Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region - Washington … Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region is comprised...

Appendix M– Regional Summaries

Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region

2017 SRFB Funding Report 1


Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery

P.O. Box 40900 Program Manager

Olympia, WA Stacy Vynne McKinstry

98504-0900 Integrated Planning Team

360.339.4627 360-489-2112

www.psp.wa.gov [email protected]

http://www.psp.wa.gov/

mailto:[email protected]




Region Overview

Geography

The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region is comprised of all or part of Clallam, Island,

Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Snohomish, Thurston, Skagit, and Whatcom

Counties. It also is comprised of all or parts of 19 WRIAs. The size of the Puget Sound Salmon

Recovery Region is dictated by the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit,

identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA)

All or parts of Nooksack (1), San Juan (2), Lower Skagit (3), Upper Skagit (4), Stillaguamish (5),

Island (6), Snohomish (7), Cedar/Sammamish (8), Green/Duwamish (9), Puyallup/White (10),

Nisqually (11), Chambers/Clover (12), Deschutes (13), Kennedy/Goldsborough (14), Kitsap (15),

Skokomish/Dosewallips (16), Quilcene/Snow (17), Elwha/Dungeness (18), Lyre/Hoko (19)

Federally Recognized Tribes

Elwha Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Lummi Nation, Makah Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe,

Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Puyallup Tribe of

Indians, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie

Tribes, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Suquamish Tribe, Swinomish Indian

Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.

Endangered Species Act Listings

Table 1: Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region Listed Species

Species Listed Listed As Date Listed

Puget Sound Chinook Threatened March 24, 1999

Puget Sound Steelhead Threatened May 11, 2007

Salmon Recovery Plan

Table 2. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region Recovery Plan

Recovery Plan

Regional Organization Puget Sound Partnership

Plan Timeframe 50 years

Actions Identified to

Implement Plan

More than 1,000

Estimated Cost $1.42 billion for first 10 years




Recovery Plan

Status The Recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook was adopted by the federal

government in January 2007. Many of the watershed chapters were written

as 10 year plans and several are undergoing updates. The region has

completed a translation of watershed recovery chapters into a common

framework and created a regional monitoring and adaptive management

system to document chapter updates. The region is currently seeking

additional resources to bring all watersheds into updated status. While most

watersheds are making advancements in updating strategies, actions and/or

monitoring plans, a few watersheds are undergoing a comprehensive

update: WRIA 8 (draft complete, funded by ALEA and PSAR), WRIA 9, and

Skokomish (draft complete, funded by ALEA).

Recovery planning for Puget Sound steelhead is ongoing. The NOAA Puget

Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team has completed a population

identification report and viability assessment recovery plan chapters are

completed in one watershed (Nisqually) and underway in several other

watersheds (Hood Canal, West Sound, Skagit). NOAA is leading an

interdisciplinary Steelhead Recovery Team in the development of a full

recovery plan for Puget Sound steelhead by 2018-19. Some of the initial

work of the team includes conducting life cycle modeling at the ESU scale

that can inform the regional chapter of the Steelhead Recovery Plan,

finalizing the pressures assessment, and developing strategies and actions

for key pressures. Watershed-scale chapters will not be drafted in the first

phase of work due to lack of resources. However, the Steelhead Recovery

Team is developing a template for watershed chapters that can provide site

specific actions at the watershed scale in a consistent format. Resources will

need to be secured to support each watershed group to use the template

and complete a chapter for the steelhead recovery plan.

The Puget Sound region works in partnership with the Hood Canal region

on the recovery of Hood Canal Summer Chum. A portion of both Puget

Sound SRFB funding and PSAR funding goes toward Hood Canal recovery

planning efforts.

Implementation

Schedule Status

Puget Sound has adopted a new 4-year workplan format. These 4-year work

plans (4YWP) for the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan have been

developed for each of the 15 watershed recovery chapter organizations (16

watersheds). The 4YWPs include an adaptive management and monitoring

narrative and a four year project implementation list: a comprehensive

update to the narrative and project list is completed biannually with

modifications made each year to the project list. These work plans are

reviewed by the Partnership’s strategy review team annually (please see

below for review questions). Watersheds also utilize the Phase 1 Monitoring

& Adaptive Management (M&AM) frameworks for their watershed chapters

that document strategies, goals, and other crucial elements of recovery

planning and implementation in a common language and format. These

frameworks are the basis for documenting changes in recovery plan




Recovery Plan

strategies and assessing the status of recovery plan implementation. Within

the 4YWP each listed project must be linked to a strategy outlined in their

M&AM frameworks. As chapter updates are finalized, those will be reflected

in the watershed 4YWPs and within the accompanying narratives.

The 2016 Puget Sound Action Agenda, completed in June 2016, prioritized

implementation of 4-year work plans as a key action contributing to Puget

Sound recovery, and included protection and restoration of habitat as one

of three “strategic initiatives” guiding Action Agenda implementation over

the next two years. The 2018 Action Agenda is currently under development

and will include priority actions needed to advance steelhead, Chinook and

other salmonid recovery in the next few years. These actions are currently

being finalized by the Tribal Management Conference and the Puget Sound

Salmon Recovery Council and will be released in the fall of 2017.

Web Information Puget Sound Partnership Web site www.psp.wa.gov

Additionally, Puget Sound projects can be viewed using Habitat Work

Schedule.

Region and Lead Entities

On January 1, 2008, the Puget Sound Partnership Act, Section 49(3), Revised Code of

Washington 77.85.090(3) designated the Puget Sound Partnership to serve as the regional

salmon recovery organization for Puget Sound salmon species, except Hood Canal summer

chum. There are 15 lead entity organizations in the Puget Sound Region.

Regional Area Summary Questions and Responses

Internal funding allocations: Describe the process and criteria used to develop allocations

across lead entities or watersheds within the region.

For this SRFB grant cycle, there were updates to the regional allocation formula for the seven

Chinook recovery regions around the state. Puget Sound now receives 38% of the statewide

allocation of PCSRF/SRFB funding.

The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PSSRC) affirmed at its January 2016 meeting the use

of the same allocation methodology used in 2007-2015 SRFB grant cycles. This decision was

supported by the Puget Sound Salmon Advisory Group (SSAG), which serves as an advisory

body to the SRC. In March 2017, the Recovery Council re-affirmed the use of the allocation

formula after the SRFB altered statewide allocation percentages. For SRFB funds, Hood Canal

summer chum funds are allocated directly to the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Hood Canal

receives a small portion of the Puget Sound allocation to support this work.

http://www.psp.wa.gov/

http://hws.ekosystem.us/





The allocation formula is based on recovery criteria set by NOAA in their Federal ESA Recovery

Plan for Puget Sound Chinook:

All 22 Chinook populations must improve.

Some populations must get to “low risk” status faster than others.

Thus, based on a policy goal of delisting Puget Sound Chinook:

All watersheds start with an equal base amount of funding since all populations must

improve and delisting will not occur if some populations don’t improve (30%)

Watersheds that have a larger geographic area to cover get more funding (based on

relative shoreline miles) (10%)

Those watersheds that have a population that needs to get to low-risk faster get an

additional percentage (35%)

Watersheds that have more than one of the listed populations get more funding (15%)

Remaining funds (10% of the total amount) are distributed by allocation percent to all

watersheds, excluding summer chum.

A separate, specially appropriated amount is dedicated to capacity (6%)

The remainder (5%) applied to Hood Canal chum.

A detailed spreadsheet of the Puget Sound allocation formula can be viewed here.

The table below provides the 2017 Puget Sound SRFB allocation ($6,840,000) by lead

entity/WRIA (WRIA or watershed). The PSSRC determined that endorsement of the allocation

methodology would foster a collaborative spirit across lead entities in Puget Sound as well as

support the ongoing implementation of the recovery plan and next steps in developing the best

investments for salmon recovery across the region.

