HomeMy WebLinkAbout1953 Resolution No . 1953
(Amending or Repealing Resolutions)
Passed - 12/7/2017
Ratifying with conditions, the 2017 Update to the Lake
Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed or Water Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. k /
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying, with conditions,
the 2017 Update to the Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed or
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan.
RECITALS
A. The 2017 update to the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation
Plan ("WRIA 8 Plan") is an addendum to the 2005 WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan, and includes a scientific framework, Chinook salmon
population goals to achieve sustainable and harvestable populations,
habitat restoration goals, recovery strategies, a list of priority projects and
programmatic actions, and a monitoring and adaptive management plan.
B. 28 local governments in WRIA 8 partner through an interlocal
agreement to jointly fund implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan through 2025
to advance their shared interest in and responsibility for addressing long-
term watershed planning and conservation of aquatic ecosystems and
floodplains for purposes of implementing the WRIA 8 Plan and improving
watershed health.
1 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
C. The WRIA 8 partners recognize participating in the ILA and
implementing priorities in the WRIA 8 Plan demonstrates their commitment
to proactively working to address the ESA listing of Chinook salmon.
D. WRIA 8 partners took formal action in 2005 and 2006 to ratify
the WRIA 8 Plan.
E. In March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
evolutionary significant unit as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
F. An essential ingredient for the development and
implementation of an effective recovery program is coordination and
cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, businesses,
researchers, non-governmental organizations, landowners, citizens, and
other stakeholders as required.
G. 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 in WRIA S.
H. The city values ecosystem health; water quality improvement;
flood hazard reduction; open space protection; and maintaining a legacy
for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport fishing,
quality of life, and cultural heritage.
I. The city supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set
common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources
2 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
and investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and
expenditures.
J. The WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 Plan)
is one of 15 watershed-based chapters of the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan.
K. The Puget Sound Partnership serves as the Puget Sound
regional organization and lead for planning and implementing the Puget
Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, approved by NOAA Fisheries.
L. In WRIA 8, habitat protection and restoration actions to
significantly increase Chinook productivity trends are necessary, in
conjunction with other recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term
and restore WRIA 8 Chinook to viability in the long term.
M. The WRIA 8 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 updating Plan goals and priorities.
N. The city has implemented habitat restoration and protection
projects, and used the WRIA 8 Plan and salmon habitat recovery strategies
and goals as guidance in its land use and public outreach policies and
programs.
O. It is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector, and
the public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon
recovery actions that the region will be taking in WRIA 8 including the
Puget Sound nearshore.
3 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
P. If insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it
is unlikely Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 8 will improve or recover.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. - Ratification. The city hereby conditionally ratifies the
2017 update to The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, dated September, 2017 (2017 Plan).
The Plan is incorporated into this resolution by this reference, and the city
clerk will keep a copy of this ordinance and the Plan in his or her files and
make it available for review. Ratification is intended to convey the city's
approval and support for the following:
1. Conserving and recovering Chinook salmon and other anadromous
fish, focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat with the intent
to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse,
harvestable populations of naturally spawning Chinook salmon.
2. Providing multiple benefits to people and fish through Plan
implementation including flood hazard reduction; water quality
improvement; open space protection; and maintaining a legacy for future
generations, including commercial, tribal and sport fishing, quality of life,
and cultural heritage.
3. Continuing to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
stakeholders in WRIA 8 to implement the WRIA 8 Plan as updated in 2017.
4. Using the habitat goals and associated recovery strategies in the
2017 Plan update as a basis for local actions recommended in the Plan and
4 Resolution — WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
as one source of best available science for future projects, ordinances,
programmatic actions, and other appropriate local government activities.
5. Supporting implementation of the 2017 Plan's Monitoring and
Assessment Plan on a watershed basis, including an adaptive management
approach to implementation and funding to address uncertainties and
ensure cost-effectiveness by tracking actions, assessing action
effectiveness, learning from results of actions, reviewing assumptions and
strategies, making corrections where needed, and communicating progress.
6. Using the 2017 Plan project list (and future updates), recommended
land use and education and outreach actions, and other actions consistent
with the Plan as the suite of WRIA 8 actions to guide priorities for
implementation and funding, including through grants, local capital
improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. Jurisdictions,
agencies, and stakeholders can choose to implement these actions at any
time.
7. Using an adaptive approach to funding the Plan through both local
sources and by working together (within WRIA 8 and Puget Sound) to seek
federal, state, grant, and other funding opportunities. Funding
assumptions, strategies, and options will be revisited periodically.
8. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 2. — Imolementatlon. The city recognizes that negotiation
of commitments and assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and
state agencies will be an iterative process. Full implementation of this Plan
is dependent on the following:
5 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan, as an operative element of its
ESA Section 4(f) recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will:
a. take no direct enforcement actions against the City under the
ESA for implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the
Plan;
b. endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend the City against
legal challenges by third parties; and
C. reduce the regulatory burden for City activities recommended
in or consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation.
3. Federal and state governments will:
a. provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan
actions and monitoring activities;
b. streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to
restore salmonid habitat or where the actions are mitigation that further
Plan implementation;
C. offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that
are consistent with the Plan;
d. support the monitoring and evaluation framework;
6 Resolution — WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
e. incorporate, to the best of the government's ability, actions
and guidance from the Plan in future federal and state transportation and
infrastructure planning and improvement projects; and
f. to the extent feasible, direct mitigation resources toward Plan
priorities.
SECTION 3. - obt ation. This resolution does not obligate the city
council to future appropriations beyond current authority. Although the city
is committed to furthering the work of WRIA 8 and the Plan, it also must
balance its other goals and priorities, beyond funding limitations, under the
state Growth Management Act to further economic development, enhance
and accommodate growth, and protect property rights. As a result, this
council action to ratify the Plan is conditioned on the city's fulfillment of
these other needs and demands as well.
In particular, the city maintains a primarily aquifer-based water
supply system, and the city will not implement any Plan requirement or
goal if doing so would threaten or harm the city's ability to provide a safe,
secure, and adequate water supply to its citizens, including future
population increases, whether due to annexation or additional growth
through infill.
SECTION 4. - Severabliity. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. - Corrections by City Clerk. Upon approval of the city
attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this
resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or
7 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 6. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this � day oft"'',Wb6r, 201 .
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this I day of
V 201-.
/ U COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY ,- OMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'wk, 1,% Lo, "—
TCIM BRUBAKER,-CITV ATTORNEY
8 Resolution - WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
® ® ® �. � G4 �$ .�
� � �� � ® �
1
��� �
i,���re, r ���
� ��
m� v
"E '� a , y�
J � " '
� ,
, . � � ' r
u, �
'� ���r� � � �`�
it ��,� � ,� ,,.,� �,,, %r¢a
o ,_; .Q ha ,�� �
orr��o�j !°% i
�,c
u,��,�,
�-
Y w�.
/?��;�, �° �w
�„�
����: '�
F
� j ���
�� N � ���OJ��Y➢R9.�wM d /�H..
G / l W
Iy/ W �
�r ,Zim R y
w � �i�
durdw, n�ua., u,',��.
II� �4
6 �i1W�ii���niN� y��G�A; i��i//rt I�.
��i � ��l�yiroUYo l a/��� �� ff�
%�
Apv 0
f
�/ ��,
y
j��
��
Y f f��.K /
� � PI IM� Jy � �/.% �0� �„� a � A
�A w� � ryl.� tll f� i
��•
��� �/���� ul
f ..✓., bm '� .0 i �����. i. . .. i, e A. Ali
f
I illl��i��� �I i6 ru r ��duill� pii ii
FOREWORD After more than 10 years of implementing the
WRIA 8 Plan, we can say that we have made great
'v Chinook salmon are an icon of the Pacific headway, and our partnership remains strong. We
Northwest and a vital cultural, economic, and have helped protect more than 1,500 acres of land,
environmental resource for our region. Salmon over 300 acres of flood lain, and nearly 12 miles of
disappearing from our local waters would alter the streambank. We have helped restore over 75 acres
°} fabric of our local communities and is an outcome of floodplain, more than 325 acres of riparian area,
;x we are not willing to accept. For the past 10 years, and over a mile of lakeshore. We have removed
;..
and the foreseeable future,the salmon recoveryinvasive species from more than 500 acres of
effort in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish riparian areas. This is a great foundation from
Watershed (a.k.a., Water Resource Inventory which to continue and accelerate our efforts on
Area [WRIA] 8) will continue working to keep habitat protection and restoration.
IF almon in our local streams. The WRIA 8 Chinook
o Salmon Recovery Council is an example of local
However, salmon recovery is a long-term endeavor,
governments working together regionally to deal and Chinook salmon populations remain far
ro with a problem that if not addressed will have short of our goal of sustainable runs that enable
c> long-term, wide-ranging consequences. Without
tribal and recreational fishing. Over a century
increased habitat protection and restoration, as of development and modification in our region
e degraded salmon habitat and reduced populations
E5 well as greater public awareness and support, we
M risk losing these valuable fish. to critically low levels. It will take us time and
investment to restore our streams and rivers and
When the federal government listed Puget recover salmon. Updating the Plan is an important
s Sound Chinook salmon as threatened under step in keeping salmon recovery on track. Through
U the Endangered Species Act in 1999, local this Plan Update, we set ambitious new habitat
&5`' governments in WRIA 8 banded together to
9 9 goals and developed a set of recovery strategies
r address the listing through a coordinated, to guide implementation and ensure our salmon
7 bottom-up approach. Since 2000,the WRIA 8 recovery efforts continue to be based on the most
Salmon Recovery Council, comprised of 28 local recent science, are informed by lessons learned,
10
government partners and community groups, state
1„ 9 P Y 9 P , and are using limited resources wisely. This Plan
m and federal agencies, businesses, and citizens, Update also tells our salmon recovery story and
has worked to implement the WRIA 8 Chinook explains to our partners, the public, and decision
Salmon Conservation Plan (Plan), driven by the makers what is still needed to recover Chinook
shared goal of recovering sustainable, harvestable salmon.
E populations of Chinook salmon. This collaborative
"' effort demonstrates the power of working together As the most populous watershed in the state, WRIA
toward a common vision, investing in a cause 8 is the proving ground for whether salmon and
i that will not only benefit the region's salmon people can live together. The 28 local government
populations, but will also improve the quality of life partners in WRIA 8 remain committed to recovering
for all people and wildlife in our watershed. Chinook salmon. We serve as a model for how
u�
communities can effectively coordinate and rally
m
<u
1
1011oiii.
a�v
r)
around a shared natural resource issue. By continuing to work together, even as our region grows, we can
continue to have both a vibrant local economy and a healthy watershed with strong salmon runs returning
each fall.
Working to recover salmon is about more than salmon — it is fundamentally about caring for our home and
making our communities sustainable for the long-term. The strategies and actions called for in this Plan rz
will protect and restore salmon habitat, but they will also improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, r.:;..
protect open space, improve stormwater management, sustain and improve our quality of life, and promote r
a proud legacy of stewardship for future generations. By taking action to recover Chinook salmon, weILI
are taking a stand that extinction is not an option, that we want a healthy environment where we live, u
that meeting tribal treaty rights is imperative, and that future generations will continue to witness salmon
returning to local streams.
On behalf of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, we are pleased to share this update to the WRIA 8 D
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, and we strongly encourage everyone interested in salmon recovery C)
and watershed health to assist in implementing this plan. 6
ai
,r)
c:r
U
c
ci
F
0
G
U
cxr
ar
,r
in
Mayor Andy Rheaume Mayor John Stokes
City of Bothell City of Bellevue E
m
Chair, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Vice-Chair, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
rz,
in
a
t-�
2:
R
YJ;
lf,
Ri
Q)
x
ttf
ion pp p p
V y„') ON0, I` 00
IIII II II � �IIIII Vuuu mums -
I Doom" mo°oIIIIIIII°°°°��� l
CONTENTS
Foreword I
Acronyms V
Contributors VI
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2. Recovery Goals 7
3. Current Status 16
Cx
4. Strategies To Achieve Our Goals 34
5. Implementation Framework 41
6. Adaptive Management Process 47
14 7, References 50
L' Acknowledgements 53
r'
Appendix A- Monitoring and Assessment Plan A-1
Appendix B - Plan Update Process B-1
Appendix C -WRIA 8 Pressures Assessment C-1
Appendix D - Habitat Goals D-1
0
Appendix E - Recovery Strategies E-1
Appendix F - Site-Specific Projects List F-1
uAppendix G - Proposing Projects and Programmatic Actions for Implementation —
WRIA 8 Four-Year Work Plan G-1
Appendix H - Land Use Action Recommendations H-1
G' Appendix I - Education and Outreach Recommendations 1-1
7,
n
0
Figure 1. Map of WRIA 8 Habitat Priority and Tiers 3
Figure 2. Puget Sound Chinook Population Decline and WRIA 8 Population Recovery 5
Fi Figure 3. Life Stage Conceptual Model of WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon 10
Ex Figure 4. Cedar River Chinook Salmon Abundance: Natural-Origin Spawners NOS 2004-2016 18
i:r 9 g P (NOS),
Figure 5. Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek Chinook Salmon Abundance: Natural-Origin Spawners
(NOS), 2004-2015 18
Figure 6. Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundance (Cedar River) 19
Figure 7. Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundance (Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek) 19
„
Figure 8. Number of Parr Migrants from the Cedar River and Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek, Brood
Years 2000-2015 22
m
t Figure 9. Estimated Proportion of Hatchery-Origin Chinook Salmon (PROS) Detected in Cedar River
Fi and Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek Spawning Surveys Since 2004 22
ua
IAULPcj
v Table 1. WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Population Goals 8
c Table 2. WRIA 8 Habitat Goals 14
"' Table 3. Summary of the Current Status of Chinook Salmon in WRIA 8 17
Table 4.WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Redd Survey Results,1999-2015 21
=L Table 5. WRIA 8 Habitat Goal Adaptive Management Triggers 49
v
o
Illlllii ii
r -
ACRONYMS
2005 Plan Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan
2017 Plan WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 10Year Update
BMP best management practice IV
CARA critical aquifer recharge area
CfS cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone
C_)
EIM environmental information management ry
F Fahrenheit
�u
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency IQ
u
GMA Growth Management Act n..>
r.
GSI green stormwater infrastructure <
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan r'
HOS hatchery-origin spawners
IC WRIA 8 Implementation Committee
KCFCD King County Flood Control District
0
ILA Interlocal agreement
LID low impact development
MAP monitoring and assessment plan j
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Fu
NOS natural-origin spawners ,
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
c,>
PIT passive inductance transponder 3
PHOS proportion of hatchery-origin spawners
RM river mile
SMA Shoreline Management Act +--
J,
SMP shoreline master program
TC WRIA 8 Technical Committee
in
UGA urban growth area
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ll,
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VSP viable salmonid population �?
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
0
WQI water quality index
WRIA water resource inventory area
m
Y.
N
A
' uuuu""VVVVV V"�
r
uul I I I I I I I I I I I II
�+rnmIF� C II IIIIIIIIIIIOIIVIUVu ...
VV VVVVVV II II
�.wmwmmn
.IRB ure
WHIA ::' I III plcilwffli 0ion , YRIA 8 S ffl
Co III n1l l hco Polly Freeman, Communications Specialist
BBB Alison Bennett, City of Bellevue Linda Grob, Administrative Coordinator
Marci Chew, City of Mill Creek Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, Salmon Recovery Manager
Casey Costello, WDFW Scott Stolnack, Technical Coordinator
Tawni Dalziel, City of Sammamish Jason Wilkinson, Actions and Funding Coordinator
`v Jeanette Dorner, MSFEG
11 ,CI , Ca[ o d I'LI,
,, Troy Fields, Snohomish County
�..... Ned Ahrens, Elise Antonio, Hans Berge,
ra Gretchen Gland, Snohomish County Judy Blanco, City of Bothell, Jim Bower,
rri) Danika Globokar, City of Sammamish Leslie Brown, Geoff Clayton, Lorraine Day,
`I< Peter Holte, City of Redmond Envirolssues, Nicole Faghin, Forterra, Larry Franks,
` Cyndy Holtz, Kollin Higgins, Dan Lantz, Ray Lapine,
<' Cyndy Holtz, City of Seattle
Josh Latterell, Janice Mathisen, City of Redmond,
Antonia Jindrich, MSFEG Roger Tabor, Jo Wilhelm, and Norm Ziegler
Kell!Jones, City of Kirkland
h''IiV'I k r'(I �rle CC0I1hllrlih, _,
Janne Kaje, King County
Brianna Blaud, Herrera Environmental Consultants
Kristina Lowthian, City of Renton
Jose Carrasquero,
a; Kamal Mahmoud, City of Mill Creek Herrera Environmental Consultants
u,
y Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle Megann Devine,
Lisa Nelson, King County Visual Communication Specialist
Fr Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust Jessica Engel,
ui Joan Nolan, Ecology King County Climate Change Specialist
u
f Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Susan O'Neil, Long Live the Kings
Jerallyn Roetemeyer, City of Redmond Andrea Rouleau,
W Stacey Rush, City of Kirkland King County Visual Communication Specialist
Suzanna Stoike, Puget Sound Partnership Jennifer Schmidt,
Ron Straka, City of Renton Herrera Environmental Consultants
Stacy Vynne, Puget Sound Partnership
Elizabeth Torrey, WDFW
U,
,6 "IIL1i1�.1rd `•,ItF�,rtii'f
'e H,1A S Ind llill,F_E1 Coinlm11'l';lec,
Jim Bower, King County Production of this document was made possible
by funding from the WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement
Karl Burton, City of Seattle among 28 local government partners, as well as
F- Casey Costello, WDFW grant funding from Washington State's Puget Sound
Brett Gaddis, Snohomish County Acquisition and Restoration fund and the Aquatic
Tom Hardy, City of Redmond Lands Enhancement Account through a state
n, legislative allocation to Puget Sound Partnership.
Andy Loch, City of Bothell
psi
Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue
r. Robert Plotnikoff, Snohomish County
Elizabeth Torrey, WDFW
v,
m
i
�. u�iuvuiauu
i.
i
a. Y(
1
i
L
r
�l�llr�r>r�il1!I �4
'EXECUTIVE
f'r �' Over the past 10 years, we have learned more
U E SUMMARY about the impacts humans have on Chinook
This document updates the Lake Washington/ salmon survival through empirical scientific
Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon research, studies, and formal and informal
Conservation Plan (2005 Plan;WRIA 8 Steering monitoring of implemented projects. While the
Committee, 2005). Since 2000, Lake Washington/ 2005 Plan included measurable salmon population
Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (a.k.a. Water recovery goals, there were no measurable goals D
Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) partners for habitat restoration. The 2017 Plan uses recent a
have worked together to improve conditions habitat monitoring efforts that establish baseline y
for threatened Chinook salmon, with the goal of conditions to develop near-term (2025) and long- o
bringing naturally-produced Chinook salmon back term (2055) quantifiable habitat recovery goals. -°
to sustainable, harvestable levels. While the Plan
focuses on recovering Chinook salmon, actions To produce a plan to achieve these goals, a a
taken to improve conditions for Chinook also conceptual model was developed to identify key o
improve conditions for other salmon species and life stages and important habitats that may limit
support improving overall watershed health. Chinook salmon recovery. Human impacts that
exert pressures on Chinook salmon and their
The 2017 WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation habitat were evaluated for each life stage and U
Plan (2017 Plan) updates the 2005 Plan by drawing geographic area of the watershed. This work o
on current science to develop quantitative habitat formed the basis for developing the 20 recovery M
goals for Chinook salmon, evaluate the negative strategies to improve conditions that support "'
impacts (or pressures) on Chinook salmon, update Chinook salmon in WRIA 8. °o
salmon recovery strategies to identify actions that s
address the highest priority pressures on salmon, One of the primary gaps identified in the 2005 Plan U
and produce a Monitoring and Assessment was the lack of methodology to measure progress a
Plan MAP . towards the desired future status of habitat. While
(MAP).
