacting Senator Murray’s Office to see if she will support this again. The locks are old and are
both a navigational and salmon recovery hazard.
The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the 2012 Legislative Priorities for Puget
Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Habitat Recovery.
Updates & Announcements
Jean White briefly highlighted a few WRIA 8 announcements, all of which are on the handout: the
Salmon Tour is Friday, October 7; the Salmon SEEson fall campaign is happening again; a decision on
the listing status for Kokanee salmon on Lake Sammamish is expected September 30; and we are
submitting a grant pre-proposal to DOE for planting trees in WRIA 8 in partnership with Stormwater
Outreach for Municipal Municipalities (STORM). She also pointed out the separate handout prepared by
Scott Stolnack, Technical Coordinator, with updated fish numbers.
Larry Phillips announced that, while we didn’t have our usual WRIA 8 Success Story presentation, he did
have one to report: the Great Blue Whale, which was almost hunted to extinction, is recovering thanks to
an ESA listing. He saw a Great Blue Whale surfacing in a show last evening.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 p.m. The next meeting is November 17, 2011, 3:00 to 5:30 p.m.,
Bellevue City Hall.
5