The allocation percentages provide each lead entity with a target funding amount for

development of their project lists.

https://pspwa.box.com/s/brtpyz8hsfjrqh04vl1vf3hmjnhp82np




Table 3. 2017 Puget Sound Region SRFB Allocations*

WRIA Recovery Units

2017 Allocation

Percentage Total 2016 Amount

1 Nooksack 9.40% $643,103

2 San Juan Island 4.06% $277,742

3/4 Skagit 16.38% $1,120,676

5 Stillaguamish 7.30% $499,070

6 Island 3.18% $217,645

7 Snohomish 7.48% $511,397

8 Lake

Washington/Cedar/Sammamish

5.73% $391,711

9 Green/Duwamish 4.33% $295,895

10/12 Puyallup/White and

Chambers/Clover

7.43% $508,007

1 Nooksack, 9.40%2 San Juan

Island, 4.06%

3/4 Skagit, 16.38%

5 Stillaguamish, 7.30%

6 Island, 3.18%7 Snohomish, 7.48%

8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sa

mmamish, 5.73%

9 Green/Duwamish, 4.33%

12 Puyallup/White and

Chambers/Clover, 7.43%

11 Nisqually, 5.51%

13 Thurston, 2.57%

14 Mason, 3.08%

15 West Sound

Watersheds, 3.89%

15/16/17 Hood Canal, 10.20%

17/18/19 Elwha/Dungeness/Strai

ts, 9.46%

2017 Puget Sound Allocation Percentage

1 Nooksack

2 San Juan Island

3/4 Skagit

5 Stillaguamish

6 Island

7 Snohomish

8 LakeWashington/Cedar/Sammamish

9 Green/Duwamish

12 Puyallup/White andChambers/Clover

11 Nisqually

13 Thurston

14 Mason

15 West Sound Watersheds

15/16/17 Hood Canal

17/18/19Elwha/Dungeness/Straits




WRIA Recovery Units

2017 Allocation

Percentage Total 2016 Amount

11 Nisqually 5.51% $376,749

13 Thurston 2.57% $176,039

14 Mason 3.08% $210,556

15 West Sound Watersheds 3.89% $266,339

15/16/17 Hood Canal 10.20% $697,961

17/18/19 Elwha/Dungeness/Straits 9.46% $647,109

*This table does not reflect any allocation trading that may occur between watersheds.

The Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration program (PSAR)

PSAR was created in 2007 to help implement the most important habitat protection and

restoration priorities in Puget Sound, alongside SRFB funding. It is co-managed by the Puget

Sound Partnership as the regional organization for Puget Sound, and by RCO as the grant

administrator for SRFB funded projects. The PSSRC made a policy decision starting with funds

for the 2013-15 biennium to apply the same allocation formula as is used for the SRFB funds for

the first $30 million of the PSAR award for watersheds. This funding is available biennially and,

alongside SRFB funding, supports the implementation of 4YWP project lists as well as adaptive

management of the recovery chapters.

Beginning in 2013, any funding above $30 million the PSSRC agreed to apply towards funding

large capital projects, reviewed and submitted as high priorities by lead entities (currently up to

3 per lead entity). These projects are reviewed, scored and regionally ranked by the Puget Sound

Salmon Strategy Review team (PSSSRT), then approved by the PSSRC, the Puget Sound

Leadership Council, and SRFB. This process was completed in December of 2016 resulting in a

list of 18 high priority large capital projects. We are currently awaiting a capital budget to put

those projects within the funding amount under contract.

Regional technical review process: The SRFB envisions regional technical review processes

that address, at a minimum, the fit of lead entity projects to regional recovery plans, if

available.

Explain how the regional technical review was conducted.

The regional technical review process and criteria are applied to both SRFB and Puget Sound

Acquisition and Restoration projects. The lead entity technical and citizens’ review processes

consider whether proponent projects fit with the local plan strategy and priorities, and evaluates

the certainty that the project will deliver desired results. Puget Sound Partnership staff and their

partners understand that the SRFB Review Panel provides an independent review to ensure that

individual projects submitted by the lead entities are technically feasible and have a high




likelihood of achieving the stated objectives. The process described below details the Puget

Sound region’s process for ensuring that the proposed lead entity projects support and are

consistent with the local recovery plan strategies.

After the dissolution of the Recovery Implementation Technical Team in 2015, the Puget Sound

solicited independent technical review through a Request for Proposals. The selected

contractors, collectively called the Puget Sound Salmon Strategy Review Team (PSSSRT), is

composed of individuals and firms with extensive expertise in salmon recovery and the Puget

Sound region. In addition, the region was able to secure 2 subject experts to volunteer their

expertise to technical review of proposed projects. These reviewers perform the 4YWP review,

the consistency review for the region, as well as the Viable Salmonid Populations section of the

2016 PSAR Large Capital review (other aspects of the PSAR large capital project application were

reviewed by Vital Sign leads and Partnership staff ). This team of reviewers evaluated each

planning area’s 2016 project list with the watershed’s 4YWP update, monitoring & adaptive

management frameworks, and the recovery plan for the WRIA/recovery planning area. In places

where the proposed project was not focused on listed Chinook but instead was focused on

actions to benefit other salmon populations important for treaty rights, the reviewers consulted

other recovery strategy documents that that lead entity was using to identify the proposed

project.

Review of watersheds’ 2016 project lists was completed in September. Detailed feedback was

provided to lead entity/recovery plan groups for reference at that time. Those reviews can be

reviewed here.

Reviews for 2017 included a preliminary review (seen here) and a final review (see “4 Year Work

Plan Consistency Reviews” below). In order to reduce process and costs associated with running

a grant round, two watersheds, NOPLE and WRIA 10/12, did not submit new projects as part of

their 4YWP for 2017 and therefore did not receive any additional review.

The Partnership made improvements to the review process for 2017 in order to reduce the

possibility of Projects of Concern and to ensure a more thorough review of fit to strategy. An

early review of projects was conducted in June 2017 during the SRFB Technical Review and

comments were provided to the lead entity and project sponsor for consideration and

incorporation into the final project proposal. Any early project concerns were flagged for the

Partnership to initiate a conversation with the lead entity and project sponsor. A second review

was completed following the final list submission in August. Based on the reviews provided by

the PSSSRT, the Partnership supports the watersheds’ 2017 project lists and is advancing all

projects for final consideration by the SRFB.

https://pspwa.box.com/s/jfsbcu2ocz9re1v1num3ueqdbw3zi2xd

https://pspwa.box.com/s/vwd4s5lb6blipqxcsvgvgwsvkfr8by7f




What criteria were used for the regional technical review?

Four-Year Work Program Update Review Questions

1. Are projects and activities appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan, a

tribal treaty rights population and/or 4YWP narrative? Please note that projects benefiting

species of tribal importance are permitted to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding even if they are not

ESA listed. Lead Entities should submit letters from the tribes if there is not a documented

strategy associated with the population.

2. Does the watershed have a clear sense of priorities among salmon populations, including

listed populations and populations important for treaty rights? Do the strategies and actions

chosen reflect those priorities?

3. How strong is the scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this chapter? Would

you recommend other or more scientific modeling or analysis tools to strengthen the basis for

the hypotheses that inform the chosen strategies and actions?

4. Are there gaps in strategies or actions that the watershed should consider filling in future

revisions?

5. In reviewing the gaps/needs/barriers section, are there places where the region should assist

in providing additional technical support or guidance to help the watershed strengthen its

chapter in the future?

6. How clear and specific are the goals for the populations and habitat in this chapter? What

additional work do you recommend to make them more clear and specific?

7. In reviewing the gaps/needs/barriers section as well as the existing goals and strategies, what

are the major technical gaps and challenges the watershed is likely to experience in adaptive

management of their recovery chapter? Do you have recommendations on potential solutions

to overcoming these challenges? What regional technical support do you anticipate is needed

for this watershed to succeed with updating or adaptively managing their chapter?