) we have learned much from monitoring efforts to s
The 2017 Plan is an addendum to the 2005 Plan, date, developing the MAP (Appendix A) allows v
but is also intended to serve as a stand-alone us to better assess our progress and correct our N
document. As an addendum, the 2017 Plan course as we protect and restore salmon habitats
continues themes and content discussed in the and ecosystem processes. The MAP guides project
2005 Plan, provides information learned during sponsors in monitoring and reporting the progress N
the first 10 years of implementation, includes new of habitat restoration projects towards habitat and E
habitat goals, and identifies new and updated salmon recovery. E
strategies to meet salmon recovery goals. The
20 updated strategies are a valuable new tool to
direct our work addressing the key factors limiting
U
salmon recovery in our watershed. They are �
outlined in Section 4 of this document and spelled
out in detail in Appendix E.
ro
v
ro
J
I s �
oc
Significant Changes to the WRIA S Plan Since 2005
0
tv ESE
dY ^ n „",' a • n,il r. !' A' u „ ,. i . 'i„. u
w
Focus on recovery of three Combined Issaquah Creek and Page 6
populations (Cedar River, North Lake Washington populations
Issaquah Creek, and North Lake into a single Sammamish River
rY
Washington Tributaries) population
w Conceptual model New, lifecycle-based conceptual I Pages 9-10
omodel helps prioritize life stages to
inform prioritization of actions,
location, and timing
c
a No habitat restoration goals Numeric habitat goals for five key Page 9
habitat elements
0
s Upper Cedar River Watershed, Area designated Tier 1 given regular, Section 1.2
above Landsburg Diversion Dam significant Chinook salmon
o designated Tier 21 spawning use since 2003 when
u construction of fish passage facilities
C
allowed Chinook salmon to pass
m above Landsburg Diversion Dam
yr
o Recovery strategies included Twenty new and updated recovery Section 4
° strategies identified to guide
�
v implementation of recovery actions.
a Strategies based on new science,
a current conditions, and lessons
a
� learned.
a�i Comprehensive List of Revised and updated list of Pages 41 46&Appendices F, H,
s
Site-Specific Projects(600+ site-specific projects to improve and I
) project projec
ts) s update definitions,
ra P specificity,Y. P
Start List of most important and
reduce duplication, and add newly
'^ ready-to-go projects, land use identified projects.
actions, and education and Revised and updated lists of(1)
C outreach actions to implement in recommended land use actions, and
,n the first 10 years (2) education and outreach actions.
All projects/actions are connected to
a�i the most relevant recovery
v strategies.
c
O
c
Monitoring and adaptive Monitoring and Assessment Plan Pages 47-49&Appendix A
:c management framework guides monitoring and reporting
0
on progress towards
m implementing recovery strategies
and meeting habitat goals.
-. Recovery,"tiers"are determined by watershed condition and fish use and denote the priority for recovery activities.Tier 1 areas are
highest priority,followed by Tier 2,which are satellite spawning areas and are important for the spatial diversity of Chinook,Tier 3
areas see infrequent or no Chinook use but are Important from a water quality perspective.
�I
1, INTRODUCTION
f AJ',� U Imm ATL EKI
This document updatf s the La Washington/
j
es the k
Cedar/Sammamish W Chinook Salmon o
Conservation Plan
) (2005 Plan; WRIA 8 Steering
CommLL Cedar/I0 Since 2000,
ed Washington/
Sammamsh Watershed a.k a. Water
1 � euNSv
Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) partners °
have worked together to improve conditions
rr
for threatened Chinook salmon, with the goal of w
-
,,,_ _�;...h bringing naturally-produced Chinook salmon back
,.T d
aumun,err n ev nuorrrYyh; " r> to sustainable harvestable levels
n rr, , . —
Concerned
t the need to protect and restore
trJn Vhrr Y 10 Chinook salmon ouhabitat for future generations and a
t° On t m '� nr to maintain local control over recovery decisions a
All] a �( tr ��, and implementation, 27local governments in WRIA In
neyrvevi,r r f „ d
8, including King and Snohomish counties and
25 cities, signed an interlocal agreement(ILA) in o
W° fl ° � ^ `e � 2001 to jointly fund the development of the 2005 c
r f err r air . h Plan. The 2005 Plan was created with input from °
ty � E
p ,,, numerous stakeholders to provide a science-
1y,4 �' ` b SAMMAM MN V)
e based roadmap for protecting and restoring o
spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for o
j �� uoJnl � Chinook salmon.
[ Cb
��mi n° ) �° n When the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Q
° r ° adopted the 2005 Plan, they established
an initial 10-year implementation �
period and called for the s
r a plan to be reviewed
v
WRIA 8 H abital: �. and updated 7
' r
Priority 1'ien'ri after�M��ryW L
D�VW� TIuc1 i. E
Tlerc?. .r,,+�.. ♦. it E
m m
WRIA8 boundaryv V m N
M
River
IVir. .0 m
�9 U
Stream s
c
U
Major road �m o
c
Lake o 2 a 6Mr—
Incorporated area ICI 5y
Jwy2ov
N
m
Flgare 1. Mop of WR1A 8 Habitat Priority Tiers
y . W ✓q�t 1
i at'^',sur war �
�f;:d
y�r9 i
( Q
NM
M
Ito
time. After 10 years, we have learned much about Historically, the Lake Washington watershed
0
where more work is needed. The 2017 WRIA 8 drained south to the Black and Duwamish rivers.
v Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (2017 Plan) In 1916, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
updates the 2005 Plan with new information and constructed the Hiram M. Chittenden (a.k.a.
lessons learned over the last decade, and includes Ballard) Locks (Locks) and excavated the Ship
o refined strategies and goals for the future. The full Canal to connect the Union Bay area in Lake
D process for updating the 2017 Plan with Salmon Washington with Salmon Bay in Puget Sound. The
c Recovery Council input and approval is described surface of Lake Washington dropped 9 feet and
in Appendix B. exposed previously inundated shallow-water areas,
decreasing the lake shoreline by 12.8 percent and
In 2015, 28 local government partners in the draining many of the lake's wetlands. The decrease
watershed (the Town of Woodwayjoined the in lake elevation disconnected Lake Washington
original 27 partners in 2014) renewed the ILA, from the Duwamish River, and the Cedar River—
recommitting themselves to coordinated salmon which previously flowed into the Duwamish River
recovery for another 10 years. In so doing,
partners recognized the habitat protection and via the Black River—was permanently rerouted to
restoration progress made over the past decade, Lake Washington. As most of the Black River dried
u the resulting benefits to local communities, up and became impassable, salmon populations
o and the efficiency of working collectively to make were forced to find a new route to their natal
E the watershed a place where salmon and streams. The Sammamish River, which historically
V) had a meandering channel through a large wetland
a people can live together. complex, was also heavily modified, straightened,
and drained in the early to mid-1900s to reduce
flooding and support agricultural production in
The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish the Sammamish Valley. In subsequent years,
g Watershed (WRIA 8), located in western salmon habitat was further impaired as upland and
Washington, comprises 692 square miles and shoreline development removed more shallow-
includes two major river systems (the Cedar and water habitat, reduced channel complexity in rivers
Sammamish rivers) and three large lakes (Union,
and streams, and reduced forest cover along lake
Washington, and Sammamish). It also includes and channel shorelines. Today, all Chinook salmon
the marine nearshore and numerous smaller enter and exit the watershed through the Ballard
N sub-basins that drain directly to Puget Sound Locks and its associated fish passage facilities.
E from West Point in the City of Seattle northward
E to Elliott Point in the City of Mukilteo. WRIA 8 is An estimated 31 populations of Chinook salmon
E located predominantly in western King County once existed in Puget Sound. Annually, nearly
and about 15 percent of the land area extends 700,000 adults returned to Puget Sound
northward into Snohomish County. Over 53 watersheds to spawn. Since the late 1800s and
U percent of the marine shoreline is located within early 1900s, human activities such as logging,
Snohomish County (Figure 1). A large portion of overfishing, water withdrawals, and land
6
� the upper Cedar River watershed is the municipal development have caused the numbers of Chinook
ro drinking water supply for the City of Seattle, salmon to plummet to less than 10 percent of their
and is managed under a Habitat Conservation historic levels (Figure 2). Nine populations have
cu
Plan (HCP). Tribal treaty areas in WRIA 8 include gone extinct, leaving only 22 populations in the
usual and accustomed fishing places of the Puget Sound. This drastic decline prompted the
Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Tulalip, and Suquamish federal government to list Puget Sound Chinook
tribes. The human population of the watershed is salmon as threatened under the Endangered
approximately 1.4 million. Species Act in 1999.
1
�� mo
ou
w �P41 ..^'____� op Eooa 9 ryo
tl � c0041
mv �- anC44� tl
U O V V tl
$g � dncmcmc. ow
K u O d 0,o m a Vl
owl
H n �
o no a N v
ry r c c
' = v w
0
F-
��ww
IVY OI r' N CL
N O1 a u N ¢ Q•
f N
m A w
yy
m c O
P Oml
`wry�u m m � tp O C
u� OI r RI
O O O O P
^ VI a
o-
O �
O Nm
m
o
- �
c
3 � a' O
c U
m m v N o
o
p b L L E
a E
m
- w 1
o a
a m c co a o
m m e 6 0
z o E ^ o _ •m > r v o U
m
�! m 4 �
O a aV
N
°' m mN my {y ao -Eco v
r m �, in
p _cod aD � m � ....... ,.. ... m rna i mT
3 o o _
U
00
wm
0
- .88
c o
qE. E O r' 'M± ( •up^9 •u���i m '� aNi v c
0 � O d
ro r Y E C
V -
t v = >
mZ n '$ H ❑ 0 'a
O O O O O O O 0
n t0 Ifl V m (NV N
ro
J
f iqP ire 2 Puget Sound Chinook P"opulotion Decline oncl WRA 8 PopvloNon F ccovery
WRIA 8 is home to two of the 22 Chinook salmon Tier 2 areas are a secondary priority and include
0
populations in Puget Sound: the Cedar population areas less frequently used by Chinook salmon for
(Cedar River and tributaries)and the Sammamish spawning, but that contribute to the overall spatial
population (Sammamish River, North Creek, diversity of salmon populations in the watershed.
aLittle Bear Creek, Bear/Cottage Lake Creek, Tier 2 systems include North, Little Bear, Kelsey,
d Issaquah Creek, Kelsey Creek). Focusing on two and Evans creeks. Upland areas associated
D populations reflects a change since adoption of with Tier 1 and Tier 2 streams assume the tier
a the 2005 Plan. Originally, lacking certainty about designation for the waterbody the upland area
y genetic differences between populations, salmon supports.
recovery partners took a precautionary approach
Tier 3 areas (all areas not Tier 1 or Tier 2) contain
that identified three distinct Chinook salmon
populations in WRIA 8. Genetic analyses performed streams that are infrequently or never used
a after the 2005 Plan indicated that a two-population by Chinook salmon, but are still important for
c other species of salmon and resident fish, water
o approach (Cedar River and Sammamish River
populations)was appropriate. This approach was quality, flow management, and overall watershed
adopted by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council health. Coal and May creeks were classified as
o in 2010. Tier 3 streams in the 2005 Plan. Recently, these
U creeks have experienced an increase in use by
0 The contribution of WRIA 8 partners to the overall spawning Chinook salmon, and contain areas
mogoal of increasing WRIA 8 natural-origin Chinook with somewhat higher quality habitat compared
v' salmon to sustainable and harvestable levels is to to some other Tier 2 areas. The WRIA 8 Technical
x
o protect high-quality habitat, as well as to reduce Committee (TC) plans to monitor their status and
E existing pressures and restore additional habitat to consider upgrading these streams to Tier 2 if
U needed by salmon at specific life history stages adult returns continue to increase.
a in the watershed. To prioritize implementation of
" restoration strategies, the watershed has been n addition to prioritizing geographic areas by
tiers, the 2017 Plan further prioritizes actions by
classified into functional "tiers" based on watershed life stage, using an updated conceptual model
condition and fish use (Figure 1). Tier 1 areas
are the highest priority habitats for protection/ developed by the WRIA 8 TC during the 2017
Plan update process. This conceptual model is
restoration, and include primary spawning areas,
e described in more detail in Section 2.2.
as well as migratory and rearing corridors. The
E Cedar and Sammamish rivers, Bear and Issaquah
E creeks, shores of lakes Sammamish, Union, and
E Washington (including the Ship Canal), and the
E
marine rearshore (including bluff-backed beaches
0 and pocket estuaries) are classified as Tier 1. The
Cedar River is considered the highest priority Tier
0 1 area because it includes spawning and rearing
areas for the Cedar population, which supports the
largest number of natural-origin Chinook salmon
in the watershed. With its tributaries, it is also the
sole spawning area for the Cedar population. The
marine nearshore is a Tier 1 area because it is
important as migratory and rearing habitat for
WRIA 8 Chinook populations and those from other
Puget Sound watersheds.
w
i� YII
i
1 V�4
I
m RECOVERY
As part of the 2005 Plan update process, the WRIA 8 Technical
Committee (TC) reviewed the Chinook salmon population recovery
goals established in the 2005 Plan and determined that they remain
appropriate and relevant. Upon the recommendation of the TC, the
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council approved carrying them forward in
the 2017 Plan. Q
w
y r Noting that the 2005 Plan did not include quantifiable habitat goals, }o
the TC used an assessment
ressures
ok
f new conceptual model, existing Amon monitoring lliimitin salmon,factor
p 9 9 9 .
Y assessments, and available scientific studies to develop and articulate
�7+"' f w�, v' a focused set of near-term (2025) and long-term (2055) Chinook
salmon habitat goals. These habitat goals provide targets for the most
I,i �I�i �i,�Ifi i i 4I�'6Qi III i 1
n
important Chinook salmon habitat elements in the watershed, and
�l give us a roadmap for measuring progress.
C{7I N ,„ p yt q ,ry q O
I)) �.,.+�., 1Gkr ,� YA �....l;i ll��) `III '�'IE ���w°1IER I'� �I�a,.id'""' 4..`"„� E
E
Chinook salmon population recovery goals were determined
using the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) concept and the �
recommendations identified in WRIA 8's "H-Integration" process Q
w to address impacts from habitat degradation, hatchery production,
and harvest. A "viable" population is one that has a negligible risk of
w
extinction in its native habitat over a 100-year time frame. Recovery a
goals are set for both a near-term (2025) and a long-term (2055)time
frame for each VSP parameter to support sustainable Chinook salmon
populations (Table 1). The 2025 and 2055 goals described for the
Chinook salmon recovery goals in this section are the same as the
short-term and long-term goals from the 2005 Plan.
The 2005 Plan included Chinook salmon population recovery
ygoals that are based on recovery planning targets provided by the
4 1^a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the National E
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Population
Viability Analysis,which the TC further elaborated in 2009 as part to
of the H-Integration process. The TC reviewed these goals as part u
1 of updating the 2005 Plan, and recommended no changes for the o
2017 Plan, which the Salmon Recovery Council approved. For more Q
information on the Chinook salmon population recovery goals, see s
Chapter 3 of the 2005 Plan.
Adult spawner ("fish-in") and juvenile outmigration ("fish-out")
monitoring has occurred in the watershed since 1998, at significant
expense to watershed partners. The TC recognizes the value of these
data and recommends continuing this work. However, the TC notes
that future priorities may require directing limited monitoring funds
1
toward other priorities over the next 10-year implementation cycle.
i
RIA 8 ChinookSalmon Population Goals
Abundance >15,000 spawner capacity 1,680 natural-origin 2,000 to 8,000
spawners(NOS) natural-origin spawners;
consistent with tribal treaty
rights and recreational
.... harvest
Productivity Unknown >_2 returns per spawn er 12-20%egg-to-migrant
0 2-4 years out of 10; survival rate
a
> >_13.8% egg-to-migrant
survival rate
w
Y
o Spatial distribution Proportional use by river Convert one satellite Recapture historical
mile and lake residencyc subarea to core (Tier 1); distribution;fully exploit
c
expand spawning area available habitat
m distribution
a
o Diversity Assume>50%part rearing Increase Cedar River Increase Cedar River
> life history; low stray rate instream rearing trajectory instream rearing
from other systems trajectories to 50%
c
U , �;firl�ij it Ilr
c
o Abundance Unknown,estimated at Maintain base period 1,000 to 4,000
m "8,500 spawners average of 1,083 naturally natural-origin spawners;
Vi spawning adults tribal treaty and sport
0 fishing occur on a
0
consistent basis
u
65 ' Productivity Unknown Adult productivity>10; >10%eggtomigrant
¢ >2 returns per spawner 2 survival rate
4 years out of 10;
>4.4% egg-to-migrant
o -
a) survival rate
s
N
`m Spatial distribution Spawning distribution Convert one satellite Consistent use of north
assumed to be broad, but subarea to core; expand Lake Washington
s more concentrated in spawning area distribution tributaries(in addition to
E larger streams Bear Creek)for spawning
m
E
E Diversity Historical diversity Improve Sammamish River Maintain and increase
U assumed to be greater habitat rearing conditions duration of natural
than that at present to support eventual parr spawning in the basin
v rearing
U
`c Note:Current population status is discussed in Section 3
0
o� a VSP-viable salmon population,one with a negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year time frame.
m u Historical conditions are estimates of presettlement or"template"conditions provided by NOAA and WDFW.
m
Lake residency is considered a template condition,even though lake residency is not a historical condition.See 2005 Plan for
v
Y more information.
ro
J
Table 1. WRtA 8 Chinook Salmon Population GaoLS
For more information on the VSP Framework and how the Chinook salmon recovery goals were
developed, see Appendix C-1 in the 2005 Plan.
rei �I i „ ,,,lii� IVf��PII i Ili'"i �1"l1--i A ; A( G OA 1„S vary across space and time; stresses vary in
their significance by geography, season, and life
The relationships between habitat conditions and o
Chinook salmon growth and survival are known stage. The life stage conceptual model for WRIA
to be multifaceted and complex. They operate at 8 Chinook salmon (Figure 3)attempts to describe w
many spatial and temporal scales. The response these local stresses and illustrate the factors with a
the most important impacts. The following section n
of Chinook salmon populations to even large-scale a
habitat improvements may not be detectable for summarizes the key factors affecting each life D
years, and may be confounded by improvements
stage at the most significant places and times. a
w
or declines elsewhere in the watershed or in the More information can be found online at http R }
marine environment. Nevertheless, known linkages
www.govlink.orq_/watersheds/8/reports/default, 0
exist between freshwater habitat conditions and aspx#fishecol.
salmon, supported by decades of Adult migration occurs from June through
scientific research. September from Salmon Bay through the Ballard
0
Locks and Ship Canal to Lake Washington,
and from Lake Washington either north to the
Sammamish River and its tributaries, or south to
l� BI I w �i, ii n IN( A ll (0lltl tl�l the Cedar River or south Lake Washington tributary u
u
� streams (Kelsey, May and Coal creeks). Significant o
f� � rair � ;N l �11�1iv�11i 1.y �t111 ��m�1 I�lll4wb,�,�_l stresses identified for adult migrants include E
thermal and dissolved oxygen barriers at the Locks y
��,pl� a ius p�n��i�ii oii I )n i o
p p� and Ship Canal, and physical passage through the a
q1 r I Iw Ph!��111111 �Vl hr�� i��y.,, Locks and fish ladder. The Sammamish River can E
pose significant thermal stress to Chinook salmon
returning to Bear/Cottage Lake and Issaquah d
creeks, as well as to Chinook salmon returning E
Duringthe 2017 Plan update process, the TC
P P to the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery. Lethal and �
reviewed new information about Chinook salmon sublethal temperatures in the Ship Canal and
needs and limiting factors in WRIA 8. This review Sammamish River during adult migration are
culminated in a conceptual life stage model of considered a key constraint on recovery.