Who completed the review (name, affiliation, and expertise) and are they part of the

regional organization or independent? Each of the reviewers is an independent contractor or

volunteer and is not affiliated with the regional organization.

Name Affiliation Expertise Area(s) of review

Greg Blair ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. Fish biologist WRIA 9

WRIA 10/12

Nisqually




Jose Carrasquerro Herrera Environmental Fisheries and

Marine Biologist

San Juans

Island

WRIA 13/14 (South Sound)

Philip Roni Cramer Fish Sciences Senior fish

scientist

WRIA 8

Skokomish

Mid Hood Canal Ray Timm Cramer Fish Sciences Senior fish

scientist

Sherrie Duncan Sky Environmental LLC Fish Biologist /

Restoration

Ecologist

Stillaguamish

Snohomish

West Sound

Ed Conner Seattle City Light Aquatic ecologist Skagit

Robert R.

Fuerstenberg

Retired (WDFW) Ecologist Nooksack/WRIA 1,

Dungeness/Elwha/WRIA 19

Were there any projects submitted to the SRFB that the regional implementation or

Habitat Work Schedule did not specifically identify?

No projects were submitted that are not part of the regional implementation plan or that are

not in the habitat work schedule or captured in requested project additions from the recent

4YWP update.

What criteria were used for the regional technical review?

Provides benefit to high priority stocks for the purpose of salmon recovery or

sustainability?

As noted above, the regional review process focused on reviewing the 2017 project list

for consistency with the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan (regional and local

chapters) in addition to strategies for listed Puget Sound steelhead and non-listed

species important to the exercise of Tribal treaty rights, the area’s Phase I Monitoring

and Adaptive Management frameworks, and the watershed 4YWP(from 2016 and any

addition projects captured for this year). The focus on the recovery plan at both the

regional and local scale emphasized the importance of high priority stocks per the

recovery plan and local recovery strategies. Project consistency reviews for each salmon

recovery lead entity’s proposed project list are within this report.

Addresses cost-effectiveness?

As noted above, the region decided on an allocation per lead entity for SRFB funds to

ensure the most effective use of SRFB funds for ecosystem restoration and species

delisting. Each lead entity/watershed ran a process to identify projects that met their

allocation. In cases where the full allocation was not met, strategic transfers were




arranged to allow for areas with project lists greater than their allocation to arrange a

transfer of funds with another area. These transfers are arranged outside the authority of

the Partnership and RCO, but are supported because they capitalize on the flexibility of

the funding sources and the year to year needs of each areas. The region relies on the

local project solicitation, review, and ranking process to produce projects that are ready

to go and will provide the highest benefit to salmon within the limits of each watersheds’

specified allocation.

The remaining criteria are addressed within the 2017 4 year work plans.

Provides benefit to listed and non-listed fish species? Projects on the regional

lists show the primary fish stock benefitted under column P in the 4YWP, as well as

column Q showing other species benefitting from the project.

Preserves high quality habitat? Projects on the regional lists show the preservation

of high quality habitat under column K and L in the 4YWP.

Implements a high priority project or action in a region or watershed salmon

recovery plan? All projects are identified as a high priority in the referenced plan.

4YWPs can be seen here: https://pspwa.box.com/v/PSP4YWP2017

The remaining criteria are addressed within the project applications available on

PRISM online.

Provides for match above the minimum requirement percentage (also seen

below in project list).

Sponsored by an organization with a successful record of project

implementation (question #25 in overall project application [“Describe the sponsors

experience managing this type of project”]).

https://pspwa.box.com/v/PSP4YWP2017




Local Review Processes

The tables on the following pages summarize the technical and citizen review processes for each

of the 15 Puget Sound lead entities and how the SRFB Review Panel was used in the local

process. The table also summarizes how the 4YWP was used and how comments were

addressed in finalizing the project list.

Table 4. Local Review Processes.

WRIA 1 WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The Project Review Sheet and priority strategies for reaches in the Nooksack River Forks,

which are the geographic priorities for listed Chinook populations, are unchanged from

2016. (Attachment A - Ranking Session Documents).

Also included in Attachment A is a table of WRIA 1 habitat indicators that was prepared and

agreed to for the 2015 grant process and has continued to be used in 2016 and 2017. The

habitat indicators are used by sponsors and reviewers as part of the local review process.

The Project Review Sheet is designed to reflect the local strategy for salmon recovery funds.

This means that project proposals must be in priority geographic areas for early Chinook

(North, Middle, and South Forks of the Nooksack River), and the project must address Tier 1

or Tier 2 strategies as identified in the Project Development Matrices (included in

Attachment A). If a project does not address a Tier 1 or Tier 2 strategy, the project proponent

needs to provide the rationale for the project strategy and include supporting technical

information that supports their explanation.

The Project Review Sheet categories on which project proposals are evaluated include

“Magnitude of Benefit”, “Certainty of Benefit”, “Timing”, and “Project Sequencing”. The

project sponsors have questions that they respond to on the Project Review Sheet that

correspond directly to the evaluation question that the WRIA 1 Combined Review Team

(CRT) members use for ranking projects.

The WRIA 1 Combined Review Team (CRT), which is a combined review team of technical

and community reviewers, uses the Project Review Sheet, Project Development Matrices,

WRIA 1 habitat indicators table, and other technical documents including the WRIA 1

Salmonid Recovery Plan and habitat assessments for the Nooksack River Forks when

reviewing the project proposals. Since the WRIA 1 CRT ranks as a single team that operate by

consensus there are not separate team rankings to reconcile.

The review process for the technical review team members began in March with review of

the restoration strategies for each of the reaches in the Nooksack River Forks (North, Middle

and South). Invited participants, in addition to the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Staff Team,

included technical reviewers, technical staff of organizations, and project sponsors. No new

data was presented that would result in changes to the Tier structure of the restoration

strategies.

Project presentations and site visits were scheduled and conducted on June 8th. The full

WRIA 1 CRT participates with the SRFB Review Panel members in the site visits. Both the

WRIA 1 CRT and the SRFB Review Panel members receive the draft applications three weeks

prior to the site visits as required in Manual 18.





Early review comments from the SRFB Review Panel members that attend the site visits are

distributed to the full WRIA 1 CRT when they are distributed to the sponsors. CRT members

are also invited to submit any questions or feedback to sponsors after the site visits if they

have follow up questions or observations.

Sponsors were scheduled to present their final application proposals on July 10 to the

technical members of the WRIA 1 CRT. The community members of the CRT were invited to

attend and all but two attended.

Final applications were due on July 13. As part of the final application, sponsors also are

required through the LE process to complete their portion of the Project Review Sheet and

to prepare a “memo of change” that identified the changes they made to the proposal since

the May draft as an outcome of the June 8 site visits and July 10 presentations. The final

application materials were distributed to the full WRIA 1 CRT within two days of being

completed in PRISM by the project sponsors.

Technical reviewers met July 18 to discuss and evaluate the project objectives; comments

from the technical reviewers were added to the evaluation forms that included sponsors

responses and submitted to the full WRIA 1 CRT in advance of the July 25 ranking session.

As part of the ranking process, the CRT members are asked to pre-rank the projects and

email their pre-rankings to the Lead Entity Coordinator the evening prior to the ranking

session. The Coordinator compiles the pre-rankings as a starting point for discussion at the

ranking session. A simple mathematical computation is applied to the pre-rankings to

establish a composite ranked order (The sum of the individual rankings is subtracted from

100 to provide a numerical value.). Table 1 is a composite of pre-rankings received in

advance of the meeting.