WRIA 8 Chinook salmon that considers the habitat =
needs and pressures facing Chinook salmon at Harvest in terminal or freshwater areas (including
each specific time and place in their Iifecycle. bycatch) is currently minimal, and is managed to E
The conceptual model allowed the TC to rank protect Cedar River Chinook salmon as stipulated E
the pressures affecting Chinook salmon in the in the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management v
watershed, thereby helping ensure that strategies Plan (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and WDFW, 2010). o
were developed to address the most pressing
Stream flows on the Cedar River are managed
issues. This process allowed the TC to focus by Seattle Public Utilities to support fall migration o
protection and recovery recommendations where and spawning needs. Elsewhere, low flows early
they will be most effective and cost-efficient. in the migration period could potentially impede
WRIA 8 conceptual life-stage model migration. The sockeye broodstock collection
Chinook salmon occupy different and unique facility on the lower Cedar River has the potential
habitats at each stage of their lives. Each of these to delay passage and alter spawning patterns
habitat types becomes significant to salmon for (facility is monitored and managed to minimize
the specific periods it is occupied (or traversed) delays and is undergoing redesign). Predation on
by Chinook salmon. Environmental conditions migrating adults occurs at the Locks, but is not
INCUBATION
SPAWNING AND
EMERGENCE
ADULT STREAM
MIGRATION NV w
REARING
✓ q,mxF '
W11, 1
r k""
MATURATION
DOWNSTREAM L "
(MARINE WATERS) MIGRATION t
0
►` LAKE
a MIGRATION REARING
TO PUGET LAKE011,
SOUND MIGRATION
NEARSHOREv
0
FORAGING
U
d
o Fmgua� ,3, Lire, ,: lage C.'orrCol:)tual Morin of KNR/A B Chifl ook Salmon
v
N
o consistently significant. Disease or parasites on include habitat limitations through excessive fine
0
Chinook salmon do not appear to be a significant sediments, abnormally high or low streamflow,
E issue at this time. high temperature, and possible water quality
n Spawning in WRIA 8 occurs from September concerns, especially during early fall freshets
o through November in the Cedar River, Bear/ (urban stormwater has been shown to affect
salmon embryo development). Monitoring on
Cottage Lake Creek, Issaquah Creek (below and
above the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery), Little Bear Cedar River and Bear Creek indicates those areas
m are not limited at this life history stage at current
a Creek, North Creek, and Kelsey Creek. May and abundance levels (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data).
Coal creeks and a few other streams in the basin
also see intermittent use by small numbers of Habitat quality/quantity limitations on other creeks
o are unknown but likely high, except perhaps
s Chinook salmon. Monitoring on the Cedar River
upper Issaquah Creek where human impacts are
and on Bear/Cottage Lake Creek indicates that
lower. streamflow on the Cedar River is regulated
these streams have sufficient spawning habitat
to support Chinook salmon incubation through
L at current abundance levels. Limitations in other an HCP, and is managed during redd incubation
creeks are unknown but are assumed to be
E present inside the Urban Growth Area (UGA). to avoid, if possible, redd scour due to flows
Potential spawning stresses include habitat above about 2,200 cfs. Flow management on the
limitations (gravel quantity and quality, inadequate Cedar River also supplements minimum flows to
o cover), hatchery interactions, and low streamflow prevent redd dewatering during low flow periods.
u It is important to note that flow management can
and high temperatures early in the spawning
o season. In addition, disturbance or harassment be limited due to the relatively small size of the
water supply dams on the Cedar River, which
by humans or their pets, or human infrastructure were not designed as flood control facilitates.
(e.g., artificial light) could affect spawning success, Elsewhere, high- or low-flow events may affect
especially in urban areas. success through scouring or dewaterin redds.
9 9 9
J
Incubation and emergence occurs from Temperature during incubation influences time of
September through March in the Cedar River, emergence —warmer temperatures speed embryo
Bear/Cottage Lake Creek, Issaquah Creek(below development and result in earlier emergence
and above the hatchery), Little Bear Creek, North dates, which could affect survival if fry emerge
Creek, and Kelsey Creek. Potential stresses before prey or during high winter flows.
i
i,. i i i sill
r7 i
p
Stream rearing occurs from January through July, Downstream migration occurs from January
and a very small fraction of the population remains through July, with fry migrants moving downstream
0
in the system as yearlings. Stream rearing occurs from January through April, and parr migrants
in the Cedar River, Bear/Cottage Lake Creek, moving downstream from April through July.
Issaquah Creek(below and above the hatchery), Potential stresses include streamflow, habitat F
Little Bear Creek, North Creek, and Kelsey Creek. limitations (quantity and quality of cover), and o
Potential stresses include streamflow, habitat predation. Predation on migrating juvenile
limitations (quantity and quality of instream habitat, Chinook salmon by resident trout and other fish, q
cover,flood refugia, and large woody debris), including some non-natives, may present localized y
predation, prey resources, and water quality. A bottlenecks, and is likely a key pressure at this life
key constraint on Chinook salmon recovery stage.
in WRIA 8 is insufficient instream rearing and
refuge habitat, due to habitat simplification, loss Lake rearing and migration occur from January
of floodplains and side channels/off-channel through July,with small numbers of Chinook a
rearing, and lack of large woody debris. Evidence salmon remaining year-round in Lake Washington
from annual juvenile outmigrant trapping indicates
and Lake Union, either by choice or due to late- a
this life stage is limited in the Cedar River and season thermal barriers to outmigration at the
Bear/Cottage Lake Creek. It is likely that this life
Ballard Locks. Lake Washington is a unique U
stage is limited by lack of instream rearing and feature across Puget Sound Chinook populations, 0
refuge habitat throughout the watershed, though and functions much like an estuary for WRIA 8
little data exist on Chinook salmon productivity Chinook salmon fry. Rearing in Lake Washington
n other WRIA 8 streams. (Habitat monitoring begins in the southern end near the outlet of the o
confirms lack of quality rearing/refuge habitat.) Cedar River (January through March) and shifts u
Streamflow issues vary from year to year. Peak northward toward Union Bay and the Ship Canal U
storm flows may wash fry downstream if floodplain in later months, as juveniles move toward eventual <
refuge habitat is insufficient; base flows are usually outmigration (May through July). Prey resources do
not appear to be limiting. During January through
adequate during the period that Chinook salmon
rear in the stream (although unusually low base to early April,fry are shoreline-oriented and
flows in spring 2015 could become more common feed primarily on chironomids in shallow waters.
under climate change scenarios). Predation by Chinook salmon fry become less shoreline-oriented
cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus c/arkh) and other and occupy deeper water as they grow and N
predators may be a factor. Prey abundance and its migrate northward, and shift to Daphnia spp. as E
potential limitation during the stream rearing stage their preferred prey after the spring phytoplankton E
is unknown, although prey abundance may be bloom and daphnia emergence. Information on the
considered low in areas with low concentrations of
behavior of naturally produced Chinook salmon in
macroinvertebrates (as measured by the Benthic Lake Sammamish is limited, but it is likely that fry
Index of Biotic Integrity, or B-IBI). Poor water quality exhibit similar behavior. c
may affect Chinook salmon survival in areas with Potential stresses during lake rearing and migration m
high volumes of storm runoff. include predation, habitat limitations (quantity and s
quality of refuge habitat, cover), inadequate prey
resources, high temperatures, and poor water v
quality. Shoreline habitat, including stream mouths,
has greater importance at the southern ends of
Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish when
ioill
Chinook salmon are smaller; good lake shoreline of the concentration of predators and timing of
0
habitat is generally lacking throughout both lakes. migration. Recent surveys have documented
Early-season predation on Chinook salmon is smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
assumed to be focused on the southern shorelines, largemouth bass (M. salmoides), rock bass
with a shift northward and offshore as Chinook (Ambloplites rupestris), and yellow perch (Perca
a salmon grow. Early-season water temperatures flavescens)as predators on juvenile Chinook
D likely hinder significant predation by warmwater salmon in the Ship Canal. The Ballard Locks pose
a fish, but predation by cutthroat trout and northern a migration barrier hazard as exit pathways may
y pikeminnow (Ptychocheitus oregonensis) could physically harm Chinook salmon, delay their
affect a large proportion of the Chinook salmon volitional passage, or cause other sublethal effects.
population. Recent captures of walleye (Sander
c vitreus), a non-native warm-water lake fish common Nearshore foraging occurs primarily from April
a. to the Midwest, in both lakes raise concerns that through Augustin the Puget Sound nearshore, but
o Chinook are found in the nearshore throughout
this low-light predator could adversely affect
y the year (Brennan of al., 2004). Data from beach
overall survival rates in the future if their numbers
grow. There is little research on avian predation seining in 2001 and 2002 showed thatjuvenile
a in Lake Washington. Predation by fish in Lake Chinook (<150mm) caught within WRIA 8's
U nearshore consumed higher amounts of crab
Washington and the Ship Canal,while not yet larvae and terrestrial insects than two areas in
E adequately quantified, appears likely to be a key
constraint on juvenile rearing and migration. WRIA 9 (Brennan et al., 2004). It also showed that
o Predation is likely to be exacerbated by artificial as juvenile Chinook get larger than 150mm, they
° nighttime lighting in urban areas. Poor water quality predominately feed on other fish. Potential impacts
U may have sublethal effects on Chinook salmon include lack of rearing habitat and disconnected
habitat, predation, lack of or competition for prey
Qsurvival, especially near stormwater outfalls and in resources, and poor water quality. Since WRIA
the Ship Canal and Lake Union. Recent analyses
8 lacks a true estuary, Chinook fry tend to rear
showed no evidence of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) contamination ofjuvenile Chinook salmon n Lake Washington and enter Puget Sound at
N approximately the same size as WRIA 8 parr
leaving the Lake Washington system, although the
migrants. The nearshore is a shared resource that
issue is known to be significant elsewhere in Puget
offers regional benefits for Chinook migrating
Sound (Meador, 2013).
s along the shoreline from WRIA 8 as well as from
Vi
Migration to Puget Sound occurs from April other watersheds.
E through August. The key geography for this life
o
stage includes the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Maturation (marine waters). Chinook salmon
v> spend 1 to 5 years in Puget Sound and the Pacific
Ballard Locks, and the Salmon Bay estuary. Ocean before returning to fresh water to spawn,
Potential stresses include abrupt temperature and
U salinity transitions, predation, habitat limitations with the majority of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon
a (quantity and quality of refuge habitat, cover), returning at age 3 or 4. Shifts in ocean conditions
6, such as those related to El Nino and Pacific
c high temperatures, poor water quality, and lack of
ro prey resources (though ample zooplankton prey Decadal Oscillation patterns or climate change
are available in the inner bayjust downstream of (e.g., ocean acidification) have been shown to
the Locks (Simenstad et al., 2003). Predation by affect ocean survival rates and therefore Chinook
salmon abundance. Approximately 58 percent of
warmwater predators is likely significant because
n I'Ilfq�Nl �i��d�' II)A .a v � iA1� YPI NI N �� I 1
I �
JJJJ
WRIA 8 adult Chinook salmon caught in marine progress in the last 10 years. These goals are
fisheries (1973-1985)were recovered within Puget intended to be feasible and achievable, and are
Sound, while 15 percent were recovered off proxies for a larger set of habitat processes that o
southwest Vancouver Island (Quinn et al., 2005). the TC hypothesizes will be improved if these
Marine harvest of Chinook salmon is governed by goals are met. The 2055 goals represent desired
international treaty and by state, federal, and tribal future conditions, which in some cases are a n
fishery managers. qualitative description rather than a quantitative a-
measure. The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council d
HABITAT GOALS SUMMARYapproved the goals during development of the w
During development of the 2017 Plan, the TC 2017 Plan. o
developed a short list of near-term (2025) and
long-term (2055) goals (Table 2)that focus on the Monitoring is necessary to track progress towards
key elements affecting Chinook salmon within the achieving these goals. To align with other planning
watershed, as determined by scientific research horizons and remain ecologically meaningful, we o
(including new and emerging scientific information), recommend that adaptive management course .2
corrections occur in 5-year intervals, at which '
the WRIA 8 Chinook salmon conceptual model,
and assessment of the human pressures on time the goals will be assessed and adjusted as o
Chinook salmon survival in WRIA 8 (Section 3.3). necessary, and the next adaptive management
The 2025 goals selected by the TC focus on the planning horizon will be set. The WRIA 8 TC will o
most important habitat elements for conservation
oversee monitoring efforts in the intervening
and recovery of Chinook salmon in the watershed periods and recommend changes if warranted by V)
and o
Appendix A: Monitoring
(see A
and are based on local data, the unique constraints interim results. pp g 0
placed on rivers and streams in the WRIA 8 Assessment Plan) u
watershed, and the pace of implementation o;
v
E
�o
E
E
[U
V!
`D
U
U
`c
a
yr
c
L
fyU
S
aJ
Y
t9
J
M6 d � 0 Ii v„ Iii t
r
WRIA 8 Habitat oa
a
--- Cedar River Total connected floodplain acres Total connected floodplain acres between
w between Lake Washington and Lands- Lake Washington and Landsburg Diversion
oburg Diversion Dam will be 1,170 acres Dam will be at least 1,386 acres by 2055
a (reconnect an additional 130 acres) by (reconnect on additional 346 acres).
2025.
Average wood volume between RM 4 and
a
w Average wood volume will quadruple Landsburg Diversion Dam will be 93
0 over current basin conditions to 42 m3/100 m by 2055 (the median standard
m3/100 m(RM 4 to Landsburg Diversion wood volume for streams over 30 m
Dam) by 2025. bankfull width — Fox and Bolton,2007).
u
fl1 Sammamish River Areas of river will be cool enough to Riparian forest cover and thermal refugia
o support Chinook salmon migration and along the river will help keep it cool
survival (increase riparian cover by at enough to support Chinook salmon
Qj least 10%and add two thermal refugia) migration and survival by 2055.
a by 2025.
U
Streams Area of riparian cover in each Tier 1 and Riparian areas along Tier 1 and Tier 2
E (Bear/Cottage Lake, Tier 2 stream will increase by 10%over streams will be of sufficient size and quality
m Issaquah, Evans, 2015 conditions by 2025. to support sustainable and harvestable
(N
Kelsey,Little Bear, Chinook salmon populations in the water-
0 North creeks) Average wood volume will double over shed by 2055,
current basin conditions by 2025. Each Tier 1 and Tier 2 stream system will
m` meet appropriate regional instream
¢ wood-loading standards by 2055.
rr
a
v Lakes Natural lake shoreline south of 1-90 Natural lake shoreline south of 1-90 on
(Lake Washington) and throughout Lake Lake Washington and throughout Lake
Sammamish will double over 2015 Sammamish will be restored adequately to
? conditions by 2025. supportjuvenile rearing and migration by
Natural riparian vegetation within 2055.
E 25 feet of shoreline south of 1-90 Natural vegetation within 25 feet of the
E (Lake Washington) and throughout Lake shoreline south of 1-90 (Lake Washington)
Sammamish will double over 2015 and throughout Lake Sammamish is
`n conditions by 2025. restored adequately to supportjuvenile
rearing and migration by 2055.
U
Nearshore Pocket estuaries along WRIA 8 shoreline Same as 2025 goal,
(Pocket Estuaries) will supportjuvenile Chinook salmon for
:c rearing and migration (reconnect two
� stream mouth pocket estuaries) by 2025.
Natural lake shoreline"is defined by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee as without bulkhead,with slope and substrate matching
`r° historic lakeshore contours for the area under consideration.
RM=River Mile
Table 2. WRIA 8 Habitat Gools
SI:,,.f`+4FR+.,1'°°°i Al H 1 DAD\ { EI':,I ,:` Other limiting factors with potentially large
In 2015,WRIA 8 hosted a technical forum impacts: o
assembling fisheries scientists and technical • Piers and docks — What are the effects of
experts on salmon recovery in the watershed. overwater structures on salmon migration and w
Participants proposed the following priority- survival?
level rankings of limiting factors to recovery.
• Genetic introgression or other issues related to �
These constitute an outline for a prioritized list hatchery operations — What are the effects of a
of research and data needs to advance recovery hatcheries on the genetic fitness of natural origin }
and support implementation of the 2017 Plan, salmon? a
(A full summary of the forum and presentations
can be found online at http://www.govlink.orq/ In addition, the WRIA 8 TC identified the following
watersheds/8/committees/15TechFrmfdefault.7spx). critical monitoring needs to track indicators o
associated with key recovery goals. Juvenile
c
First-tier priorities: outmigrant trapping and adult spawner surveys
• Ballard Locks and Ship Canal operations — are currently funded in part by competitive grants; z
What are feasible solutions to improve conditions other critical monitoring needs are unfunded.
related to high temperature, low dissolved 6
• Juvenile outmigrant trapping
oxygen, and concomitant decreased resistance c
of salmonids to disease/parasites? • Adult spawner surveys
• Rearing and refuge —What are the effects of a • Wood volume surveys on all Tier 1 and
lack of woody debris and floodplain connectivity Tier 2 streams o
c
(levees, revetments) and other features of • Lakeshore surveys: length of natural bank profile,
V
adequate instream rearing habitat? bulkheads, overwater structures �
• Lake survival —What are the effects of artificial • Remote sensing: high-resolution land cover
light and predation in Lake Washington, Lake mapping of forest cover and impervious surfaces z
Sammamish, and the Ship Canal (predation in ro
Assessment of accessibility and habitat quality s
Ship Canal may be a key limiting factor).7 of pocket estuaries and coastal streams entering
• High water temperature —What are the effects Puget Sound
of high water temperature in the Ship Canal and
Sammamish River? Monitoring needs are outlined in more detail in the
Monitoring and Assessment Plan,Appendix A. @
Other important priorities: E
E
• Water quality—What are the effects of
stormwater on Chinook salmon, including toxic
loading of chemicals and contaminants?Are
current stormwater regulations and treatment c
standards adequate? How can the pace of
retrofits be increased? r
• Streamflows —What are the effects of low
summer flows and "flashy" winter flows? x
m
• Invasive aquatic vegetation —What are the
effects of invasive aquatic vegetation on salmon
migration and survival?
3. RENT srxrus
w The general approach to determine the conservation status
a of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region is based on the
viable salmonid population (VSP) concept. A VSP is defined as an
independent population with a negligible less than 5 percent) risk of
� p p p ( P )
w extinction in their natural habitat over a 100-year period (McElhany
0
et al. 2000). The attributes used to evaluate the status of Chinook
salmon are abundance, population productivity, spatial distribution,
c
and diversity.