Table 1 Composite Pre-Ranking of WRIA 1 Projects

Rank Project Name Sum of Ranks Value

1 North Fork Farmhouse Phase 4 23 77

2 South Fork Cavanaugh Fobes 32 68

3 South Fork Camp 18 41 59

4 Homesteader Reach 56 44

5 Middle Fork Porter Reach 58 42

The WRIA 1 CRT reviewed the composite of the preliminary rankings and discussed the

different projects and some of the considerations that went into their ranking. A summary of

the discussion points is as follows:

North Fork Farmhouse Phase 4: The project will develop the final design for the final phase of the reach scale project. It is implementing Tier 1 strategies and complements the previous work in the reach.

South Fork Upper Cavanaugh-Fobes: The project is implementing Tier 1 actions. Supports other restoration efforts in the area. Important for providing habitat for anticipated brood stock from the Skookum hatchery.

South Fork Camp 18: The project is primarily implementing Tier 2 actions. The project is a logical progression in the reach scale restoration. Project is important for providing habitat in anticipation of returns from the brood stock.





South Fork Homesteader Reach: Good project; just not as timely as the others Great potential as a demonstration project for integration of fish and farm interests; may result in more landowners supporting projects.

Middle Fork Porter Creek Reach There is uncertainty associated with the alluvial fan component of the project. No concerns with the right bank component. Continuation of prior phased work.

After discussing the project proposals, some CRT members adjusted their ranking and the new composite reviewed (table 2). While the re-ranking by some of the CRT members changed some of the values, the overall ranked order did not change.

Table 2.

Rank Project Name Sum of Ranks Value

1 North Fork Farmhouse Phase 4 27 73

2 South Fork Cavanaugh Fobes 29 71

3 South Fork Camp 18 48 52

4 Homesteader Reach 57 43

5 Middle Fork Porter Reach 65 35

The CRT then discussed that potential funding available for the grant round would partially

fund the third ranked project – South Fork Camp 18. The question was posed as to whether

the 4th and 5th ranked projects should be listed as alternates in the event funds became

available to fund alternates. The CRT discussed the Middle Fork Porter Reach project and

indicated that with adjustments to the proposal that would eliminate or modify the

component of the project that involved the alluvial fan, the project should be included as an

alternate. There was further discussion that if the Porter Reach project included the

modifications, it would rank higher than the Homesteader Reach proposal.

The sponsor for the Middle Fork Porter Reach project indicated agreement with the

condition the CRT was recommending be placed on the proposal (i.e., remove or modify the

alluvial fan element of the proposal). With that agreement, the final ranking the CRT

recommended to the WRIA 1 Management Team (Lead Entity), was modified as shown in

Table 3.

Table 3.

Rank Project Name Sponsor

1 North Fork Farmhouse Phase 4 Nooksack Tribe

2 South Fork Cavanaugh Fobes Lummi Nation

3 South Fork Camp 18 Lummi Nation

4 Middle Fork Porter Reach Lummi Nation

5 Homesteader Reach Nooksack Tribe





Technical Advisory

Group

The membership roster of the WRIA 1 Combined Review Team is provided below Since the

WRIA 1 Combined Review Team is a combined team of technical and community reviewers

that rank projects as a single team, Table 4 includes both categories of reviewers.

Table 4

Table 4 WRIA 1 Combined Review Team Roster- 2017 Technical Members

Alan Chapman Lummi Nation Natural Resources Fisheries

Ned Currence Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources

Fisheries

Leif Embertson Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Assn.

River Systems/Restoration Engineer

Andy Ross Salix Environmental Habitat/Hydrology

Jeremy Gilman U.S. Forest Service Fisheries

Jim Helfield Western Washington University Aquatic/Riparian Systems

Joel Ingram Washington Fish and Wildlife Dept.

Fisheries/Permitting

Bill House Washington Natural Resources Dept.

Aquatic Resources/Permitting

John Thompson Whatcom Co. Public Works Geomorphology

Community Members

Analiese Burns City of Bellingham Wetlands

Dave Beatty Citizen RFEG; habitat

Rich Bowers Whatcom Land Trust Land Acquisition

Pete Granger Citizen Commercial fishing interest

Jim Hansen Marine Resources Committee Former Restoration Grant Manager

Scott Hulse Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee

Engineering

Chris Johnson Citizen Sport fishing interest

Greg Young City of Ferndale/Small Cities Rep. Administration

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two members of the SRFB Review Panel (Jennifer O’Neil and Kelly Jorgensen) participated in

our process for the 2017grant round as follows: (1) review of draft applications for

restoration and design capital projects 2) attendance at the site visits and in-room

presentations on June 8th, and (3) provide comments and feedback to individual sponsors

using the standardized review panel comment forms. Project sponsors answered questions

and received feedback during the site visits and in the early review comments provided by

the SRFB Review Panel members after the site visits.

Use of

Implementation

Plans or Habitat

Work Schedule

The solicitation for project proposals states the proposed projects must be consistent with

the local priorities for salmon recovery, which are the early Chinook populations in the

geographic priority areas of the North, Middle, and South Forks. The technical basis for the

local priorities are the habitat assessments and associated restoration strategies, the Project

Development Matrices that shows priorities strategies by reach, the WRIA 1 Salmonid

Recovery Plan and the WRIA 1 4-Year Project Plan. The assessments and work plan are multi-

year restoration strategies that build on each other to identify the local priorities. In addition,

consistent with the local strategy of sequencing and phasing restoration projects, the Letter

of Intent form solicits information from potential sponsors on status of proposed projects

and anticipated future phases. This multiple layer approach provides a consistency check for

ensuring that all applications submitted are consistent with local priorities. All of the





proposed projects are entered into HWS as part of the application process and are made

public once they are officially submitted to RCO.

How Comments

Addressed

In addition to the discussions and revisions outlined under 4a, the Combined Review Team’s

final ranked project list was forwarded to the WRIA 1 Management Team with conditions as

listed below, in addition to recognizing that project applications cannot be submitted

without attached signed landowner acknowledgement forms:

a. South Fork Camp 18 restoration project sponsor demonstrates there is full funding to

implement the project by the contracting date outlined in RCO Manual 18 (approximately 6

months after SRFB funding decision in early December 2017).

The explanation is that fully funding the South Fork Camp 18 restoration project requires the

sponsor obtaining additional outside funding to complete the project because there are

insufficient funds, as ranked, for the full grant request. Since the project is not scalable,

additional funding sources will be required. The project sponsor should show the unfunded

grant request portion of the budget as local match in the application. The sponsor will seek

additional funding prior to the project being implemented and will demonstrate to the WRIA

1 Lead Entity and RCO that funding has been obtained prior to contracting with the RCO.

The rationale behind the recommended condition is that if the project proposal is funded by

the SRFB and a contract negotiated prior to the additional funding being sought and

acquired, there is less opportunity to move the funds to another priority ranked project if the

additional funding cannot be secured.

b. Modify the Middle Fork Porter Reach proposal to retain the east (right bank) channel

restoration work as described in the proposal and remove the alluvial fan component of the

application as proposed. The CRT discussed two options the sponsor might consider for the

Porter alluvial fan component: (1) remove this element entirely from the proposal, or, (2)

modify the proposal to only include removing a section of the right bank berm on Porter

Creek downstream of the Mosquito Lake Road Bridge to reduce the channel constraint, allow

for passive restoration fan habitat functions, and provide an open route for an avulsion that

would allow Porter Creek to reoccupy its former channel. Prior to moving forward with

implementation, the sponsor should meet with the Salmon Staff Team and Combined

Review Team members to review the design. The reason for the recommended modification

is the technical uncertainty associated with restoration work on and active alluvial fan and

low benefit to Chinook of the fan restoration element as proposed.

The final ranked list recommended by the CRT with the conditions above was approved by

the WRIA 1 Management Team on August 2nd to forward as the WRIA 1 Lead Entity

recommended habitat project list. There was some discussion at that meeting as to whether

the landowner acknowledgement form would be available to submit with the final

application on August 10th. The project sponsor notified the lead entity on August 9th that

the landowner is not ready at this time to sign the landowner acknowledgement form and as

a result, the proposal has been withdrawn from the 2017 grant round. The final project

ranking, therefore, will be submitted as shown in Table 5; the ranked order does not change.

The outcome of the withdrawal is that the Middle Fork Porter Reach, as recommended with

modifications, is in the position of receiving partial funding and South Fork Homesteader

Reach remains as an alternate.

# Project Sponsor Project

Type

Grant

Request

Funding Source

SRFB

2017

SRFB

2017

SRFB

2017

1 North Fork

Farmhouse

Ph 4

Nooksack

Tribe

Design $120,430 $120,430





2 South Fork

Cavanaugh-

Fobes

Lummi

Nation

Design $101,709 $44,055 $57,654

3 Middle Fork

Porter Reach

Lummi

Nation

Restoration $460,858 $353,034 $29,405

Potential funding available $517,519 $57,654 $29,405

WRIA 2 San Juan County Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The “Pulling It All Together” (PIAT) project analyzed the data and assessments which

have been completed in the San Juans to date and the results are being used to target

restoration and protection actions in nearshore priority areas.

In priority order the actions from the WRIA2 recovery plan are:

1. Protection Projects – includes acquisition and easements informed by the

“Pulling It All Together” project, data sharing, stewardship, incentives and

education;

2. Restoration Projects – based on habitat assessments and “Pulling It All

Together” project analysis;

3. Assessment Projects – includes monitoring, filling data gaps, and conducting

research that will in turn support protection and restoration efforts.

Project proponents will need to document how the proposal relates to the priority areas

that have been identified from the PIAT nearshore project analysis.

Preliminary Application Process

A preliminary application should be as complete as possible. The application

process starts with finalizing the project information in the Habitat Work Schedule

(HWS) http://hws.ekosystem.us/ . Before you start in HWS, you’ll need the following:

HWS user name and password (If you need a username, please contact your

Lead Entity Coordinator)

HWS project name (50 characters or less)

HWS ID number, HWS project summary, application amount, PRISM Project

Type (Acquisition, Planning, etc.), Primary Project Sponsor

PRISM user name and password

Additional information on setting up a project in HWS is found at the end of this

document, called “How to Start a SRFB application in HWS.”

Preliminary Application Evaluation Criteria

During the preliminary application review process, the local Salmon Technical Advisory

Group (TAG) will provide feedback regarding questions and/or recommendations on

how the proposals could be enhanced. Scoring is based on Red, Yellow or Green.

This is the guidance used for Red, Yellow, Green scoring:

Red = Not Recommend

Proposal does not fit the local salmon recovery strategy and/or issues cannot be

addressed during timeframe for the funding round. Proposal may not be eligible to

move forward and be submitted for SRFB funding.






Yellow = Recommend with changes

Questions, feedback, comments and recommendations are provided to project

proponent to clarify, enhance or improve proposal. Proposal could move to green

once questions/issues are addressed.

Moving from Yellow to Green is via TAG consensus.

Green = Recommend

Proposal is acceptable and is eligible to be submitted for SRFB funding. Additional

comments are noted to suggest enhancements or improvements for the proposal.

Final Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Proposals should be complete, succinct and clear. Sponsors should document assertions

when necessary. Reviewers will not give the benefit of the doubt to incomplete or vague

applications.

Total project evaluation scores will be comprised as follows: Benefit to Salmon - 45%, Fit

to Plan/Strategy - 40%, and Socioeconomic Impacts - 15%. The local Salmon Technical

Advisory Group (TAG) will also evaluate projects based on Certainty of Success which will

be categorized by Red, Yellow or Green.

When scoring projects, rank each project from 1-10 under each category (Benefit to

Salmon, Fit to Plan/Strategy, and Socioeconomic Impacts). TAG and CAG members

should use only whole numbers in scoring projects; please do not use decimals or

fractions. Overall score will be determined by multiplying the score for each category by

its weight and adding to obtain the final score. For example, a score of 8 for Benefit to

Salmon, 8 for Fit to Plan/Strategy and 6 for Socioeconomic Impacts would have a final

score as follows: 8(0.45) + 8(0.40) + 6(0.15) = 7.7.

TAG members are encouraged to ask questions regarding projects and information

should be shared between reviewers.

Certainty of Success (Red, Yellow, Green) – Scored by TAG

Certainty of Success will be evaluated based on sponsor documentation that establishes

the project intent regarding:

Technical Feasibility, Methodology, Achievability - Accomplish the objectives

within the stated period of time given the requested resources and available

matching funds.

Requires limited maintenance, works with natural ecosystem processes, is self-

sustaining, considers project in context of the watershed, and considers water

availability and water quality issues, uses materials appropriate in scale and

complexity to efficiently accomplish the work.

Documented landowner cooperation/approval, permitting processes and

requirements adequately addressed.

Pursues the most cost effective alternative to achieve desired outcome.

Makes effective use of matching funds.

Supporting documentation of all project partners and what match each partner

may be providing.

Endorsements or statements of cooperation from agencies or other entities on

whom the project depends.





How could the project be impacted by climate change, for example ocean

acidification and/or sea level rise? What is long term benefit to salmon with

changing climate?

o Please reference the maps from the Pulling It All Together project

which show areas for high and medium resiliency to Sea Level Rise in

the San Juans. This information is shown on Figures 19 and 20 in the

Pulling It All Together report.

o If your site is not in a resilient area depicted on the maps, please

discuss how sea level rise has been considered in the project’s design

and long term effectiveness.

Certainty Of Success Scoring will be based on:

Red = Not Recommend

Proposal issues cannot be addressed during timeframe for the funding round.

Proposal is not eligible and may not be submitted for SRFB funding. However, the

TAG should still score the proposal as much as possible on the additional criteria so

that the CAG has information for them to make any final decisions, if needed,

regarding which proposals may advance for SRFB funding.

Yellow = No TAG Consensus

The TAG was unable to come to consensus regarding the proposal. The CAG will

make the final decision regarding whether the proposal may advance for SRFB

funding.

Green = Recommend

Proposal is acceptable and/or issues have been resolved. Proposal is eligible to be

submitted for SRFB funding.

Benefit to Salmon (45 %) – Scored by TAG

Preference will be given to projects that are Chinook focused and address factors

affecting Chinook.

In general, projects will be evaluated based on Scientific Merit, Costs vs. Benefits,

Potential of Project to Inform Efforts, etc.

Explain how your proposal will benefit salmon such as improving or maintaining

Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Parameters:

o Abundance

o Productivity

o Spatial Structure

o Diversity

Explain by what mechanisms benefit will be achieved.

Explain what methods will be used.

For Protection and Restoration Projects: Show that project will benefit a

particular life history phase, stock of salmon, habitat type and/or salmon prey

species.

For Protection and Restoration Projects: Explain synergies, how builds on

previous habitat projects on site or nearby.

For Assessment Projects: Identify the gap the assessment is addressing. Show

how the results of the assessment will be used to inform and support the local

work plan.





For Assessment Projects: Demonstrate collection of data is consistent with

current protocols, including statistical precision criteria, where applicable.

Benefit To Salmon Scoring: Total possible score = 10. Weight = 45%

Fit to Plan/Strategy (40 %) – Scored by TAG

Fit will be evaluated based on how well the proposed project fits the local strategy and

the PIAT project nearshore priority areas noted in Appendix A. The project should be

documented in the 3 year work plan and should be in the Habitat Work Schedule (HWS)

http://hws.ekosystem.us/.

Priority will be given to high quality nearshore projects located within a Priority Salmon

Recovery Region. Fit will also be evaluated on the overall priorities of 1) Protection, 2)

Restoration and 3) Assessments.