°C
4
Ya Adult abundance is the number of adult Chinook salmon returning
to WRIA 8 streams to spawn. In WRIA 8, abundance is monitored 4 �'
by surveying each Tier 1 and Tier 2 stream for salmon redds during
u the spawning season. Carcasses are surveyed for the presence or
c absence of an adipose fin: the absence of an adipose fin indicates
E
Mo hatchery origin. Abundance goals for Chinook salmon in WRIA 8
were set by the state and tribal Co-Managers and adopted in the
°o WRIA 8 Plan in 2005. The 10-year WRIA 8 abundance goal for they
c
Cedar River population was 1,680 natural-origin spawners (NOS).
u Average return for the Cedar River population (2006-2015) was 1,012
¢ NOS (Figure 4). The 10-year abundance goal for the Sammamish
River population (measured on Bear/Cottage Lake Creek) was 350
NOS. Average spawner abundance for Bear/Cottage Lake Creek
m (2006-2015)was 47 NOS (Figure 5). A second 10-year WRIA 8 goal
for the Sammamish River population (measured on Bear/Cottage
Lake and Issaquah creeks) was to maintain the base period average �r
escapement of 1,083 adults (combined hatchery-origin and natural-
E origin spawners).Average return for the Sammamish River population ���
E (2006-2015) was 1,269 adults (including HOS). ���) 11
E
V)
N
v `
0
c
s
N
(0
z
I' 1
I
WRIA S Chinook Salmon Population Status
i
Abundance 1,012 natural-origin spawners(NOS) 1,680 NOS l 1
1�11111�»>iu»l%I b
Productivity Positive trend (see text) >_2 returns per spawner 2-4 years
out of 10
r�
0
24.0%egg-to-migrant survival >13.8% egg-to-migrant survival rate N
w
Q
Spatial distribution Cedar River above Landsburg Convert one satellite subarea to n
converted to Tier 1 core(Tier 1)
Q
Spawning area distribution includes Restore historic spatial distribution w
Cedar River from Landsburg to 0
Cedar Falls(natural upstream
barrier)
m
Diversity g instream Average rearm ) Increase Cedar River instream °-
rearing
rearing to 40% °
io
N
Hatchery-origin spawners(HOS) HOS<20% o
20°i U
0
r vi(iapi r�� ,ry rr r
E
Abundance 47 NOS 350 NOS—Bear/Cottage Lake a
Index
U
1,337 naturally spawning adults Maintain base period average of a'
a
(includes HOS) 1,083 naturally spawning adults 0e
a
Productivity Productivity<1.0 Adult productivity>_1.0; o
s
>2 returns per spawner 2
4 years out of 10;
s
8.8%egg-to-migrant survival >_4.4% egg-to-migrant survival rate
E
E
Spatial distribution Restored access to Issaquah Creek '.. Restore historic spatial distribution E
above hatchery intake diversion tnn
No detectable change in spawning Expand spawning area distribution aj
distribution in North Lake Washington tributaries
0
m
c
Diversity No improvement Sammamish River habitat on N
trajectory to support parr rearing
v
Hatchery origin spawners(HOS) Hatchery-origin spawners status
average: 90% (status quo) quo or decrease
Foyle 3. Summary of the Current Status of Chinook Salmon in WRIA 9
a'1
a V
T/
r � '
2000
r�
1800
0
G 10 Yr alr Goal
3 ... kwaaa� mmo ,���ww . � m �a � mamma
1600
uJ fl- 400 1
fA r
d O Hill X
1200 /r If j( (.._
fa 1000 /
800
a f
roE 400
c
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
° Source: WDFW Return Year
E
v1 Figure 4. Cedar River Chinook .Salmon Abundance: Natural-Origin Spawner,(NOS), 2004-2016
0
0
c
s
CJ
W
d
400
350 11a '°Year C coal
v
C
C
300
!Z
E C 250
m �
9 200
V N
N
a � 150
U Z
`c w
o 0 100
r E 50
2 �
.. Z
0
m
-i 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: WDFW Return Year
Figure 5 Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek Chinook Salmon Abundance. Natural-Origin .Spawners(NOS),
20042015
n i ri ��� ��
;;I�"am
� ii
i
While WRIA 8 has no 1,600,000
quantitative goals for juvenile N
Chinook salmon abundance, 1400000
0
the watershed funds juvenile rn
abundance monitoring through E 1,200,000
outmigrant trapping on the a
Cedar River and Bear Creek. 0 too0.000 n-
m D
Juvenile Chinook salmon
a
abundance has significantly > soo.000 }
increased in recent years (Figure 0
6 and Figure 7). 0 600,000 -
L
F I
I { p "iA l P N c
R�i1.. UCI I I ' p..Y E 400,000-
7 c
Productivity indicates whether z o
a population is growing or 200000
shrinking over time. Given the
very low overall abundance ° WS W19zirnc,so anp.3 d zmoa nD 2aor 200 rr,aa aoasa aoi 2m za,a xms , , xn,r
of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8, Source:WDFW Brood Year
0
high productivity is necessary E
to restore the population to Figure 6. Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundonr_e (Cedar River) �
historical levels. Overall Chinook o
salmon productivity is influenced °
by factors throughout the full v
salmon Iifecycle, including
elements outside the control
70,000
of WRIA 8 partners, such
N
as marine survival. Juvenile
60,000 JIM
productivity, however, mostly
L �
reflects habitat factors within the
control of WRIA 8 partners, such 50.000
as watershed hydrology and OLn
juvenile rearing habitat quantity 40,000 -
and quality. For this reason, E
v E
WRIA 8 focuses on juvenile 30,000 jr-Ir
_
productivity as a key indicator c
of progress. 20,000
U
Adult productivity is assessed E o
and reported by the NOAA z 10,000
Northwest Fisheries Science
Center at five-year intervals.
oI&, m
The most recent review 2060 200� 2002 ,�(,�,] .Gv1A A{It4". d1Ad5(, e(5G1' andl(5 %dNgy 2010 ZD11 20Y2 2013 2014 20,5
was published in 2015, and Source: WDFW Brood Year J
reported on Chinook salmon
status through 2011 (NWFSC, Figure T Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundance (Bear Creek/Cottage
2015). Fifteen-year trends In Lake Creek)
r
i{�f�I 444
I
i
yy
� N GMV
productivity are reported by a method where a SFX IA,L I.)1S I °r'IEU1"10 `4
o number above zero indicates positive productivity, The distribution of a population throughout a
while a number below zero indicates a population landscape provides an insurance policy against
that is not replacing itself(NWFSC, 2015). Data isolated catastrophes, such as floods or landslides
through 2011 indicated that the Cedar River that affect only a small geographic area. WRIA
0 population has shown a positive productivity trend.
o- 8 salmon populations possess a greater chance
:D The Sammamish population displays a negative of long-term survival if the are able to spawn
wtrend through 2011, and rear successfully throughout the landscape.
o Adult spawner surveys and juvenile outmigrant During times of high abundance, salmon are more
trapping allows the watershed to estimate juvenile likely to spread out and use less ideal habitats,
productivity.WRIA 8 uses egg-to-migrant survival and colonize nearby streams and basins. During
as its indicator ofjuvenile productivity. The 10- periods of low abundance, spawning salmon
CL
o yearjuvenile survival rate goals in the 2005 Plan spatial distribution is more likely to contract to
;o for WRIA 8 Chinook salmon from egg deposition prime spawning areas.
Nto the trapping location were 13.8 percent and In WRIA 8, the 10-year goal in the 2005 Plan was
c 4.4 percent for the Cedar and Bear populations,
u respectively.2 The average survival rates for the to maintain and, where opportunities existed,
c increase the spawning and rearing distribution of
E last 10 years (brood years 2004-2013) are 22.2 Chinook salmon throughout the watershed. Annual
percent for the Cedar population and 764 percent spawning ground surveys indicate increasinguse
for the Bear population. of the Cedar River above the Landsburg Diversion
° Dam since creation of a fish passage facility there
u in 2003. Similarly, recent construction of a fish
ca passage project at the hatchery intake diversion on
a'
Issaquah Creek will likely increase Chinook use of
the upper creek.
s
v
3� 2juvenlle survival is an indicator of freshwater production above the trapping location. In WRIA 8,those locations are
N in the lower Cedar River and lower Bear Creek. Survival from the trapping location to the eventual exit of the WRIA 8
E system at the Ballard Locks can be estimated through the use of passive inductance transponder(PIT)tag readers.
E Measured at the Locks,juvenlle survival integrates overall survival through Lake Washington and (for the Bear Creek
E migrants)through the Sammamish River.Currently,the complex nature of the passage options forjuvenile Chinook
salmon through the Locks makes estimating overall survival problematic. In 2016,an additional PIT tag array in one of
the lock-filling culverts should improve our ability to estimate the survival ofjuvenile Chinook salmon to the Locks.
U
u
0
or
c
s
m
v
Y
N
J
�f9111mur� ,,i
WRIA S Chinook Salmon Redd Sur Results, 1999-2015
h
Y
IIB 11 II 11 III II' IB• If I II' 11 1 1 tl I 1 O
N
Bear 137 30 42 25 24 25 40 12 20 44 9 1 17 41 16 5 60 •,--
Cottage 171 103 96 102 120 96 82 119 69 88 39 59 38 106 32 55 78 H
EF Issaquah NS his NS 0 3 25 11 3 30 13 19 29 18 15 28 31 12 Q
Little Bear 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 NS NS 7
D
North Creek 2 4 6 10 1 5 4 9 3 5 7 3 5 14 NS NS 4 �
Q
Kelsey Creek 76 8 4 5 0 1 7 14 93 77 10 5 D D 0 0 0 0 w
}
Mav Creek 0 1 '.. 3 NS 5 9 1 0 12 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 NS NS 0 16
Rock Creek(Lower) 0 0 '.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 7 0 0
Taylor Creek 0 0 7 12 11 8 7 1 30 0 0 1 2 11 9 5 4 c
_ _m
Peterson Creek 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walsh Creek 0 0 1 0 6 12 0 0 10 0 0 X X X X X X 2
Cedar River Malnstern 182 53 390 269 319 490 331 587 859 599 285 262 322 420 724 227 713
(and tnbs above L'burg)
c
Source: WDFW, Seattle Public Utilities, City of Bellevue
Note."X'denotes an artificial tributary that no longer supports spawning,"NS"denotes No Survey. c
0
E
m
Toble 4. WRIA 8 C'hincok.Salmon Redd Survey Results, 1999-2015 V)
a
0
1.JA )--P : I TY WRIA 8 goals in the 2005 Plan were to see a s
decrease in the proportion of hatchery-origin
WRIA 8 partners monitor diversity through �
assessments of the age of returning adults, the spawners to below 20 percent for the Cedar
proportion of juvenile salmon migrating as fry population and to increase the proportion of
(early) or parr(later), and the proportion of hatchery natural-origin spawners in the Sammamish
theulation o For the Cedar population, s
fish on the spawning grounds.WRIA 8 goals are population. ,,,
to increase the proportion of parr migrants on proportion of hatchery-origin spawners was `m
the Cedar River, and decrease the proportion of below 20 percent between 2007 and 2013, but
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon spawning with has recently increased (Figure 9). We speculate
natural-origin fish.
that recent high temperatures during the late E
summer/early fall migration period have induced
The number of parr migrants has not increased more hatchery-origin Chinook salmon to migrate g
(U
consistently(Figure 8). Fry migrants have driven to the Cedar River, rather than return through the n
the overall increase in juvenile migrants in recent much warmer Sammamish River to the Issaquah o
years (Figure 6 and Figure 7). This and other data hatchery. The proportion of hatchery-origin
indicate that freshwater rearing and refuge habitat spawners is consistently high (over 70 percent) for o
continues to limit the production of parr migrants. the Sammamish population (Figure 9).
This information confirms that our primary goal of
su
increasing freshwater rearing and refuge habitat
is still a priority. We expect that over time, as more Y
rearing and refuge habitat is restored,the number
of parr migrants will increase.
�1r irn
'irk��%ri 1l
70,000
r`
MM
Cedar River
60,000
a: , Bear/Cottage Creek
W N
Q C 50,000
E
� .. uo,000
o �r
f
O 30,000 �—
`o
a 20,000_ a
E Jill ff
c fffr r7 / r �7 !
o Z 1 Ir
0 0
V zoon <ooi moz zooa 2ocu moos zoos zoos zoos zoio 2ooe eon zmz zoi� zmn m�s
o Source: WDFW Brood Year
E
n Figure 8 Number of Parr Mir/runt, floor the Cedar River and Bc m Cieek/Cottoijo l_crke Creek, Eiror,r} Years
a 2000-2015
0
c
r
V
100,o4-b
aI= Cedar River
o g Bear/Cotta e Creek
a a p 80,0,,,
E C E
E0 1 40.0`iA
�n o c
w u
zoo
u E
m m 10o; _
u� 0oi MI. Eli
2004 2005 2006 2COJ Z008 ID09 2010 ton 2012 2013 2a1q 2015
m
Source: WDFW and Return Year
° Seattle Public Utilities
Figure R CsbmuIed Proportion of Hair hely-Origin Chinook Snlmon (Pl-(OS) Detracted in Cedar River and
Bear Crack/Coriom, Lake Cwok Spawning Survc ys .Since 2004
it I'
Ai i 111
LL �
I II
ill
N
sockeye and steelhead. A fish passage facility
installed at the Landsburg water supply diversion
a
dam In 2003 substantially increased the extent of
The condition of the watershed varies between Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat by
lower elevations that have been intensively over 17 miles in the watershed, and reconnected
developed and higher elevations that are more the full historical extent of migratory habitat. The
IL
pristine. Current stream habitat conditions in most river upstream of the Landsburg Diversion Dam D
ear HCP administered a 50-y ¢
areas inside the UGA boundary in WRIA 8 are is protected by w
degraded, largely because of land conversion and by Seattle Public Utilities, and is used annually y
associated effects of human activities. Data on
by a substantial proportion of Chinook salmon
habitat status since 2005 includes a forest cover returning to the watershed. The river upstream from
analysis (Vanderhoof et al., 2011) and a wadeable Landsburg Diversion Dam to the natural barrier at a
streams status and trends monitoring project
Cedar Falls was reclassified to Tier 1 habitat status n_
(King County, 2015), as well as ongoing annual in 2017, Aside from some service roads, this area is o
unconfined by levees or other artificial structures, °
monitoring of water quality and macroinvertebrates �
(indirect indicators of habitat quality) conducted by and the riparian zone is dominated by second- c
King County and other jurisdictions. The wadeable growth conifer forest.
streams project collected data on pools, wood Of the 1,419 acres in the moderate CMZ below o
in streams, sediment, riparian canopy cover, and Landsburg Diversion Dam as of 2015, approximately
many other metrics. Other studies in the watershed 380 acres (26 percent) are behind levees,
that provide valuable information on habitat revetments, or other hard structures. (WRIA 8 uses °
status include a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) the moderate CMZ as a proxy for its floodplain t
longitudinal profile of the Cedar River (Konrad metric.) Between 2005 and 2015, approximately 65
et al., in press), Bear Creek watershed planning P ) P g acres of floodplain were reconnected through levee �
research (King County, 2017), and high-resolution setbacks and floodplain restoration.
land cover mapping by NOAA using 2015 aerial
photography(NOAA, 2017). Using a recent remote-sensing product(NOAA,
2015), the TC estimates the instream area of
Important locations lacking in recent data include woody debris in the Cedar River between RM
the lake shorelines, where information on 4 and Landsburg as 5.2 m2/100 M. If the typical
bulkheads, docks, and lakeshore conditions is jam is assumed to be 2 meters tall,the estimated u
necessary to track improvements or degradation. wood volume would be 10.4 m3/100 m (WRIA 8 TC, E
Other habitat status and trends monitoring needs unpublished GIS data; King County, 2015). This E
are outlined in the Monitoring and Assessment value is substantially below regional benchmarks u
Plan (Appendix A). for rivers of this size (Fox and Bolton, 2007) and the ro
TC considers this value to reflect poor condition
1"''u, 'a`d a (well below the 25th percentile for rivers 30 meters o
Cedar River and Tributaries (Tier 1) bankfull width or greater). M
c
The Cedar River contains the highest priority Using a high-resolution (1 meter) land cover o
spawning and rearing areas in WRIA 8 and (with its product (NOAA, 2017), the WRIA 8 TC estimated
tributaries) is the sole spawning and rearing stream the 2015 forest cover within 200 feet of the Y
for the Cedar River Chinook salmon population. channel centerline as 70 percent outside the UGA J
The river supports the largest number of natural- boundary and 39 percent inside the UGA(WRIA
origin Chinook salmon in the basin, and contains 8 TC, unpublished data). Impervious cover extent
the primary spawning areas for Lake Washington was estimated at 4 percent outside the UGA and 18
percent inside.
Sammamish River (Tier 1) urbanized in Redmond near the confluence with
the Sammamish River. Farther u
The Sammamish River is aloes-gradient stream, rural/P
waterbody connecting Lake Sammamish and Lake suburban land uses predominate.
W. Washington, and is the migratory pathway to and
Using ahigh-resolution (1 meter) land cover product
from Lake Washington for salmon originating in
a (NOAA, 2017),the WRIA 8 TC estimated the 2015
the Issaquah and Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek forest cover within 200 feet of the Bear Creek
systems, as well as for Chinook and coho salmon channel centerline as 69 percent outside the UGA
a produced at the Issaquah salmon hatchery. The
uU boundary and 35 percent inside the UGA(WRIA 8
o Sammamish River valley was heavily modified in TC, unpublished data). Cottage Lake Creek forest
the 20th century, and the river is channelized and cover(all outside the UGA) was estimated at 39
armored along its entire length. The Sammamish percent. Impervious cover within the 200-foot area
River is classified as a flood conveyance facility was estimated at 4 percent outside the UGA and 19
by the USACE; opportunities for levee setback
percent inside for Bear Creek, and 10 percent for
@ projects are minimal. King County designated a Cottage Lake Creek.
portion of the Sammamish Valley as an agricultural
aproduction district(APD), to preserve agricultural Wood volume for seven sites sampled annually
production. While development pressure is in the Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek basin
reduced in the APD, efforts to restore habitat in between 2010 and 2013 averaged 22.8 m31100 m
WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data; Kin Count 2015
E this area may be limited and will need to consider ( P g X )
IV
these agricultural designations and work closely This value is slightly below the 25th percentile of
0 with agricultural preservation interests. the distribution of wood volume for unmanaged
c western Washington streams less than 30 meters
A recent remote-sensing product(NOAA, 2015) bankfull width (Fox and Bolton, 2007). The TC
6; detected zero incidence of large wood in the considers this value to reflect poor condition for
Sammamish River (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished GIS wood, though more sites should be sampled to
data). However, constructed logjams are known characterize the overall stream system with
to be present in the Sammamish River in and greater confidence.
near Redmond. Notwithstanding the few known
logjams, the TC considers the Sammamish River to Issaquah Creek (Tier 1)
reflect poor condition for wood volume. Issaquah Creek is a potentially significant spawning
u Using ahigh-resolution (1 meter) land cover area for Chinook salmon in WRIA 8. A fish passage
ro product(NOAA, 2017), the WRIA 8 TC estimated facility installed at the Issaquah salmon hatchery
E the 2015 forest cover within 200 feet of the water supply diversion dam in 2013 opened up 11
M miles of Chinook salmon spawning and rearing
ur Sammamish River channel centerline as 16 percent
outside the UGA boundary and 32 percent habitat in the watershed, and reconnected the
nside the UGA (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data). hypothesized extent of historical migratory habitat.