Step 1 – First, discuss how the proposal fits the Priority Salmon Recovery

Regions – see Appendix A (same as Figure 8 in the Pulling It All Together

report.) Provide map showing project location in Priority Salmon Recovery

Region. IMPORTANT NOTE: The mapped project in HWS will also show

whether the project is located in a salmon recovery priority area. The priority

areas such as San Juan Fish Use Region, San Juan Pulling It All Together, and/or

San Juan Sea Level Rise will be listed as applicable under the map picture in

HWS.

o If the proposed project is not in a Priority Salmon Recovery Region

explain how your project fits the local strategy.

Step 2 – Discuss the action that is being addressed, i.e. protection or

restoration, and how that action reflects the results of the Pulling It All Together

project. Use resources, maps and narrative from the Pulling It All Together

project report such as priority fish use regions, priority shore types, etc. to

define clearly how your project aligns with salmon recovery strategies in San

Juan County. A recommended approach to discuss the proposed project would

be provide information regarding how the proposed action addresses the

various components, as applicable, of the Pulling It All Together project:

o Fish Use factors (Pulling It All Together report Figures 4-8)

o Riparian Vegetation opportunities (Pulling It All Together report

Figure 9)

o Shoreform priority (Pulling It All Together report Figures 7, 11-14)

o Process degradation (Pulling It All Together report Figure 10)

o Protection or Restoration priority (Pulling It All Together report Figures

19-20)

o Sea Level Rise resiliency (Pulling It All Together report Figures 19 - 20)

Fit To Plan/Strategy Scoring: Total possible score = 10. Weight = 40%

Socioeconomic Impacts (15 %) – Scored by CAG

(Note: Even though this category is scored by the CAG, any input from the TAG is

welcome.)

Socioeconomic Impacts will be evaluated based on sponsor documentation that

establishes the project intent to:

Build community support in terms of volunteer contributors and/or local partners;

enhance community education and outreach about the watershed.

Synergistic Activity - Complements, enhances, provides synergy with existing

programs.






Produce secondary community benefits such as increased public safety, decreased

risk of property damage, or improvements to physical infrastructure.

Sustainable disposal plan – how is any de-construction waste reused, recycled or

otherwise disposed of?

Socioeconomic Impacts Scoring: Total possible score = 10. Weight = 15%

Technical Advisory

Group

Alan Chapman – ESA Technical Coordinator, Lummi Natural Resources

Ray Glaze – Senior Software Developer, Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

Gene Helfman, Emeritus Professor, Odum School of Ecology, University of

Georgia

Judy Meyer - Research Professor Emeritus, Odum School of Ecology, University

of Georgia

Mindy Rowse – Research Fishery Biologist, NOAA

Kimbal Sundberg - Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(retired)

Linda Lyshall – Executive Director, San Juan Islands Conservation District

Doug Thompson – Area Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish &

Wildlife

Tina Whitman – Science Director, Friends of the San Juans

Todd Zackey – Fisheries Biologist, Tulalip Tribes

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

The Review Panel, Paul Schlenger and Tom Slocum, came to the Project Presentation and

Field Trip (May 3, 2017). Their formal project comments are dated May 25, 2017. The

Review Panel only reviewed the Mud Bay, Sucia Island proposal. Since the sand lance

proposal is for monitoring, the monitoring panel has not yet formally reviewed it.

Several members did informally review it last spring and thought it met their criteria to

be reviewed for funding. The PSEMP-salmon committee also looked at the monitoring

proposal and said it met the Regional criteria for monitoring and that they supported the

proposal with the conditions outlined by the TAG. The Monitoring Panel’s formal review

will be in early September.

Use of Implementation

Plans or Habitat Work

Schedule

We do not use HWS for design of our implementation plan. It is not well-suited to this

task since it lacks geo-spatial analysis capabilities. And even if it did have geo-spatial

features, we would use other programs that are specifically designed for this use. HWS is

used locally as a public front-end to describe current and proposed projects.

Our implementation strategy was first developed by consolidating a number of research

projects in the San Juans over the past 10 years, called the Pulling It All Together (PIAT,

2012) plan. PIAT is a rich geospatial database with many layers of information useful to

salmon recovery. The PIAT plan only focused on the nearshore because the Wild Fish

Conservancy, who had extensively monitored freshwater in SJI, was not ready with their

data.

PIAT identified four broad highest priority areas in the SJI (NW SJI/Henry/Stuart Island; N.

Orcas/Waldron Isl.; E. Blakely and Decatur Isl.; and South Lopez Isl. The PIAT data is

located in a GIS database; only one of my project sponsors had the sophistication to

mine this data.

Starting late last fall, the same key consultants began work on PIAT II, as a more finely

scaled prioritized restoration and protection project lists. We also corrected some

deficiencies in PIAT with more emphasis on herring and sand lance spawning areas, two





important juvenile Chinook forage fishes. The resulting plan (PIAT II, July 2017), has

detailed lists that correspond to our three results chains in the Monitoring and Adaptive

Management Report (2014). In PIAT II, we created prioritized project lists for restoration

in Shoreline Armor, Shoreline Groins, and Tidal Barriers (Marine Shoreline Infrastructure,

MAM), County Roads (Roads and Driveways, MAM), and Acquisition/Easement

(Protection, MAM).

Our project sponsors now have extensive To Do lists to draw from. When they do public

outreach, they can easily see where this project sits on the list and determine whether it

will pass review.

For this year, the Sucia Island project came from the PIAT database, but it would have

scored well and prioritized in PIAT II. The Monitoring proposal considers a key prey for

Chinook, Pacific sand lance. We need more information on PSL to understand how we

can help them in Chinook recovery. We do know they are critically important as a

Chinook food resource in the SJI and across Puget Sound.

We will continue to develop our strategy to meet the Partnership planning requirements;

feeding into an update to the SJC Recovery Plan from 2005.

How Comments

Addressed

The Friends of San Juans Mud Bay, Sucia Island project (17-1143) has broad support.

This is the construction phase, the design was funded Round 16 (15-1288), and a

feasibility study Round 14 (13-1430). This is to remove a road crossing a saltmarsh at

Sucia Island State Park. Several comments involved monitoring the saltmarsh for fish use

before/after removing the road. The Friends has done pre-project monitoring, and they

committed to post project monitoring in their proposal. The second issue surrounded an

isolated-shallow pond in the saltmarsh and whether fish will get stranded there. There is

no intention by the Friends to construct a channel connecting the pond to the tidal

channel, they wish to let the site evolve naturally (it is a State Park).

KWIAHT Early Life History of Pacific Sand Lance (17-1163) monitoring project received

one more look (March 13th) than the average LE project. The reason is this is a very

complicated project, and the TAG needed more time to process and discuss. There is a

recognition of the importance of sand lance to Chinook recovery in marine waters.

KWIAHT is a small non-profit and we wanted to make sure they had the capacity to do

this project (they do with TAG assistance). The TAG also wanted to advise KWIAHT

moving forward to ensure we get useful result from the project. KWIAHT agreed to the

four TAG requirements shown on the first page of this document.

We only know of 9 sand lance spawning beaches in the San Juan Islands, yet the San

Juan Channel rearing sand wave has an estimated 44 million rearing sand lance. In order

to manage this very important forage fish to Chinook, we need more information.

KWIAHT will be working with Salish Sea Marine Survival project biologists.

Date Topic Outcome

2-22-17 TAG Letter of Intent

Review

15 minute interview

with Russel, TAG

needed more info

3-13-17 TAG special internal

meeting to discuss this

proposal

Detailed letter to

KWIAHT with

suggestions for

proposal





5-3-17 Presentation by project

sponsors, including

KWIAHT

Meeting notes

5-15-17 TAG meets to consider

and score KWIAHT

preproposal

Summarized pre-app

TAG comments to

KWIAHT

6-21-17 TAG final review and

score

Scores forwarded to

CAG with TAG

conditions

7-5-17 CAG reviewed project

and voted to

recommend for funding

Agreed with TAG

conditions

July 2017 PSEMP-salmon

reviewed project

Approved project with

TAG conditions.