Impervious cover extent within the 200-foot area The lower reaches of Issaquah Creek are heavily
w urbanized in Issaquah near the confluence with
as estimated at 6 percent outside the UGA and
c 15 percent inside. Lake Sammamish, though the bottom-most reaches
flow through Lake Sammamish State Park. Farther
Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek (Tier 1) upstream, rural/suburban, recreation, and forestry
The Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek system is land uses predominate.
the primary spawning tributary for the naturally Using a high-resolution (1 meter) land cover product
produced portion of the Sammamish River Chinook (NOAA, 2017), the WRIA 8 TC estimated the 2015
salmon population. The lower reaches of the
Bear Creek/Cottage Lake system are heavily
iilllp
ffj�fff �,,,.1ff1fJf���J/I//
forest cover within 200 feet of the Issaquah Creek reflect very poor condition for wood in Little Bear
channel centerline as 82 percent outside the UGA Creek, though more sites should be sampled to
0
boundary and 60 percent inside the UGA (WRIA characterize the overall stream system with N
8 TC, unpublished data). Impervious cover extent greater confidence.
within the 200-foot area was estimated at 3 percent
outside the UGA and 15 percent inside. North Creek (Tier 2) o
North Creek is a tributary to the Sammamish River, °
Wood volume for 13 sites sampled annually in the joining the Sammamish at Bothell. Spawning by ¢
Issaquah Creek basin (including Carey, Holder, and Chinook salmon in North Creek is intermittent. The w
East Fork Issaquah creeks) between 2010 and 2013 }
entire North Creek basin is inside the UGA. o
averaged 30.7 m3/100 m (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished
Using a high-resolution 1 meter land cover product
data; King County, 2015). This value is above the g g )
25th percentile of the distribution of wood volume (NOAA, 2017),the WRIA 8 TC estimated the 2015 _
for unmanaged western Washington streams less
forest cover within 200 feet of the North Creek a
than 30 meters bankfull width (Fox and Bolton, channel centerline as 70 percent (WRIA 8 TC,
2007). The TC considers this value to reflect overall unpublished data; King County 2015). Impervious
fair condition for wood in the Issaquah Creek
cover extent within the 200-foot area was
system,though the wood volume in much of the estimated at 14 percent. u
lower extent is low or very low. Wood volume was sampled annually at four sites in °
E
Little Bear Creek (Tier 2) the North Creek basin between 2010 and 2013, and N
Little Bear Creek is a tributary to the Sammamish averaged 22.7 m3/100 m (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished o
River,joining the Sammamish River at Woodinville. data; King County, 2015). This value is below the
25th percentile of the distribution of wood volume s
Most of the upper reaches are rural/suburban. U
Spawning by Chinook salmon in Little Bear Creek for unmanaged western Washington streams less w`
s intermittent, though sockeye salmon regularly
than 30 meters bankfull width (Fox and Bolton,
spawn in the lower reaches. 2007). The TC considers this value to reflect overall
poor condition for wood in North Creek, though 0
Using a high-resolution (1 meter) land cover product more sites should be sampled to characterize the N
(NOAA, 2017),the WRIA 8 TC estimated the 2015 overall stream system with greater confidence.
forest cover within 200 feet of the Little Bear Creek z
channel centerline as 83 percent outside the UGA Kelsey Creek (Tier 2)
boundary and 44 percent inside the UGA (WRIA Kelsey Creek is a tributary to Lake Washington, E
8 TC, unpublished data). Impervious cover extent draining into Lake Washington through Bellevue. E
within the 200-foot area was estimated at 5 percent Spawning by Chinook salmon in Kelsey Creek is E
outside the UGA and 44 percent inside. intermittent. The entire Kelsey Creek basin is inside
the UGA.
Wood volume was sampled annually at two sites U
in Little Bear Creek between 2010 and 2013, and Using a high-resolution (1 meter) land cover product o
averaged 5.3 m3/100 m (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished (NOAA, 2017),the WRIA 8 TC estimated the 2015 M
data; King County, 2015). This value is significantly forest cover within 200 feet of the Kelsey Creek
below the 25th percentile of the distribution of channel centerline at 56 percent(WRIA 8 TC,
wood volume for unmanaged western Washington unpublished data). Impervious cover extent within y
streams less than 30 meters bankfull width (Fox the 200-foot area was estimated at 16 percent. J
and Bolton, 2007). The TC considers this value to Wood volume was sampled annually at four sites
in the Kelsey Creek basin between 2010 and
2013, and averaged 18.3 m3/100 m (WRIA 8 TC,
Ar��
unpublished data; King County, 2015).This value N, ,VAS ��NK:ii 0 ',,yj fl 1 )<E
percentileis below the 25th westernthe
distribution
wood volume for unmanaged Washington `jjAN'j `AANj I H S H 0 11�,: EL.I 1 )` E R' "))
streams less than 30 meters bankfull width (Fox Lake shoreline habitats in both Lake Washington
and Bolton, 2007). The TC considers this value and Lake Sammamish are important for
ato reflect overall very poor condition for wood outmigrating and lake-rearingjuvenile Chinook
D in Kelsey Creek, though more sites should be salmon. Juvenile salmon use shallow-water
Q sampled to characterize the overall stream system lake shoreline areas to escape predators and
i with greater confidence. to feed as they enter the lakes as fry. Shoreline
conditions were initially degraded by the lowering
Other Chinook Salmon Creeks of Lake Washington during construction of the
o in WRIA 8 (Tier 3) Ballard Locks, and impacts from urbanization and
E Regular Chinook salmon spawner surveys occur shoreline development have further degraded
o in May and Coal creeks, both tributaries to Lake shoreline conditions. The majority of lake
Washington a few miles north of the Cedar River. shorelines are in private residential ownership,
m Spawning by Chinook salmon in these creeks is with landscaped yards and bulkheads or other
o intermittent. Other Tier 3 streams in WRIA 8 are not shoreline armoring. Earlier studies indicated that
regularly surveyed for Chinooks spawning.9 Y Y P 9 approximately 75 percent of Lake Washington's
0
r Forest cover within 200 feet of the Coal Creek shoreline has a bulkhead or other form of shoreline
Cc
v channel centerline in 2015 was estimated at 100 armoring (Toft et al., 2003). These conditions have
°o percent outside the UGA and 84 percent inside altered or eliminated much of the shallow-water
(WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data; King County, 2015).
habitat around the lake, reduced emergent and
u Impervious cover extent within the 200-foot buffer riparian vegetation, reduced the amount of large
cc
was estimated at 0 percent outside the UGA, and wood, and changed sediment dynamics.
<
a
7 percent inside. For May Creek, the 2015 forest Using a high-resolution (1 meter) land cover
cover within 200 feet of the channel centerline product (NOAA 2017), the WRIA 8 TC estimated
s was estimated at 48 percent outside the UGA and the 2015 forest cover within 200 feet of the
81 percent inside (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data; shoreline as 38% (Lake Washington) and 36%
} King County, 2015). Impervious cover extent within (Lake Sammamish) (WRIA 8 TC, unpublished data).
the 200-foot area was estimated at 5 percent Impervious cover extent within the 200-foot area
E outside the UGA and 8 percent inside. was estimated at 28% (Lake Washington) and 36%
M
E Wood volume was sampled at one site in the (Lake Sammamish).
E
V May Creek basin and two in the Coal Creek Recent information on bulkheads, docks, and
basin annually between 2010 and 2013. Wood Iakeshore conditions is lacking, but necessary to
i volume averaged 64.0 m3/100 m at May Creek track improvements or degradation.
M and 40.6 m3/100 m in Coal Creek (WRIA 8 TC,
unpublished 9 Y Y j Mr j
o, published data; Kin County, 2015). The May
Creek site exceeded the median and the Coal The marine nearshore portion of WRIA 8
o Creek sites averaged slightly below the median of encompasses approximately 24 miles of shoreline,
the distribution of wood volume for unmanaged from West Point north to Elliot Point in Snohomish
owestern Washington streams less than 30 meters County. The nearshore is of primary importance
bankfull width (Fox and Bolton, 2007). The TC forjuvenile salmon for rearing and migration as
considers these values to reflect overall fair they make their way through Puget Sound to the
condition for wood, though more sites should be ocean. In particular, areas where small coastal
sampled to characterize the overall stream systems
with greater confidence.
streams enter Puget Sound have been identified flows, increased water temperatures, predation,
as important forjuvenile salmon rearing and refuge and pressures associated with migration through
0
during migration (Beamer et al., 2013). the Ballard Locks. Many of these pressures are
interconnected and one may exacerbate another
With a few notable exceptions, recent status w
temperatures are increased water temp
information is not available for the WRIA 8 marine (for example, a
likely to increase the efficiency of warm water d
nearshore. The BNSF railroad along most of the a.
shoreline disconnects upland habitats from the predators such as bass in the Ship Canal). These :D
nearshore and interrupts natural beach creation seven most significant pressures are described w
and erosion processes; this condition is not likely below, based on the definitions of the Puget o
to change without engagement with and support Sound Partnership and modified slightly to
from BNSF. For information on the status of marine be most relevant to WRIA 8. The assessment
shorelines prior to 2005, see the 2005 Plan considered climate change not as a separate
and Kerwin (2001). pressure but through its exacerbating effects on
the other pressures in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ 4
I�ry� ;:S�S` ��PE ") �,°roy r:��"^�E S '"sI'd` E, "�..T. Sammamish Watershed.
During development of the 2017 Plan, the WRIA 8 The WRIA 8 TC has documented its rating of the o
full list of pressures that threaten the recovery
TC assessed the primary human induced impacts �
on Chinook salmon and their habitat through a of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8. These pressures E
systematic "pressures assessment." This exercise are described in Appendix C. The impacts of
evaluated the various impacts—or pressures— these pressures in WRIA 8 are assumed based o
faced by Chinook salmon during each of the life on studies and data from other watersheds, but o
stages represented in the conceptual model. Since these pressures are well known in general (WDFW,
each life stage relies on specific habitat types at 2009). The specific empirical data associated with
particular locations and at certain times of year, these pressures is not included in this document. ¢
evaluating pressures on certain life stages takes Land conversion. Land conversion is the
into account location in the watershed, use of conversion of land from natural cover to one
habitat, and the timing of that use. The pressures dominated by residential, commercial, and/
assessment used a regionally standardized list of or industrial development or one dominated by
pressures and rated each according to its scope, agriculture. Land conversion reduces the extent
severity, and irreversibility at each life stage. and quality of habitat. Related pressures such as
The WRIA 8 TC used their knowledge of local pollution, shoreline hardening, and other cascading E
conditions, local monitoring and scientific studies, effects of land conversion are assessed separately. L
and other studies from the scientific literature Note that conversion is often a step-wise process.
as the basis for their assessment. The pressures Some areas of WRIA 8 have converted from
assessment process and results are further natural cover to agriculture, while others have then
described in Appendix C. converted from agriculture to urban or suburban o
development. Compared to other Puget Sound o,
Vruiuri i y pxn>n rer watersheds, development pressure and the rate
The most significant pressures in WRIA 8 are of urbanization have been and continue to be 0
hypothesized to be land conversion, existing
very high in WRIA 8. This pressure includes the
levees and revetments, shoreline armoring (marine legacy effects of past conversion and ongoing
nearshore, lakes and Ship Canal), altered peak degradation from continued development.
1 „
Levees and revetments 3 Levees and revetments Altered flows. Altered flows into and within surface
are structures, often originallyintended for flood waters are caused b changes in land cover,
� Y 9
N control,that block or restrict movement of water, the associated surface hardening (impervious
sediment, or debris flow in the river or stream surfaces), and changes in precipitation volume and
achannel and consequently change sediment and timing due to climate change, as well as associated
a debris delivery. These structures may also be impacts such as changes in sediment and debris
D barriers to movement of species. The structures delivery. Heavy rains and high flows can cause
a built along the Cedar and Sammamish rivers scouring and high water velocities that can push
in WRIA 8 block habitat connectivity within the salmon out of the habitat they need for rearing
floodplain, prevent inundation of off-channel and spawning.Altered low flows, often caused
habitat, and keep fish from accessing what refuge when impervious surfaces prevent infiltration and
habitat might remain behind the levees. Relative groundwater recharge, can be exacerbated by
c
to the Sammamish River system, the Cedar climate change and water withdrawals. Peak flows
4 River system has more opportunity for setting can be challenging to salmon in fall and winter,
> back levees and re-creating habitat with some while low flows are most often problematic in
additional constraints to consider, such as flood summer and early fall.
c
protection, trails, and regional fiber-optic lines Increased water temperatures. A specific water
located underneath the Cedar River Trail along quality issue, high temperatures are linked to and
E much of its length.
can exacerbate many other pressures in WRIA
Y Shoreline armoring. Shoreline armoring 8. Increased water temperatures in WRIA 8 are
o changes shoreline features in a manner that caused by land conversion, altered flows, a lack
c
s reduces habitat extent and/or disrupts shoreline of riparian cover and groundwater connections,
processes. The primary source of this impact infrastructure e. Ballard Locks and inadequate
P P Y P ( g , ) q
is the construction of shoreline infrastructure, estuarine mixing, and climate change. Water
z often as part of land conversion activities, that temperatures are of greatest concern in the Ship
produces a hard linear surface along the beach or Canal and Sammamish River, but can also be
s streambank intended to reduce erosion. In WRIA problematic in all streams.
N
`m 8, natural shallow shoreline and creek mouths
z n Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish have Increased predation by native and non-native
been changed by shoreline hardening. In addition, species. Increased predation results from the
°' increase or spread of native and non-native fish
the BNSF track running along most of the WRIA and other wildlife. Predation on juvenile Chinook
E 8 marine shoreline is armored, disconnecting
E backshore areas and pocket estuaries from Puget salmon is almost certainly a key pressure that
v, affects their recovery in WRIA 8. Predatory fish
Sound, while also disrupting the natural supply of
abeach sediment from eroding bluffs. In most cases, documented in the Ship Canal include smallmouth
U shoreline armoring also eliminates vegetated bass, largemouth bass, rock bass, yellow perch,
and northern pikeminnow (Tabor et al., 2004,
cover and thus exacerbates other pressures on 2007, 2010; WDFW/King County unpublished
Chinook salmon (e.g., water temperature and
U predation), and interferes with food data). More recent studies have investigated the
web processes.
Levees are raised embankments built parallel to rivers and are intended to contain or direct flood flows,sometimes
allowing water surface elevations in the river or stream to exceed the elevation of the surrounding floodplain.
Revetments are not designed to contain floodwaters but rather serve the purpose of preventing bank erosion or
lateral channel migration (King County, 2006).
/��illr // ✓
u{ �
i
�J vrk{
��✓1 "fie' �� ����������711�
impact of predation from resident cutthroat and 11
rainbow trout(O. mykiss)from 2006 to 2010 in the
Cedar River below the Landsbur Diversion Dam C_. " r �` I � ' �< ,) ,i E f {`ti�1) �
g i � ' 1 ' 1° �..j � P' ^ cv
(Tabor et al. 2014). Issues such as artificial night- „ r , f
time lighting, shoreline hardening and overwater �� r j f `°! ��� � "� a
structures, and increased water temperatures In the years since the adoption of the 2005 Plan, a
exacerbate the effects of predation on Chinook our understanding of the effects of a changing
salmon in WRIA 8. climate on Chinook salmon and salmon habitat, ¢
and restoration techniques to mitigate those i
Impacts to fish passage and survival at the effects, has grown substantially. Research from the o
Chittenden (Ballard)Locks. The Ballard Locks Northwest and elsewhere suggests we can and
s one of the most significant single structures must plan for and adapt to changing watershed
affecting Chinook salmon recovery in WRIA 8. The n
creation of the Ship Canal and the Ballard Locks in conditions and incorporate the concept of o
1916 forever changed the hydrology and function resilience into salmon recovery actions.
of the watershed by shifting outflow of water from Intact ecosystems are inherently more resilient a
its historic exit in south Lake Washington through systems. Stream corridors with intact riparian zones
0
the Black River to its present-day configuration and floodplains help dissipate destructive flood v
through the Montlake Cut, Salmon Bay, and into waters and shade streams from direct sunlight. o
Shilshole Bay (Chrzastowski, 1981). All WRIA 8 Stormwater that is allowed to infiltrate into the
anadromous fish populations must move through ground is slowed, cleansed, and cooled before it
the Ballard Locks as they migrate out of and reaches our streams and lakes. Wood in stream
into the watershed. Chinook salmon experience channels can create pools of deeper, cooler water
physical trauma, stress and mortality at the Ballard and cover for fish to hide from predators, and can a
Locks due to elevated water temperatures, help to lessen the force of floods. Salmon habitat <
decreased dissolved oxygen, and the physical restoration and protection strategies focused on
S
barrier presented by the structure (NMFS, 2008). reconnecting floodplains and restoring stream
corridors, lake shores, and marine shorelines make N
our ecosystems and communities more resilient to `m
a changing climate. The present and anticipated
effects of climate change emphasize the need to
increase the pace of salmon habitat protection E
m
and restoration. E
E
A l 41 ) C I,..,I l "IE C 14 A I all4 'i I:; °
v
The Northwest climate naturally varies seasonally, o
as well as annually, between cool and hot, wet and o
dry. Year to year variability is generally associated
with the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)which
affects ocean currents and temperature as well as y
global precipitation and air temperature. Longer
term decadal patterns are often described by the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern defined by
variations in sea surface temperatures in the North
Pacific Ocean.
`I ' � �i ° I ii�l V IP iiP tlt XP it If911� 7i" tl�911'�Aw'� P n p tVpb 'il I, �,
� '.V VII{tl 4�0 qq 1 i0 yit Yi Y 'i l•.
�dll„ li"I II I qh 0. M, 'lily V
Notwithstanding the natural variability around low flows, when they are highly influenced by air
0
climate patterns in the Northwest, the Puget Sound temperature. Warmer temperatures will accelerate
region is already experiencing some of the effects snow melt during spring and early summer and
of a changing climate. Records show that all but decrease snow accumulation in winter. While a
six of the years from 1980-2014 were above the rising temperature trend is evident in the long-
s 20th century average temperature (Mauger et term record, there is no current evidence of
D al., 2015). The waters of the North Pacific Ocean a corresponding trend in annual precipitation
d and Puget Sound are becoming more acidic as (Mauger et al., 2015); however, the timing and
y a consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in intensity of precipitation events will likely change.
the atmosphere. Recent years have seen record Most scenarios of future climate change project a
average summer air temperatures; by mid-century, decline in summer precipitation and increases in
annual average air temperatures are projected to winter precipitation extremes (e.g., "atmospheric
rise between 4.2 and 5.9 degrees Fahrenheit(F), river" events). While average annual precipitation
exacerbating surface water warming. Computer may be relatively constant,the timing and intensity
> models predict a decline in summer precipitation of events will change.
as well as increases during fall, winter and spring.
o The region's snowpack is expected to decrease as Increasing temperatures will affect all life stages
U of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8, though they are
o winters get warmer and wetter. Winter rainstorms likely to have the most impact on migrating adults
F are projected to become more intense, which can
ead to increased flooding and erosion. and juveniles, especially in the Ship Canal and
Sammamish River. Water temperatures above
0 )1.i'I 'j I )VVE;�,v� C.I. I{`r1A U I about 77 degrees F can kill Chinook (Richter and
Kolmes, 2005), though Chinook salmon appear to
U J RC)Jf f (01,6 1 J ' be able to withstand higher temperatures for short
CO
< WRIA 8 ( HIj OD SALMON periods. At about 70 degrees F, adult migration
Salmon in WRIA 8 are projected to face threats
can be blocked. When salmon hold and migrate
related to changes in the timing and intensity at temperatures above around 63 degrees F,
s there is an increase in sublethal effects such as
of precipitation, increasing air and water
m temperatures, a reduction in snowpack at low egg abnormalities, or increased susceptibility to
and middle elevations, sea level rise, and ocean parasites or disease (Richter and Kolmes, 2005).
acidification. The effects can be grouped into the Juvenile outmigration behavior also changes
E categories of temperature and precipitation, altered when temperatures warm in spring, with juveniles
E hydrologic patterns, stormwater, sea level rise, and avoiding the warmer surface waters in the Ship
E Canal as water temperature approaches 68
ocean acidification.
degrees F (DeVries and Shelly, 2017). Additionally,
Temperature and precipitation warm-water predators such as bass become more
v Average annual air temperature for the Puget active as temperatures rise, and are known to
L.