August 2017 Monitoring Review

Panel will score project

September 8 response

from MP.

WRIA 3 and 4 Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The project evaluation process for 2017 followed the steps presented in the Lead Entity

Program Guide for the Skagit and Samish Watersheds adopted on March 2, 2017 (and

available at www.skagitwatershed.org). The Lead Entity has established technically‐based

criteria to evaluate and score the project proposals. The technical criteria included as

Appendix C in the Lead Entity Guide were updated in 2016 to incorporate a more

discerning assessment of a project’s cost effectiveness and cost containment. The list of

projects produced by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) scores provides the basis

for citizen prioritization.

The Lead Entity Citizen Committee (LECC) uses a qualitative process to arrive at the final

prioritized list for submittal to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The prioritization

process evaluation and ranking criteria are presented in the Lead Entity Guide in

Appendix D. In 2017 the LECC adopted the list in the order presented by the TRC and

the TRC’s funding recommendation. No conditions were amended to this year’s projects.





Technical Advisory

Group

Name Occupation Organization

Alison Studley Executive Director, fish

biologist

Skagit Fisheries

Enhancement Group

Bob Warinner Watershed Steward, fish

biologist

Washington Dept. of Fish

and Wildlife

Chris Vondrasek Watershed Coordinator,

stream ecologist

Skagit Watershed Council

Devin Smith Fish and habitat biologist Skagit River System

Cooperative

Doug Bruland Fish biologist Puget Sound Energy

Erik Andersen P.E., geotechnical engineer Aspect Consulting

Erin Lowery Fish biologist Seattle City Light

Jeff McGowan Salmon habitat specialist Skagit County Water

Resources

Kevin Aitken Fish biologist US Fish and Wildlife

Service

Nick Chambers Fish biologist Trout Unlimited

Pat Stevenson Fish biologist Stillaguamish Tribe

Rick Hartson Fish biologist Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

Micah Wait Director of Conservation,

restoration ecologist

Wild Fish Conservancy

Jeremy Gilman Fish biologist US Forest Service

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two members of the SRFB review panel (Paul Schlenger and Steve Toth) participated in

our process for the 2016 round as follows: (1) review of materials for draft and final

applications; (2) attendance at the project site reviews in May; and (3) comments and

feedback to individual sponsors using the standardized review panel comment forms and

process for both the draft and final applications for early action. Project sponsors

answered questions and received feedback during the site visits and in written form. The

project sponsors addressed feedback in their final PRISM submittals.



Schedule

Project proposals must be either on or consistent with the most recent implementation

plans to be eligible under our RFP. The Skagit Watershed Council accepted grant

applications for projects within the Target Areas that address the priority objectives

described in the Skagit Watershed Council’s Year 2015 Strategic Approach or 2016

Interim Steelhead Strategy with priority given to Tier 1 and 2 projects AND were

consistent with the 2016 4 year work plan. Proposals also needed to be consistent with

the Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan (except early action steelhead projects) and our 1998

Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy as well. One project being forwarded in 2017

was not on the 2016 4 year work plan, specifically the Martin Ranch Road Culvert Fish

Passage project. After careful review, it was deemed by SWC and the Puget Sound

Partnership to be consistent with our relevant strategy documents.

How Comments

Addressed

Project sponsors were required to respond to comments from our TRC and LECC as well

as from the SRFB Review Panel. Final applications present these responses to SWC and

Review Panel technical comments by using the track changes function in MS word and

are attached to the SRFB grant applications in PRISM.

Our technical reviewers met again on June 28 to determine if their comments were

adequately addressed by the project sponsors in their final grant applications. None of

the projects had final comments or issues that would prevent them from moving

forward. There was a detailed and evolving set of conversations about the technical





merits of the Martin Ranch Road Culvert Fish Passage project. The site visit comments

resulted in 1 of 2 culverts being dropped from the final application, which helped

address both fit to strategy questions and cost concerns. It was generally recognized

that this culvert is at the upper end of the current chinook salmon distribution and thus

would have relatively modest benefits, however it is clearly a barrier that would benefit

many other species particularly steelhead and coho salmon, both of which are stocks of

concern to local tribes.

The LECC also reviewed project proposals for responsiveness to early input and

questions outlined in an information sharing meeting July 11. No critical issues came

forward to the final LECC ranking meeting on August 1.

WRIA 5 Stillaguamish River Salmon Recovery Co-Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The project evaluation process for 2017 involves site visits and scoring for technical merit

and community values. There are separate evaluation criteria for both the technical and

community value scoring and ranking process. The local technical review team evaluates

projects based on (1) Areas/Actions, (2) Benefit to Salmon, (3) Scope, Methods, &

Sequence, (4) Certainty of Success, (5) Costs. The guidance from Manual 18 was used to

develop the criteria. The community value review team evaluates projects based on

socio-economic criteria, including (1) Community Support & Outreach, (2) Stakeholder

Partnership, and (3) Project Benefits. The criteria and summary score sheets

(spreadsheets) are attached. We had 2 projects for consideration (with one withdrawal).

The TAG recommended the two ranked lists for funding on June 14th and the SWC

approved the ranked list on June 28th.

Technical Advisory

Group


Kristin Marshall Program Integration

Manager

Snohomish Conservation

District

Frank Leonetti Senior Habitat Specialist Snohomish County

Kevin Lee Program Manager Sound Salmon Solutions

Paul Marczin Area Habitat Biologist Washington Department

of Fish & Wildlife

Mary Lou White Projects Manager/Field

Biologist


Duane Weston Forester WA Farm Forestry

Association

Bill Pierce Farmer Soaring Swallow Farms

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two members of the SRFB review panel (Pat Powers and Paul Schlenger participated in

our processes for the 2017 round as follows: (1) review of draft applications (2)

attendance at the field trips on April 10th to view the project sites, and (3) provide

comments and feedback to the individual sponsor using the standardized SRFB review

panel comment form. Project sponsors answered questions and received feedback

during the site visit and in written form. The project sponsors are to address all state

feedback in their final PRISM submittals.



Schedule

Proposals for restoration, acquisition, planning, and combination projects must be

consistent with the Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan and/or

Stillaguamish Salmon Recovery 4-Year Work Plan. The Project applicant also entered

application information in Habitat Work Schedule (HWS). Monitoring proposals are a

new project type entered into HWS and reviewed for consistency with the Salmon

Recovery Plan.




WRIA 5 Stillaguamish River Salmon Recovery Co-Lead Entity

How Comments

Addressed

Project sponsors were required to respond to comments from our technical review team

and community value review team. The local technical review team considered

comments and any subsequent application revisions when they scored the projects. On

May 18th the review teams met to review the project scores and to formulate a funding

recommendation. The TAG and SWC approved the recommendations for both the early

action and regular round lists.

WRIA 6 Island County Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria One group scored and ranked the projects. The ranking did not differ from the scored order.

The number one project, 17-1063 Nearshore Acquisition Strategy Development, was not

scored but was assessed for consistency with our plan priorities. Our Committee voted by

consensus to apply up to a percentage of our expected allocation for this project and was

detailed in our 2017 RFP for SRFB projects separately from our other non-capital and capital

projects. The remaining 3 projects were scored and ranked. The criteria and guidance is

below:

2017 WRIA 6 SRFB Ranking Criteria

This document supports the WRIA 6 SRFB ranking criteria (Appendix I). This document is

provided to help clarify the criteria and support both the local review committees, as well as

project sponsors. When using the scoring criteria, reviewers should consider this guidance

along with other resources and their own personal technical knowledge to help review

proposals.

Capital Projects (Protection & Restoration) = 162 points possible

Non-Capital Projects (Assessments & Feasibility Studies) = 144 points possible

Design Only Projects = 134 points possible

Section A: Benefit to Salmon

Species/Stock Prioritization

A.1 – What is the primary focus species for the project? (Cumulative -30 points possible)

Reviewers should consider what species will directly benefit from completion of the proposed

actions based on information provided in the proposal and local understanding of habitat use.