Sound region has increased by about 1.3 degrees consume Chinook salmon in the Ship Canal during
F from 1895 to 2014, while average nighttime air spring outmigration (WDFW and King County,
mtemperatures have increased by 1.8 degrees F. unpublished data).
The frost-free season has lengthened by 30 days
from 1920 to 2014 (Mauger et al., 2015). Water
temperatures will be especially affected by this
warming during increasing periods of summer
0%Gik"
Adult Chinook returning in the late summer and fall actions that protect and restore connectivity of
tend to congregate in areas of cooler water until the stream system, restoring summer stream flow
0
environmental cues trigger upstream migration. regimes (e.g., through purchase of water rights v
Temperature mitigation strategies will likely involve or other water conservation measures), reducing
efforts to create cooler-water refuges in the Ship erosion and sediment delivery problems (e.g.,
Canal and Sammamish River during adult migration through restoration of stream channel complexity o
periods. Mitigation strategies for juveniles are and other stormwater control measures), restoring D
also yet to be developed. Current concepts being riparian functions (e.g., shading, root reinforcement
discussed by the TC involve potential management of banks, natural large wood recruitment,trapping y
of warm-water predators at key areas (e.g., in the sediment etc.), and instream rehabilitation 0
Ship Canal). measures (e.g., channel reconstruction, wood
The timing of the spring plankton bloom may
installation, gravel additions) (Beechie et al., 2012).
a
also be affected by warming lake temperatures. Stormwater o
Plankton support the aquatic food web and a Polluted stormwater runoff is known to be a serious
shift in timing may alter predator-prey dynamics
issue for salmon in the Puget Sound region. It is u,
and food sources for salmon species (Manger et currently considered the top source of pollutants o
al., 2015). In the marine environment, changing to the Sound. With predicted increases in heavy u
temperature patterns are likely to affect coastal rainfall events in fall and winter, stormwater runoff E
upwelling and ocean currents, with changes to will increase pollutant discharge into rivers and M
the composition, abundance, and distribution of streams and, ultimately, Puget Sound. Pesticides, y
marine plankton communities, the basis of the o
heavy metals, bacteria, motor oils and other C
ocean food web. Since salmon spend the majority pollutants already contribute significantly to
of their lives in the ocean, these changes will affect stormwater pollution in our region. Stormwater
overall salmon migration and survival patterns in can affect the watershed by washing toxics into d
ways that are as-yet insufficiently studied. streams, and adding nutrients that increase algal
Changing precipitation regimes in WRIA 8 are blooms and decrease oxygen levels. A key impact
likely to exacerbate temperature problems during of increased stormwater runoff on Chinook salmon N
summer and late fall if the timing of fall rains is the associated increase in the "flashiness" of the
is delayed. hydrograph, meaning higher, more sudden peak
flows during storms. These flows can scour stream
Altered hydrologic patterns beds and banks,flushing out habitat-forming debris P
ry
The changing intensity and timing of precipitation and organic matter important to macroinvertebrate E
events will affect stream flow throughout WRIA 8. communities and small fish. Concentrations of
More winter precipitation will fall as rain rather than toxic pollutants in stormwater have been shown to
snow, resulting in less winter snow accumulation, cause mutations in salmon embryos and rearing
higher winter stream flows, increased scour, juvenile salmon, though effects on Chinook U
earlier snowmelt, and lower summer stream flows. salmon in WRIA 8 have not been directly observed
m
"Atmospheric river" storm events may result in (Meador et al., 2006). Current research studying L
more damaging floods that destroy salmon habitat, the effects of toxic pollutants in stormwater on o
scour redds, and displace juveniles downstream. Chinook salmon survival should help improve the 5
Mitigating the challenges associated with understanding of how great an impact this aspect j
altered hydrologic patterns involves floodplain of stormwater has on juvenile and adult
Chinook survival.
reconnection and levee setbacks, and other
i
Actions to mitigate the effects of stormwater on Ocean acidification
o
salmon include retrofits to areas and facilities As oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide from the
y developed prior to regulatory requirements; atmosphere, ocean water will become more acidic.
application of low impact development Ocean acidification makes it more difficult for many
techniques like green stormwater infrastructure; marine organisms to create shells and skeletons,
streamside plantings; improved tracking, control which could disrupt food resources for salmon and
D and elimination of pollutant sources; and other other fish. Studies are limited, but modeling of the
wefforts to restore a natural hydrograph, recharge Puget Sound food web suggests that alternative
y groundwater, lower stream temperatures, and sources of food that are not directly affected by
treat, filter or otherwise eliminate bacteria and acidification may be available for salmon. More
other pollutants. Many older developed areas research is needed on this issue.
lack adequate stormwater controls. Treating and
retaining stormwater at its source before it runs off
o into streams and rivers may reduce fish exposure
to chemicals and stressful hydrologic and water
quality conditions.
0
0
U Sea level rise
c
° The melting of mountain glaciers and ice sheets at
E
both poles, in addition to thermal expansion of the
0 oceans, will continue to result in rising sea levels.
0 Higher sea levels contribute to destructive storm
surges and coastal flooding. Low-lying coastal
66' areas will be inundated, and coastal wetlands will
a become increasingly brackish; coastal communities
and shallow nearshore areas, which are rearing
v areas for young salmon, will expand or contract
depending on existing shoreline armoring and
v future efforts to accommodate or prevent intrusion.
3: In WRIA 8, shoreline armoring is nearly continuous
N because of the BNSF rail corridor along the coast.
U This will likely result in a decrease in already
Elimited marine nearshore rearing habitat. Rising
N sea levels may also affect operation of the Ballard
a Locks, which could negatively impact fish passage,
as well as water quality conditions in the
Ship Canal.
0
cn
c
x
m
J
4 !Y�
U ,it I
Cl
�j c� N � �� i Vi IIuyV � wl io
(>
ills
5
w .
I
0
® .T I- II
OUR GOALS
dA strategy Is a group of actions designed to achieve a goal. As a
o set, the 20 strategies described in this section serve as the primary
a
D salmon recovery approach in WRIA 8 and are intended to address
wthe highest priority stresses on Chinook salmon and support the
key Chinook salmon life stages. The strategies were developed by
examining the initial strategies from the 2005 Plan and additional
knowledge gained since 2005, including the key life stages
o identified by the conceptual model of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon,
a the current pressures affecting Chinook salmon survival, and new
scientific information. WRIA 8 partners were engaged throughout
this effort, beginning with a recovery strategies workshop and
followed by numerous discussions with the WRIA 8 TC and WRIA 8
u Implementation Committee (IC).
A set of clear strategies based on the most recent and applicable
N science is important for effectively guiding salmon recovery actions
y in the watershed given limited resources. A full description of each
strategy, including a description of its importance,the negative
impact(or pressure) it reduces, the benefit or improvement sought,
6 the Chinook salmon lifecycle stage affected, the location in the p
.,i
watershed where implementation is most relevant, and the specific
actions needed for implementation, is found in Appendix E. Lists
-o of site-specific projects and land use and education and outreach
n
actions that implement each strategy can be found in Appendix F,
m Appendix H, and Appendix I, respectively.
jo
To the right are the 20 WRIA 8 Chinook salmon recovery strategies,
E followed by a brief description of each strategy. The first eight
E strategies (in bold font) were identified by the WRIA 8 TC as the
E most important for reducing critical pressures on the highest priority
M
<n Chinook salmon life stages.
[U
O
N
U
C
O
m ca1
c
10
m
N
m
J
I,
u
I
l
i rip, Yf�:
i
1
o I r`p
'a, I
@4 f AI IdC r�f�VYyf� f 'Cij1Vi i . 0
:`rffwf r (ir1i : rI yrnrY
Floodlains
v or Y ira pu mwa
p provide crucial habitat for ---
juvenile salmon to rear and find refuge from r
�1 floods and predators. Connected floodplains and o
U \ V f111 associated riparian and instream habitat provide
sources of large wood that slow fast-moving Ly�
a
° Ir water and create channel complexity throug LU
h
braiding and formation of side channels, backwater p
channels, and off-channel wetlands. In addition,
t � floodplain reconnection improves the connection
between surface water and groundwater, and this cL
yl connectivity provides a source of cooler water
and reduces the impacts of increased water
temperature from other factors. This strategy will b
» Y ° help decrease the negative impacts of nearby land
use, levees and revetments, problematic peak and L)
low flows, and increased sediment and pollutant 0
loads. It will also promote resilience to effects of
climate change. Monitoring data suggest that—for
the Cedar River especially—rearing capacity is °
a greater limitation than spawning capacity, and
�a
�QpY �Y restoring floodplain connectivity is the best way to a
address this limitation. Reconnecting floodplains <
often provides additional benefits, such as reducing
flood risk, improving recreational opportunities, and
w n
improving water quality.
� d l„1�'lI . 11CtIt,�Ck! IJII''rtid'�V/1,�°rl �,
mro„ r VFr � ` IAWX\l
Protecting and restoring riparian trees is important ]
throughout the watershed and offers direct and c
rc
„u indirect benefits to Chinook salmon via food web v
inputs, water quality protection (including reducing
thermal, pollutant, and fine sediment inputs), and q
as a source of large wood for recruitment. This
strategy mitigates some of the impacts of land
conversion and urbanization, shoreline armoring, m
w invasive plant infestations, polluted stormwater
runoff and increased water temperature from
climate change. In Tier 2 areas, this strategy is
particularly important to prevent Toss of spawning
� � or rearing habitat, ultimately protecting the spatial
n
r,
6�i f
MdV a��
Mw
diversity of Chinook salmon in the watershed. ® R)- -Ol l l �C T Mall..;"r E l"wJH j,4 CE
By trapping sediment and filtering pollutants,
functional riparian buffers also reduce the impacts "�:' 0 hj»'u4;4 j I ;,
of nonpoint-source pollution. The area where a creek enters a river or lake
w provides habitat forjuvenile rearing and refuge
® p i d tl G tii j,:J)rx from predators as juveniles migrate to marine
° waters. Da li htin or restoring creeks, reducing
V �Ijt ( N +dP I x°II r' Y9 9 9 9
their gradient to make them available tojuvenile
w Complex stream channels provide a salmon, and removing armoring near creek mouths
o range of habitats necessary for Chinook salmon should restore their ecological function and reduce
spawning, rearing, and survival. They provide the impact of land cover conversion for residential,
pools and eddies where salmon can rest, feed, commercial, or industrial use, as well as the effects
a and find refuge from predators and floods. Adding of predation. All creek mouths are important, but
large wood can improve natural processes for
o efforts should prioritize those in the south end
maintaining or creating pools and riffles and of Lake Washington for rearing and migration to
sorting sediment and gravels, all of which create increase survival of Cedar Riverjuveniles. This
the complex habitat that salmon require. Increased includes enhancing the associated creek delta
U wood loading will improve habitat complexity in habitat.
o nearly all areas of stream habitat within WRIA 8.
MRestoring channel complexity lessens the impacts ® 4..d Q I j ( w' :' S �l"�h°"°I
of shoreline hardening, altered peak flows due
( fi „hI J ti",r�`aF I»� r' b.�(�lI "'�E"Jr kA ' ��
°a to impervious surfaces, and increased water
temperature. EDl,K E l I ORI' IAL BAR RIl Iw';S I1-0
c3 _
< ® q 1 10 R Sl 1AI I CYN V11A 1 I ,'dI»�
Ct Areas of water warmer than about 65 degrees F
RI ""``�`�I °'�G Alwj "' x can delay migration, diminish spawning success,
a pAFV p p y v (' � .I�.... and contribute to pre-spawn While
Gently sloping sandy beaches maximize other strategies help protect and restore cold
water sources e. flood lain reconnection,
shallow-water habitat for lake rearing juveniles ( g , p
outmigrating to Puget Sound, and can help provide riparian cover and forest retention throughout
E refuge from native and non-native predators. the watershed), this strategy focuses specifically
Bulkheads or other shoreline hardening and on key areas known to be migratory bottlenecks
Shi Canal and Sammamish River
E nighttime lighting affectjuvenile behavior in ways (e.g., P ), or where
vO that may increase their susceptibility to predation. problems could develop for other life stages
The effects of these changes can be mitigated through climate change impacts. However, high
i in key areas through soft shoreline techniques water temperatures may indirectly exacerbate
o and lighting modifications. Shallow-water rearing other stresses to Chinook salmon (e.g., disease)
6 and refuge habitats are particularly critical in as they migrate or rear, ultimately affecting their
Lake Washington south of 190 as lake-rearing survival and/or ability to reproduce. This emerging
juveniles enter from the Cedar River to rear in and issue will be tracked and adaptively managed,
migrate through the lake, as well as the south end particularly as it affects key life stages. Cold-water
of Lake Sammamish where juveniles enter from sources will become more important throughout
Issaquah Creek. Improved shorelines throughout the watershed for all life stages, notjust migration,
the migration corridor would improve refuge from as water temperatures increase.
predation and provide terrestrial insects for food.
ANH-✓ ® RDYlOVE'. OF) -,1I®E)'JJ+,..I' I"6'II"A I..
A IJI S )IR IV I AT .I l IE l,,' IRWA'If R TTIRLJCTUFRl S o
BA,_LARI"1 LOCKS Removing or reducing the impact of overwater
th t i ll t k t trucures works o alleviate e pressure of
w
The primary fish passage barrier in the watershed sQ
is the Ballard Locks, which affects salmon survival residential and commercial land use along the
and the timing of adult and juvenile passage into
lakeshores and migration corridors. This strategy
reduces the effects of docks, piers, pilings, and
and out of the watershed. As a legacy land use ¢
hydrology the changed that forever impact h other overwater structures that makejuveniles
p g y gy of the
watershed, the pressure exerted by the Ballard more susceptible to predation, since docks can o
Locks can be mitigated but not removed. Measures provide cover for predators and/or juveniles
to improve fish passage conditions and survival will avoid overwater structures and move to
through the Ballard Locks are of paramount deeper water where they are more susceptible to IL
importance. This strategy focuses on USACE predators. The primary purpose of this strategy is o
funding and implementing critical facility upgrades to improvejuvenile survival during lake rearing
to ensure effective fish passage and continued and outmigration. v
safe facility operation. MOVE: JV' I:a `rTL Q l:j,, u
:
?I 1DU .1 F1 I: I.. 10hJ ^'JI J� I kq Iu Iw° E
J4 JVi ""J III E ivIV4'���RANI IS AI L} Ensuring that Chinook salmon can access a range
J d �4„ of habitat types is important for all life stages, a
but fish passage is not a primary limiting factor in
Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by native WRIA 8 for many life stages of Chinook, especially u
and non-native species is a long-suspected since the two largest passage barriers that existed
issue affecting juvenile survival in the freshwater at the time of the ESA listing—the Landsburg
system, especially in Lake Washington, Lake Diversion Dam and the Issaquah Hatchery Intake
Sammamish, and the Ship Canal. The magnitude Dam—have been addressed. Providing juvenile
of the problem is not well quantified, and ongoing Chinook salmon with access to more area for
research is attempting to clarify the relative impact
rearing, especially in small channels where many m
of predation on freshwater juvenile survival in fish passage barriers still exist, is important. Also,
WRIA 8. Additionally, emerging research suggests ensuring juveniles have access to available cooler
that artificial nighttime lighting may alterjuvenile water habitat can mitigate the effects of increased `E°
fish behavior in a way that makes them more water temperatures. Removing barriers to fish E
susceptible to predators and increases the length passage in Tier 2 areas is important to maintain
of time predators actively feed. With improved the potential for spatial diversity. As development a
juvenile survival, greater numbers of adults are continues and new roads are built, creek crossings u
likely to return, boosting the odds for recovering a should be minimized to prevent future barriers, o
self-sustaining Chinook salmon population. and new crossings should use bridges or culverts
designed to accommodate fish passage. N
m
Y
J
I`RC) T 8d,J'a 9 Al01 "I "~I Is(Nil i_ PfC
N
I-4 E A WA� E: 1! 41114L.f6 K E''i' II Ih-9- S4At..ES
w
a Retaining forest cover and functional upland This strategy addresses two issues — excessive
habitat in areas throughout the watershed is fine-grained sediments and insufficient spawning
D important for water quantity and quality, particularly gravel. An excess of fine sediment is a concern
w to address changes in winter peak flows, summer during incubation, when redds/eggs can be
r, low flows, and water temperatures as climate smothered by fine particles. This issue is most
c
change progresses. This strategy reduces prevalent along Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek,
the impacts of land conversion, pollutant- and Issaquah Creek, and in all Tier 2 streams. Beneficial
sediment-filled runoff, and changes in water flow gravels for spawning can be lacking where natural
and temperature. Since implementation of the sediment recruitment processes are interrupted,
2005 Plan, many of the opportunities to purchase such as where levees disconnect the river from
or protect headwater areas have been acted on the floodplain on the Cedar River or confluence
0
or otherwise addressed. Remainingopportunities areas on other streams are modified. This strategy
Pp 9Y
�j are limited but exist along the middle and upper reduces the impacts of land conversion, shoreline
o reaches of Bear/Cottage Lake, Issaquah, Little Bear, hardening, and impervious surface runoff.
E and North creeks. Incentivizing and regulating
in retention of forest cover and reforestation on PI S ) OIRIEE I`W'UI°°Ar
0 private lands, as well as reducing impervious coverSH1 ¢J ti
through low impact development(LID) practices, Preventing and removing bulkheads and armoring
are likely to be effective in indirectly benefiting all00 along the marine shoreline will allow for a more
¢ life stages of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon populations. natural shoreline with increased overhanging
,1: .,,k _ tk 5 : vegetation, connected drift cells and pocket
-o estuaries, and increased extent of eelgrass beds
`uF VU and forage fish spawning habitat. These features
V)
Adequate streamflow is important to provide will improve the marine food web function and
habitat during critical rearing and migration stages. increase success ofjuvenile Chinook salmon
This strategy, intended to address the impacts of rearing and migrating. The BNSF railway runs along
@ both high and low flows, would reduce the impacts most of the WRIA 8 marine shoreline, severely
F of land conversion, water withdrawals, increasing limiting restoration opportunities. However,
Nwater temperatures, scouring events, and fish any shoreline enhancement or restoration will
passage barriers. Reducing illegal withdrawals offer regional salmon recovery benefits, as
and protecting or enhancing flows are important Chinook salmon from other watersheds also rear
actions throughout WRIA 8, especially in the in or migrate through the WRIA 8 nearshore.
° Sammamish River basin and its tributaries, and may Opportunities exist to enhance the habitat in front
m
s
become more important in the future, as of the BNSF railway through beach nourishment,
climate changes. as well as behind or above BNSF through riparian
v
restoration. Identifying and restoring shoreline
sediment processes are also important to support
habitat for primary Chinook prey species, such as
sand lance and smelt.
s '1i
", , „��JJD1111T Illl 1
F. o tl1 " 4�j A0 , N °, m4 „ ll 1D1R l'!, surfaces, nonpoint source pollution, fine sediment
VV a ' .')Cl j inputs, and altered flows. This strategy is primarily
AREAS All"Iimplemented through education and outreach
E a VI,R" S programs. Several water quality elements are also
Many backshore areas and pocket estuaries have addressed by other strategies in this section (local r
been disconnected from Puget Sound, resulting and regional planning, regulations, and permitting;
in a lack of tidal inundation and reducing or protect and restore cold water sources and reduce
preventing access by migrating adult and juvenile thermal barriers to migration; protect and restore
salmon. Along the nearshore, creek mouths functional riparian vegetation; and, protect and y
provide important rearing habitat, and recent restore forest cover and headwater areas). New o
research suggests these areas are important to the regional research is underway to identify possible
overall life history of Puget Sound salmon. Much impacts of polluted stormwater runoff on Chinook
of the WRIA 8 shoreline is disconnected from the salmon, and any findings will be adaptively a
Sound by armoring from the railroad prism, but managed at the local level and in implementation o
juvenile salmon need viable rearing and refuge of the 2017 Plan.
locations along the shoreline wherever possible. j 4r ',a
0
P 9 � 6 0
This strategywill mitigate the effects of the LOCAL I E � ' I NI
9 _ U
ailroad, erched culverts, and shoreline hardenin ' T (I''j_1 "�
in commercial and residential areas. I Yul ij'J E
Dli0TrCI 101.) R E sI10R : p°: I Ak _ LATI� [',J 11 D , s l' 1)� 'j 1 "�Cam, 1� 1 l
a1AR I "A E VI AT Iw7 At,!I n-''1 IR14I 14 l N G
s
S P)11\lE j 1 - � J/I, 1T`i" Local jurisdictions, state agencies, and federal
oo`
Improving marine water and sediment quality agencies should consult the WRIA 8 Plan for the a
where possible and capping contaminated best available science on incorporating Chinook
sediment in the nearshore, especially near salmon requirements into required planning for
, L
commercial and industrial areas, may improve early shorelines land use, water quality, and projectpermitting. The 2005 Plan and this update are m
marine survival directly or indirectly. Additional W
research is needed to better understand how built on the assumption that regulations are
impaired marine water and sediment affect
protective and supportive of sustaining salmon s
Chinook salmon early marine survival and the food in the watershed; the other strategies articulated
web. WRIA 8 will track and adaptively manage in the plan provide additional ecological efforts
necessary for recovery.While WRIA 8 staff will
this emerging issue. The strategy will mitigate the N
legacy and current impacts of land conversion and not track these actions specifically, or likely fund
of point and nonpoint source pollution. capital projects through the process, this strategy
is foundational to the success of others. u
"Water quality" is multi-faceted and s
intersects with salmon recovery in many ways.
The purpose of this strategy is to support water
quality improvements beyond water quality permit
requirements through encouraging individuals
and jurisdictions to participate in voluntary and
incentive-based programs. Improvements should
target reductions in polluted runoff from impervious
FNIPRI
® C0I',lTH\III it ;f" 11hw G AND
.I`41 M...G°,'w K} tl ISSIJ .,'S
a Specific research and monitoring are necessary
to ensure that the latest science informs
w implementation of recovery strategies and actions.
The MAP (Appendix A) details the indicators
that should be tracked to support a complete
c
adaptive management cycle. This strategy
highlights research and monitoring needed to
0
further develop or refine strategies or address
data gaps on specific issues critical for recovery.
v These include emerging issues such as impacts on
salmon survival from predation, artificial light, and
u climate change. WRIA 8 relies on regional research
o for issues related to stormwater impacts and early
E marine survival, such as the Salish Sea Marine
Survival Project.
0 I M ±, „ q/y� ( y I / I
Q fiCR b'i.'% M�144f".!F"'''1 4Mti '1 4 F U
V 1
While most strategies include specific outreach/
� education actions to support their implementation,
this strategy is entirely focused on the importance
of raising awareness of and broadening support
for salmon recovery in general. The intent of this
strategy is to ensure watershed-wide awareness
E of salmon, agreement on the ecological, cultural,
recreational and economic importance of salmon
U) in the watershed, and an understanding of
the individual actions that can support salmon
u recovery. With a growing human population in the
o watershed and many new residents who may be
61 unfamiliar with Chinook salmon, this strategy is
critical to meeting specific habitat and Chinook
3� salmon population goals articulated in this plan.
v
�o
J
l
1
i m : MPLE . NTATIC I
FRAMEWORK
The 2017 Plan will be implemented through numerous comprehensive
actions, developed through a collaborative process involving o
a
local stakeholders,jurisdiction staff, environmental and business D
I
s
representatives, and project experts. The 2017 Plan's actions are Q
grouped into three categories: y
' • Site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, which seek
to protect a specific area through acquisition or easements, or
restore habitat with projects such as levee setbacks, revegetation, a
addition of large wood, and removal of barriers to fish passage.
g p g
• Lend use actions, which focus on accommodating future growth i>while minimizing impacts to salmon habitat. Recommended actions
G address planning, regulations, best management practices (BMPs), o
and incentive programs.
o
• Public education and outreach actions, which support land use and
site-specific actions and/or encourage behavior that helps salmon — N
through, for example, workshops for shoreline landowners, general o
p awareness campaigns, community stewardship, and promoting s
BMPs and incentive programs. v
G� 1 t SOME S:::D is l I� IC I 'I'i "b .Rlw;!i; f
it
The 2005 Plan offered a comprehensive approach for salmon habitat
protection and restoration in the watershed through an extensive
i list of protection and restoration projects. The original project list
s contains actions focused on protecting intact habitat and natural
processes that support salmon, restoring degraded habitat to create
conditions more suitable for salmon, and acquiring land to facilitate
future restoration projects. This suite of habitat projects represents M
the actions thought to be needed to effect change in WRIA 8 salmon E
populations.
j As part of the 2017 Plan, WRIA 8 partners and staff revisited the v
2005 project list to ensure the list is up to date and addresses the
current thinking about recovery needs in the watershed. This Involved
convening
groups of partners by geographic area to evaluate the s
�s 2005 project list. Partners provided input to update and refine o
i existing projects and project descriptions and offered new project �
concepts that align with the suite of updated WRIA 8
recovery strategies.
In many cases, the 2005 project list lacked specificity, and an
emphasis of the 2017 Plan is to focus the project list on specific
�I it
iam
actions in specific areas. This resulted in removing Role of mitigation in salmon recovery
o many vague project references from the 2005 The premise of the WRIA 8 Plan's identified
project list, yet where these concepts remain habitat protection and restoration projects and
important priorities for implementation, they programmatic actions is to prevent further decline
are carried forward in the 2017 Plan update as of Chinook habitat and restore degraded habitat
a recovery strategies. in order to make significant net improvements
The 2005 Plan identified a "Start List" of projects in habitat to address limiting factors and support
¢ envisioned as the focus of the first 10 years of recovery. It is clear that simply maintaining status
w
}
plan implementation. In the absence of quantified quo habitat conditions will not restore sustainable,
c,
habitat goals, the Start List was developed in part harvestable levels of Chinook. Land use changes
to measure and track implementation progress. and associated impacts will continue as the
° Now that habitat goals exist—which are a more region's population grows, especially within
°
o effective mechanism for measuring progress than urban growth areas designated under the Growth
the number of projects implemented —the Start Management Act, further reducing and degrading
List concept has not been carried forward in the habitat throughout the watershed. It is important
2017 Plan. to understand how efforts to address the negative
u impacts of development affect WRIA 8 Chinook
C In the 2005 Plan and again in the 2017 Plan, salmon habitat protection and restoration.
F implementation of habitat protection and
v, restoration projects is a voluntary activity. This is What is mitigation?
o an important consideration, especially for local Development projects require permits at local,
jurisdictions that have other capital priorities for state, and/or federal levels, which identify potential
u their limited public resources. Looking forward, impacts to protected environmental features—
WRIA 8 encourages jurisdictions to explore such as wetlands—and species—such as Chinook
Emulti-benefit approaches to capital project salmon. In large measure, the regulatory and
? implementation, whereby habitat restoration is permit process requires avoiding and minimizing
v incorporated into stormwater, drainage, parks, potential impacts as much as possible. When
and other related capital projects and programs. development activities will create unavoidable
o Grant funders are increasingly recognizing the environmental impacts but are allowable under the
value of multi-benefit approaches to project existing regulatory framework, project sponsors
implementation, which in turn offers an opportunity are required by regulators to take a defined action
to leverage local investments. Additionally, given or set of actions to offset or mitigate the impact.
Ethat grant resources continue to be insufficient
(n to achieve recovery objectives, WRIA 8 Salmon Haw mitigation works
�5 Recovery Council members from partner Mitigation projects can occur on-site (at or near the
v jurisdictions are encouraged to prioritize habitat development project) or off-site. On-site mitigation
u g p is generally referable when it is ecologically
protection and restoration in local budgets to g y p g y
o� the extent practical to accelerate the pace of feasible and likely to succeed long-term. However,
s implementation and move toward the recovery if mitigation on or adjacent to the development
goals outlined in this plan. site is impractical or will not result in meaningful
and sustainable ecological benefits, off site
Please see Appendix F for the full list of mitigation becomes an option under state and
WRIA 8 projects. federal rules. One increasingly common option for
off-site mitigation includes purchasing mitigation
credits from a certified mitigation bank or in-
lieu fee mitigation program (e.g., King County's
t
r�i �n r"✓F`AU � � �
Mitigation Reserves Program). Mitigation banks At the same time, it is important to recognize
are constructed and certified before impact, and that mitigation projects do not represent net
project proponents purchase credits in the bark improvements in overall habitat conditions since v
to mitigate for unavoidable impacts. In-lieu fee each mitigation action is linked to new habitat
mitigation programs first collect impact fees from impacts resulting from a development action. No a
development projects and then use those fees to comprehensive and consistent method currently a
identify and implement mitigation projects within exists to account for the impacts accrued through
an associated service area. actions that incrementally degrade habitat, water a
and hydrologic functions within our
Both mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs quality, o
undergo significant state and federal scrutiny watersheds, not to mention across the broader
region. This conundrum exists even as mitigation
during their initial establishment and through funded projects are helping to implement key o
ongoing oversight. Mitigation projects only earn priorities and strategies identified in the a
credit when success is proven, and mitigation sites WRIA 8 plan.
are monitored and maintained in perpetuity with
funding set aside to ensure projects are completed Accounting for mitigation in salmon recovery a
successfully. As a result, these off site, and in some tracking and reporting o
cases out-of-kind, mitigation options are proving The habitat protection and restoration actions C
ncreasingly effective in improving ecological E
identified in the 2017 Plan, and the associated
functions in areas of a watershed that have been quantitative habitat goals, are meant to represent
prioritized for restoration. net gains in habitat and ecological functions. o
Mitigation and salmon recovery Since mitigation is intended to offset impacts
With the establishment of mitigation banks and to habitat from various development projects, u
programs such as King County's Mitigation habitat enhancements funded through mitigation a
do not represent net habitat gains. For purposes
Reserves Program, mitigation funds have become �
part of the fabric of funding sources that can of tracking habitat restoration progress in WRIA
support implementation of habitat restoration 8, we will work with project managers, mitigation
projects. This is especially true in highly urbanized Program managers, and other partners to ensure
appropriate accounting for habitat improvements
watersheds, where large development or �
transportation projects can create significant
as well as their associated environmental impacts.
�
mitigation needs. In some cases, mitigation funding To produce a transparent accounting and reporting
may be capable of implementing all or portions of a of net progress towards achieving WRIA 8 habitat
project identified on the WRIA 8 project list. goals, WRIA 8 will document which projects, F
or portions of projects, were implemented with
The use of mitigation funds to implement habitat mitigation funding.
enhancement projects can improve ecological
functions in some areas sooner than may U
otherwise be possible by simply relying on grant-
funded restoration or limited local funds.
U,
a
,o
J
,y V
4d
�S E Al V V��.:1'I4 Growth Management Act
cw Qt `""jS Under the Growth Management Act(GMA),
local jurisdictions must protect critical areas and
In addition to habitat protection and restoration designate natural resource lands (e.g.,forest,
aprojects, land use actions are critical to protecting agricultural, and mineral areas) and urban growth
and restoring habitat conditions for Chinook areas, which identify where urban growth and
D salmon and to the success of salmon recovery development may occur. The 2017 Plan calls for
11 in WRIA 8. Land use actions are defined as
w managing growth in a way that minimizes negative
y policies, rules, or other non-capital actions that impacts to salmon. This includes maintaining
programmatically address habitat protection.
existing UGA boundaries, unless altering the
c
Local governments are responsible for land use boundary would be beneficial to salmon.
a actions, which include planning, regulations, Plan recommendations within UGAs:
o incentive programs and BMPs that address
landscape features or ecological processes such Manage growth to minimize impacts to water
�' as forest cover, road crossings, riparian buffer quality, riparian forest cover, and flows
conditions, natural flow regimes, and sediment • Promote LID and green stormwater infrastructure
cdynamics. Land use actions determine where and . Use incentive programs to protect watershed
how urban growth takes place in the watershed, functions and values (examples include transfer
how stormwater is managed, and the degree to of development rights, p g
public benefit ratings
which environmentally critical and sensitive areas system, etc.)
°o and functioning habitat processes are protected.
s These actions are particularly important to • Promote restoring native vegetation cover
U accommodate a rapidly growing population and66' Plan recommendation outside IJGAs:
mitigate the effects of a changing climate. Together . Promote livestock BMPs to protect
with land protection and restoration actions,
ecological functions
land use policies will determine whether salmon
r continue to return to our watershed each year. • Use incentive programs to protect forest
cover and protect and restore riparian buffers
} In many cases, land use actions complement or (examples include transfer of development rights,
L support implementation of site-specific project public benefit ratings system, etc.)
actions. The 2005 Plan grouped the actions by
F Ensure maintenance of properties protected
�o geographic subarea (i.e., Cedar River, north Lake
EWashington tributaries, Issaquah Creek, and through fee acquisitions or easements
cn migratory and rearing areas). For the 2017 Plan,
the list of recommended land use actions was
revisited and updated to serve as a resource for
o partners and decision-makers in land use planning
and decisions, and to better focus and guide future
L investment of resources to support implementation
of salmon recovery strategies.
See Appendix H for a list of recommended land
use actions organized by land use category.
INIF1
Critical Areas Ordinance stormwater management programs to protect
Local governments have critical area ordinances water quality and reduce pollutant discharge. o
to protect the natural environment and public There are at least three areas of strong overlap
health/safety, including measures to preserve and between stormwater management actions and
enhance "unique, fragile, and valuable elements salmon recovery: a
of the environment;' with special consideration
1. Regulatory activities — Local government Q_
for actions that preserve or enhance anadromous partners should implement and enforce NPDES a
fisheries. These regulations have great potential permit conditions to improve water quality by w
for achieving salmon conservation objectives, restoring natural flow regimes. State and local o
including:
partners need to work together to address
• Protecting aquatic areas water quality-impaired Tier 1 and Tier 2 streams
Protecting riparian buffers and with total maximum daily load designations for• a
nearshore vegetation excessive pollution, temperatures or dissolved o
oxygen. These actions help address impacts to
• Protecting forest cover salmon in WRIA 8 streams.
• Protecting wetlands 2. Incentive-based and voluntary programs —
• Protecting water quality Local government partners and community o
organizations concerned about water E
Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline quality can go beyond NPDES requirements n
Master Programs by increasing and promoting stormwater
A goal of the Shoreline Management Act management structure retrofits, LID, and GSI, °
(SMA) is to "prevent the inherent harm in an as well as pollutant source control efforts. u
uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the
state's shorelines" and to facilitate public access ¢
stormwater discharge permit requires local o
to shorelines of the state. Local governments >
governments to develop public education and
are required to develop shoreline master outreach programs. Many of the actions required
programs (SMPs), which are the primary means b programs
for administering the SMA. These SMPs include y these also support salmon recovery.
a characterization of a jurisdiction's shorelines, Groundwater
including rivers, large lakes, and marine shorelines, Groundwater contributes to streamflow and
and their associated ecological functions. The functions as a coldwater input for many
primary overlap between the 2017 Plan and SMPs streams, which is especially needed in streams E
is the protection of shoreline forest/vegetation affected by high water temperatures. Ensuring v
cover and the protection of vegetated that groundwater is protected and hydrologic
riparian buffers. connections are maintained and improved
U
Water Quality and Stormwater Management, throughout the watershed is important for o
improving habitat conditions for salmon. m
including NPDES Permit The following actions are key: s
Improving water quality and managing stormwater ti
are critical for creating and maintaining stream and • Encourage LID, GSI and natural drainage systems
water conditions that support salmon survival. In to promote groundwater recharge
particular, local jurisdictions are required, under J
their NPDES permits, to develop and implement
liiil�l }�`�lot.(Ilif��
• Protect streamflow and hydrologicintegrity Outreach and education actions support land use
G
through regulations, incentives, and acquisitions management and capital projects, or promote
• Educate the public about the importance of
behavior change to improve habitat conditions.
groundwater for human health, fish and wildlife, They can apply to a specific location, a particular
and ecosystem processes target audience, or throughout the basin. The
a 2005 Plan ranked outreach and education actions
D Floodplain Management as high, medium, and low priority. To better
The King County Flood Control District(FCD) prioritize and guide outreach and education
is responsible for managing flood risk along efforts, the 2017 Plan uses the results of WRIA
the County's major river systems, and local 8 programmatic action implementation surveys
jurisdictions participating in the National Flood conducted in 2009 and 2015, a 2009 outreach
Insurance Program also share flood risk reduction and education gap analysis, and feedback from the
is obligations. In WRIA 8, FCD activities most WRIA 8 Salmon Summit in 2016. This information
commonly overlap with salmon recovery priorities provided the basis for a suite of draft outreach and
along the Cedar River and Sammamish River. In education actions that were reviewed and revised
many cases, potential projects to reduce flood at a workshop of education and outreach partners
o risk are close to or in the same location as habitat in 2016.
U
restoration projects, creating opportunities to See Appendix I for recommended outreach and
E. collaborate and identify solutions that meet both
flood risk reduction and salmon habitat restoration education priorities.
goals. In addition to floodplain management on
the Cedar River and Sammamish River, some local
iy governments also manage floodplains on streams
r to reduce flooding and restore habitat,
q
r V- I.:UCAT40.`,d 1 E) C;ii.j I 11:.AI: ,..d
AC'I1 1 d 1 'I;C—,01\4I `A1:,NJ AII0NS
Since WRIA 8 is the most populous watershed
in the state, raising public awareness of salmon
recovery, and building and sustaining public
E and political will to take action, are imperative if
conditions for salmon are to be improved in the
F watershed. Without public and political support
Uo
over the long-term, Chinook salmon recovery
Nefforts cannot succeed, especially as our region
0
continues to grow.
0
cs
r
L
u�
m
N
J
ffffffff
m ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
ENT h
O
PROCESS. ".
Effective implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan requires adaptive
management. The major steps of an adaptive management cycle a
are to:
c�
1. Set a vision and identify goals w
� I 2. Plan actions and identify monitoring needs
3. Implement and monitor
m
4. Analyze data and use results to adapt assumptions and approach a
5. Capture lessons learned and share results 0
The 2005 Plan set a vision for recovery
and identified the actions for
implementation.WRIA 8 has adaptively managed the 2005 Plan using
monitoring results, studies and research, and lessons learned from °u
III Nh' implementing projects to inform recommendations to the WRIA 8 ca
Salmon Recovery Council for ways to adjust implementation. Progress
reports completed in 2010 and 2015 shared implementation status, V"
analyzed data, identified challenges, and assessed °
recovery assumptions. s
U
The 2017 Plan includes quantitative habitat goals and revised m
recovery strategies developed using new information and lessons ¢
learned from the past decade of implementation. The goals ?
and strategies will improve our ability to adaptively manage v
implementation moving forward, help partners work together toward
the same goals, implement the most important actions, and improve
our ability to track and report on our progress. Implementation of the
2017 Plan will be adaptively managed by linking monitoring and new
and emerging information to decision-making through reports and
presentations to the Salmon Recovery Council, and through specific
E
recommendations from the TC and IC. This approach enables the n
Salmon Recovery Council to have a common understanding and o
adjust the direction of implementation based on monitoring results
r
and lessons learned. o
In 2017, WRIA 8 developed the MAP (Appendix A) to guide monitoring
and reporting on progress towards implementing recovery strategies
�f m and meeting habitat recovery goals throughout the watershed,to
prioritize restoration actions, and to identify gaps. The adaptive
management approach evaluates success in meeting 2017 Plan
habitat goals, and uses triggers to guide future actions or changes
u (Table 5). A trigger refers to a threshold of the habitat indicator
oi, that prompts a recommended action. In the case of WRIA 8 habitat
i
goals,five-year triggers are established to assess that should be considered. The WRIA 8 TC will
a whether implementation in on track (i.e., 50%of track new technology and information on Chinook
N the way toward implementation of the 2025 goal). salmon, and the monitoring plan will be updated
w, Adaptive management involves assessing both as needed, pending coordination with the Puget
e indicators associated with project implementation
Sound Partnership to assure consistency with the
a and the success of land use actions and Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery framework.
education and outreach programs in supporting rr P 9 PP 9 Assuming the appropriate information is collected
implementation of recovery strategies. The to a sufficient degree to inform decision-
expectation moving forward is that the WRIA making, the process in WRIA 8 typically involves
8 TC will regularly review and report data from discussing monitoring results within the TC
monitoring efforts (annually for fish population and IC and developing and submittingjoint TC/
data and every five years for habitat condition IC recommendations to the Salmon Recovery
o data) to assess the effectiveness of restoration Council for their consideration and action. The
N and recovery actions and report to the IC and adaptive management process will also affect
Salmon Recovery Council. The WRIA 8 IC will work how WRIA 8 staff develop their work plans and
with local government and non-governmental assist project sponsors with implementation. This
U partners to review and assess land use actions process will continue to be followed in the future
o and education and outreach programs at least with continued oversight by the WRIA 8 Salmon
Nevery five years to help highlight any changes Recovery Council.
0
0
r
V
d
'S
v
L
N
v
m
L
N
E
@
E
E
m
u1
m
0
U
c
0
c
L
N
y@
@
J
� � r i
� �
f
t� � jil
ti
WRIA 8 Habitat Goal Adaptive Management Triggers
r`
0
Cedar River Total connected floodplain acres between Total connected floodplair acres
Lake Washington and Landsburg Diversion <1,105 acres a
Dam will be 1,170 acres by 2025. o-
a
Average wood volume will quadruple over Average wood volume w
current basin conditions(RIA 4 to Landsburg <21 m3/100 m o
Diversion Dam) by 2025.
Sammamish River Areas of river will be cool enough to support <1 thermal refuge added
Chinook salmon migration and survival a
(increase riparian cover and add thermal Net riparian cover added <20 acres o
refugia) by 2025,
a,
Streams Area of riparian cover in each Tier 1 and Tier 2 Varies by stream: cover in each
0
(Bear/Cottage Lake, stream will increase by 10%over 2015 stream increases by<5%over 2015 V
Issaquah, Evans, conditions by 2025. conditions o
Kelsey, Little Bear, E
m
North creeks) Average wood volume will double over current Varies by stream: wood volume in v'
Y
basin conditions by 2025, each stream increases by<50% o
C
L
Lakes Natural lake shorelines V
south of 1-90(Lake Natural lake shoreline <X acres 6E�
Washington)and throughout Lake Sammamish (baseline assessment required) <
will double over 2015 conditions by 2025, E2
Natural riparian vegetation within 25 feet of Natural riparian vegetation restored �
s
shoreline south of 1-90 (Lake Washington)and <30 acres
throughout Lake Sammamish will double over m
2015 conditions by 2025.
s
Nearshore(Pocket Pocket estuaries along WRIA 8 shoreline will <1 stream mouth/pocket estuary E
M
Estuaries) supportjuvenile Chinook salmon for rearing added E
and migration. m
N
'"Natural lake shoreline" is defined by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee as without bulkhead,with slope and substrate matching
historic lakeshcre contours for the area under consideration. V
c
0
rable 5. WRIA 8 Habitat Goat Adaptive Management T-riggers
s
fU
Y
r0
J
di �x I tlVI II CCCB
r4V
A
,D
TREFERENCES
o Beamer, E.M.,W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R.
Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small nor-
natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System
d Cooperative, LaConner, WA.
n
Beechie, T., H. Imaki, J. Greene,A. J. Wade, H. Wu, G. R. Pess, P. Ron!, �-
w J. Kimball, J. A. Stanford, P. M. Kiffney, and N. Mantua. 2012. Restoring
R�: r
} salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Research
0
and Applications.
Brennan,J. S., K. Higgins, J. Cordell, and V. Stamatiou. 2004.
a Juvenile salmon composition, timing, distribution, and diet in marine
o nearshore waters of central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. 164 pp.
N ht,tp://www,kingTotignty gov✓services/environment/watersheds/cc,ntral-
puget-sound/nearshore environments/jLaVenilo salmon) report.aspx.
o Chrzastowski, M. 1981. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and
Route of the Lake Washin ton Ship Canal, Kin Count Washington.
m 9 P 9 Y,
v' United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
o https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr811182 it
DeVries, P., and A. Shelly. 2017. PIT Tagging of Juvenile Salmon
a Smolts in the Lake Washington Basin: Fourteenth through Sixteenth
Year (2013-2015). Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Seattle, WA.
v
Fox, M., and S. Bolton. 2007 A regional and geomorphic reference
for quantities and volumes of instream wood in unmanaged forested
basins of Washington State. North American .Journal of Fisheries
Management 27:342-359.
M Kerwin,J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report
E for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8).
Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia, WA.
0 King County. (in prep.) King County's Bear Creek Watershed-Scale
u Stormwater Management Plan: A NPDES Permit Requirement.
o Prepared by King County, Water and Land Resources Division.
Prepared for King County, Snohomish County, City of Redmond,
City of Woodinville, and in collaboration with Washington State
Department of Transportation.
m
JKing County. 2006. Flood Hazard Management Plan: King County,
Washington, King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington.
1 p;lA�f
i"�d i � 1 °d,.w✓ of ,
00, ,1�� k
King County. 2015. Monitoring for Adaptive Management: Status and Trends of Aquatic and Riparian
Habitats in the Lake Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). King County Water and Land
0
Resources Division, Seattle, Washington �
http://your.klngcounty.gov/diirp/iibrary/"2015/kcr2671,pdf
w
Konrad, C., K. Burton, R. Little, A.D. Gendaszek, M.D. Munn, and S.C. Anderson. (in press). Characterizing
aquatic habitats with an emphasis on side channels for long-term monitoring of a fourth-order, regulated a�
river in the Pacific Northwest, USA. River Research and Applications.
e
Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B.Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely
Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Shover, 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound. Report
prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D
htto://cses.washinaton.edu/p icealmauEter/p,5-sok/ps-sok cover, and execsumm°2015..odf a
0
McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid
populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-42,156 p. c
https°//Www.hwfsc.Tioaa,gov/assets/25)6190 06162,004,_14373'9_tM42,pdf U
C
Meador, J.P., Sommers, F.C., Ylitalo, G.M. & Sloan, C.A. 2006. Altered growth and related physiological E
responses injuvenile Chinook salmon (OncorhynchLis tshowytscho)from dietary exposure to polycyclic v
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 2364-2376. o
0
c
Meador, J. P. 2013. 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. Q
Of
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 Consultation 3:
Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act— Essential Fish v
Habitat Consultation: Operation and Maintenance of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in King County,
v
Washington State. March 31, 2008. Seattle, WA.
S
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. Wood loading shapefile. Obtained from
Northwest Fisheries Science Center November, 2016. E
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. E
High Resolution Land Cover product(draft), 2015 conditions. U)
Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2015. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead v
listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest.
htto://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.aov/Dublications/status reviews/salmon steel head/2016/2016 nwfscDdf 0
Puget Sound Indian Tribes and WDFW, 2010 Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook:
Harvest Management Component. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lacey, Washington,
http•//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00854/wdfwOO854.pdf
Quinn, T P, B. R. Dickerson, and L. A. Vollestad. 2005. Marine survival and distribution patterns of
two Puget Sound hatchery populations of coho (Oncorhynchus krsutch) and chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) salmon. Fisheries Research 76:209-220.
x n
y
Y
I !W y
p ai
�lllfflt� GVgI��y����Y�� IuYll�fl9
Richter, A., and S. A. Kolmes. 2005. Maximum temperature limits for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and
0
steelhead trout in the Pacific Northwest. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13:23-49.
N
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B. Footen, and L. Park. 2004. Predation
w of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington basin. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lacey,WA.
htto://www.00viink.org/watei-shcd-,;/S/r)df/TaborRer)ort.r)df
a Tabor, R.A., B. A. Footen, K. L. Fresh, M, T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, D. L. Low, and L. Park. 2007. Smallmouth
i Bass and Largemouth Bass Predation on Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Other Salmonids in the Lake
Washington Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1174-1188.
c Tabor, R. A., H. B. Berge, M. Klungle, B. Thompson, D. W. Lantz, and B. Price. 2014. Predation of juvenile
a salmonids by resident trout and other fishes in the lower Cedar River, Washington: Final report to Seattle
o Public Utilities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.
Tabor, R. A., S. T. Sanders, M. T. Caledonia, D.W. Lantz, S. Damm, T. M. Lee, Z. Li, and B. Price. 2010. Spring/
v Summer habitat use and seasonal movement patterns of predatory fishes in the Lake Washington Ship
0 Canal: Final Report to Seattle Public Utilities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington.
Taylor Assoc., 2010. Salmon Bay Estuary Synthesis Report. Prepared for WRIA 8 Estuary and Nearshore
mo Workgroup. Seattle, WA.
ohttD://www.covlink.ora/watersheds/8/reports/SaiinonBavF_stuary SvnthPsisRenort Januarv2010 Ddf
0
Toft, J., C. Simenstad, C. Young, and L. Stamatiou. 2003. Inventory and Mapping of City of Seattle Shorelines
u along Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Shilshole Bay. Draft Report to City of Seattle, School of Aquatic
and Fisheries Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 33 pp.
CY https://dflgital.lib.was,hi,ngton,,edu/researchworks✓bit'stream/handle/1773/4530/t3302,pctf?segperice-1
Vanderhoof J., S. Stolnack, K. Rauscher, and K. Higgins. 2011. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish
Watershed (WRIA 8) Land Cover Change Analysis. Prepared for WRIA 8 Technical Committee by King
County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Seattle,
Washington.
N ttkp:/dwww.ynv1in9 ,org/watersheds/8/reports/WBLandcoverChangcReport719-201➢.pdf
E
E Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Compiled White Papers For Hydraulic Project
E Approval Habitat Conservation Plan. Online: http:f/wdfw,wa.gov/pt,pblicatXonsiOO803/
V)
cn
WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 2005. Final Lake Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8, Seattle, WA.
http://www,govi'nk o(g/waatersheds/8/planning/chinook-conservation-plan.aspx
0
m
c
0
J
I
�r
1
rff
��I���)fI11111101111,�1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
wl°IA, 8 SnlrriC I I I 'er,; ov .ray' Council Judy Blanco, Forterra r
0
Deputy Mayor Jay Arnold, City of Kirkland Bea Covington, King Conservation District
Councilmember Eileen Barber, City of Issaquah Don Davidson, Washington Policy Center
w
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, City of Edmonds Mike Dixon, Alderwood Water& a
Councilmember Allen Dauterman, Wastewater District 0
a
City of Newcastle Nancy Eklund, The Boeing Company �
Councilmember Rod Dembowski, King County Noel Gilbrough, Mid Sound Fisheries w
Councilmember Bruce Dodds, City of Clyde Hill Enhancement Group (MSFEG) o
Councilmember Ted Frantz, Town of Hunts Point Mike Grady, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Councilmember Sean Kelly, City of Mill Creek Administration Fisheries
to
Councilmember Doug McCardle, Joe Miles, WA State Department of Natural
City of Mountlake Terrace Resources (WDNR) a
Councilmember Ryan Mclrvin, City of Renton Joan Nolan, WA State Department of Ecology
Councilmember Hank Myers, City of Redmond (Ecology)
m
Councilmember Tom Odell, City of Sammamish Jacques White, Long Live the Kings j
Deputy Mayor Dana Parnello, City of Maple Valley Stewart Reinhold, WA State Department of o
Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) E
Councilmember Mark Phillips,
City of Lake Forest Park Charles Ruthford, Cedar River Council o
Washington Association of o
Mayor Andy Rheaume, City of Bothell, Chair Gary Schulz, �
Sewer and Water Districts s
Councilmember Kshama Sawant, City of Seattle
Gary Smith, Water Tenders/Trout Unlimited m
Councilmember Jesse Solomon, City of Shoreline <
Richard Sowa, Friends of the
Councilmember Brian Sullivan, Snohomish County Issaquah Salmon Hatchery ?
Mayor Carla Nichols, Town of Woodway o
Vacant, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a,
Mayor Pro Tom Carl Scandella, Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle
Town of Yarrow Point
Mayor John Stokes, City of Bellevue, Vice-Chair Susan O'Neil, Long Live the Kings
Deputy Mayor Allan VanNess, City of Kenmore Ryan Osada, City of Medina N
Vivian Roach, WDNR o
Councilmember Paula Waters, City of Woodinville
Audrie Starsy, City of Newcastle F
Councilmember Dave Wisenteiner,
City of Mercer Island Ralph Svrjcek, Ecology v
Vacant, Town of Beaux Arts Village P111C 1 r,Yl'ri 1enrlr. 11 C.Il.r1aon v
Vacant, City of Kent WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. 2017. Lake
Vacant, City of Medina Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed m
Vacant, City of Mukilteo Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 10-year Update
(2017). Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8,
Government Agency, Organization, Business and Seattle, WA. [http)://www govhnk.org/watersheds/8/
Non-Profit Representatives reports✓plan-updatq.asp
Eric Adman, Sno-King Watershed Council
Tor Bell, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust ""'
✓+�,V I AS aj G1"`•,,5
1?/10 YEAR UPDATEf r a 2017
........... ................ ..
'"'•Inrlo�ty' ,.',
Financial support to coordinate implementation of
,iil "I . iti l _ i
is provided by the following local governments and the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board:
A® crxx OF U➢ dtah/c
*.�Ir�'a TOM ofr ¢ %551M2'�,1.�e1H
Town ar .�, Hunts P4PfYk, vi a s rr r nu o a r➢w
Beaux Arts City of Bothell"
Village 4415WO
e Krq �yrare reegarn fk�F�p
s" O tC, MANi M�N,,{�LEY
1141"v *n
. King County ' '
KENTv a� 1 '
oil *09
mwp� lerrc vyy MISSUYRTLAKE. city or t'S}
MillCzeek TERRACE MUKILTEO
rSArHury Parks k Recreation
PSAIRaI , , lll1 Cr OF
City of Seattle ]1Y1
clryoteemncrra
Snohomish mo...°.°..over.°..•
e ➢ Salmon Recovery � ,,�;; Y2rfOW('O(rlt
Count � _ Funding Board
ial Y
Additional copies of this report are available from: For more inforr7latlow
Jason Mulvihill-Runtz
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
CakeWashi/l,F'tan/Cedar/SanJmamish
Water and Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 U ;� ' Watershed Salmon Recouety Manager
Seattle, WA98104 ter'
King County 206-296-6519 TTY Relay, 711 206-477-4780
www.kingcounty.gov/wlr
jason.mulvihill-kuntz@I<Ingr_ounty.gov
Alternative Formats Available WRIA B website: http://www.goviink.org/watersheds/B/
206-296-7380 TTY Relay 711 Filename:1710_8207m—WBTenyrSalmon Conservation PlanUpdate.indd
Printed on recycled paper.Please recycle, ®12— Find inside 1705-8207m—WBTenVearSalmon ConservationPlan/Final/1710 Revised ReportFlles
King County IT Services,Design 8 Civic Engagement
o ZL_'�` L-.6 t"0QC�_.Acvv
`n �'V vac 'o' .�a QOoE �v^ G on �o y.o V o � oun
c.o U32:.c$
pII ry L O C W y R y 0 N lj O r'R.A d t� O i ° OUP U iy N P✓ ° i N V G N c YO N ✓ C " N
�° e No`,G.` �'> a e oEcMN.ED > `y mE 'P •oV Vo
me � 00
n?r ct
Z Z co o s c E p v o �, ?4 L o
o w 90
Y-
¢Q
�inX o .con OU-N-- N = O- N6 Jrl- U•O� j GO➢� � � ` COO. . .p �.
v q �t �'� , vim cZ-_ mmr/ cyY o mP E Eli U
ocC o `� �FaF � Nov •oC mof=-aL �GJ 4] o.� oo�a=.c vF� n's]'s] om- �
rOOV3 .o m3::�OOV"3pot� N.ENN � 3P?=aa'V3-a nv � `E E � m=CaU3v� Eaooa
'Z 'c o v" avi y a Z �`v c
'4cvE
rotwo o
m E
P:o 2 -c vd5n 3 .v. �d_N_o
v
= con �� C.m= ENSa eS �=aL o.E �vd�= L•c�rn mm �_ ",`o. a,il .°. ,2� � v$s Av _L `nv E a_o^ d8 m=�
>"o o..o OoV CSC s°o vo `� OoV om o"o y= 'O •o sao Cw no ff, L � 5 E n o
avic � ov `° o��z
� v Z hrry M � Z vdcnOMc �yoZ.
� o•tL°o"-��c°m-:Cahm_ROQGCQqCO U°oco..3 cc°m ory--borv.F�w.ao0�
-,L mv_mOqqCC❑w°c'so`� w v'ZoaEi ecoOp�NoM-'Fo2_'aSvO-.�Uto-O DZ`CCj eU,'GZ' co�K°c�uoocy'mc> ocG EFE aa`oEv.n_' >U�^CC.�VQqqC zc...oevuU�E°C)oar�m.',onmmo�'o5hv�oJo�- �dovE>�A�op oNoLn-o°mC-''-oa�mE>am cPa-v U2 o�marou�A�'?yCa.E>.f2
V. ° ac z
z Zz= o o ' c o z z6 "d
C
5ROU 0zoVo VC- ;
0000^ttymf;
aFov�
� 5n�a'.. � mo ouLEc.c� o
Q4 OCJ 4 V_E N V C SJ Qi� v 'ia. N
Um m_ oV� o°' v mE'$ Vx�1U= E.� o�xV ads
Z,7.,�J ENV NL.3ro`S'�.wi !w9 en 5o0
7 Z '•y U ? .. C K V V v, m �, a e ao o m o �u o Wo _-t
gG]FFZ .oUr vc `E �.o= R U'6
R'.0.1y�•''� y � �oGL'wc'G� ago `0 OoUa uw � som CoVa � �'-c-� cN
O O gz
0
UV�yU�.c s' ECe'V.E , ov� p�p'ac R 23
QQ ° osv
HQ uo.=.o °ZZyc° .. Co - ZZ. � E� o- ZZ.
q�po ` oidv - �^ qqqq ct nw %� v�r h�'� Fzp
Z �z,oa�CK- J � � L" o�'o,� ACCC o'� o;� oUft- opx 3CComc-�w
i
bA N O N ..� ❑ ems: N O 0U
� 4? � �„ •m Q c� � s0-� O C1 '� O
o on o
Z cn � b o a ❑
ao
❑ � 3 � 0 3 ¢,.c G b �
Z GO.i p C1� w Q y :d
�r .�
a� cj w p y o
W o a� a ca � ,s �y aai � � 9
xbai Q wr \ u: you
a.o ° yconb ? a5 � c o � c
W Q CG mob � n ❑ • j Ilk
° o C z �
•y ❑ J� /y
a � N N i" �„ O C �'�� ,'". rn cd cC a W a `� cq .� u y��^ O ❑
CL �] � cl z aoa� Uw w `