Target Score Description

ESA listed species 15

ESA listed species include PS Chinook, bull trout, summer chum, and

steelhead

Forage Fish 10 Pacific herring, Pacific sand lance, surf smelt, and northern anchovy.

Other Salmonid

Species 5

chum, pink, sockeye, and coastal cutthroat trout

A.2 – What Puget Sound stock(s) does the project focus?

See page 8-13 of SRP. Use of new research since adoption of SRP should also be considered. It is

believed that efforts in WRIA 6 will have most benefit for populations in Whidbey Basin rivers given

close proximity.


Whidbey Basin 3

Includes stocks originating from Skagit, Stillaguamish, and

Snohomish basins

South, Central, and

West Puget Sound 2

Includes stocks originating from geographic regions of Central

Sound, South Sound, West Sound, and Hood Canal

Nooksack, Straits 1

Includes stocks originating from Nooksack (Nooksack/Samish) and

Straights (i.e.: Dungeness, Elwha, Hoko, and others)





Ecological Connectivity

A.3 – What geographic area is the project in? (Proximity to Whidbey Basin natal rivers)

See page 24-28 of SRP (map on page 28). These geographic areas are prioritized based on their

landscape context – the distance from the three rivers which terminate into the Whidbey Basin

(Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish). Designations are based on a qualitative assessment of the

number of stocks likely to utilize the shoreline or if the shoreline has been designated a critical

habitat. It should be noted that all three areas are considered important for the recovery of salmon.


Area 1 8

Generally includes sub-basins and shorelines of Deception Pass,

Skagit Bay, and Port Susan. Generally within ~ 5 miles of Skagit,

Stillaguamish, and Snohomish. These areas are believed to be

utilized by the largest number of Chinook fry migrants during their

1st day nearshore migration, and by bull trout for migration between

these three rivers.

Area 2 5

Generally includes sub-basins and shorelines of Saratoga Passage,

Possession Sound, SE Admiralty Inlet (Double Bluff to Possession

Point) and NW Whidbey (Deception Pass to north end of West

Beach).

Area 3 2

Includes sub-basins and shorelines on the west side of Whidbey not

included in Areas 1 or 2. It is believed that this area functions

primarily as migration corridors and for food production for larger

juveniles and returning adults.

A.4 – What is the site’s local landscape context at the completion of the proposed actions?

See page 25 of SRP. Local landscape connectivity focuses on the size and shape of habitat areas and

the connectivity between these areas. This question refers to scale, connectivity, and condition of

habitat. ** If project being proposed is a Non-Capital project (i.e. feasibility or assessment),

score with the full project in mind BUT use the italicized scores only.

Target Capital Non-

Capital

Description

Habitat patches

large and

properly

functioning

15

11

Project results in (or informs decisions related to) large block

of properly functioning habitat; blocks of functioning habitat

close together or contiguous; functioning blocks of different

habitat types preferred to degraded; variety of different

habitats types and serving multiple functions

Habitat patches

fragmented and

some habitat

functions

degraded

10

6

Project will address a site or habitat which is somewhat

isolated or of moderate scale; existing habitat patches

somewhat fragmented and some habitat functions

degraded; moderate local variety of habitat types

Habitat patches

highly

fragmented and

habitat

functions highly

degraded

5

0

Project addresses/informs a site or habitat which is highly

isolated or fragmented. Habitat functions are highly

degraded and completion of project will neither result in nor

inform projects that may result in significantly improved

habitat function; minimal variety of habitat types

Project Type

A.5 – Is the project an assessment, protection, restoration or enhancement project?

This question refers to the type of project and habitat addressed.


Protection or

Assessment of fish

distribution

(11-15) Assessment of fish distribution or Protection (i.e.: acquisition

or conservation easement)

Restoration or

Assessment of

(6-10) Assessment of nearshore processes/functions; restoration of

nearshore processes or function





nearshore processes

/functions

Enhancement or

Assessment of

freshwater processes/

functions

(0-5) Assessment of freshwater processes/functions or freshwater

restoration; nearshore enhancement project

A.6 – What ecosystem process(es) does the project address?

See page 28-30 of SRP. Processes form and shape habitats and are inherently involved in providing

habitat functions.


Nearshore Habitat

Forming Processes

(7-9)

Projects that address physical, habitat forming processes.

Includes hydrological inputs/patterns (i.e.: groundwater and

oceanographic), tidal exchange (tidal circulation and

connectivity), and/or sediment transport and accretion (i.e.: bluff

and river sediments)

Nearshore

Productivity

Processes (4-6)

Projects that address chemical and biological processes the

impact productivity. Includes naturally functioning nutrient

dynamics, food webs, and nearshore productivity. Includes

projects that support or enhance nearshore water quality.

Freshwater Processes

(0-3)

Stream and upland processes that are indirectly related to

nearshore habitats. Includes water flow, erosion/deposition,

channel migration, nutrient transformation and cycling, and

riparian dynamics.

A.7 – What habitat type(s) does the project address?

See page 34 of SRP. Prioritization of habitat types is based on the functions that habitats provide for

salmon and forage fish and hypothesis about how these habitats support the VSP parameters. The

importance of a habitat area can be elevated if it is contiguous with other features such as eelgrass,

kelp, or bordered by marine riparian vegetation and/or upland forest.


Mudflat, marsh,

estuary, accretion

areas (11-15)

Areas provide shelter, refuge, food production, and may

support physiological transition for fry-migrants. For VSP

parameters, refuge and highly productive areas support

productivity (survival) of salmon populations, and support the

abundance and diversity of salmon populations

Sand flat/beach,

sand/gravel beach,

eelgrass/kelp, riparian,

wetland, in-stream

(6-10)

Beaches are often associated with eelgrass beds and

sand/gravel may support forage fish spawning, and juvenile

and adult salmon forage along these shorelines. Coastal

wetlands and in-stream habitat may support refuge and prey.

Large gravel beach,

rock cliffs, man-made

structures, upland

(0-5)

These are generally experience high-energy waves and salmon

migrate through relatively quickly. Areas are generally not

highly productive and do not provide significant shelter.

Section B: CERTAINTY OF SUCCESS

TAG Scores – All Projects

B. 1 – Is this project time sensitive? (Is this action necessary to prevent ecosystem process/

habitat degradation?).

Sponsor should document threats and level of certainty related to development/conversion, or

trajectory of habitat degradation as a result of past impacts to ecosystem processes. Action

necessary to halt ongoing degradation or improve course.


Immediate threat

(within 2 years) 5

Ongoing or immediate threats.





Potential threat

(within 2-5 years) 2

Evidence provided that there are potential threats that could

result in impacts to processes or functions within 2-5 years.

No 0

No threats apparent, or rational describing threat unclearly

stated.

B.2 – When will this project produce results?

This item refers to when the action will be completed (i.e.: restoration, acquisition, or assessment

completed). Consider potential property inholdings, permitting, match, and likeliness of

implementing intermediate phases.


Within 3 years 3

Project will be implemented in < 3 years. No inholdings and any

permitting requirements are achievable; match secured.

Within 6 years 2 Results likely within 3-6 years

Within 10 years 0 It is likely that project will produce result within 10 years.

B.3 – Is the project based on credible science? (Application cites established scientific

references/proven methodologies. Application makes linkages between citations and the

project.)

Proposal should be based on scientific references/research and utilize appropriate methodology;

proposals should clearly site research and describe methodology.


Yes, citations and

clear linkages 2

Practices are well accepted and appropriate; clear citation and

linkages to scientific references.

Citations, but logic

unclear 1

Citation linkages provided but not strong/clear; methods have

been used but results incomplete or mixed; employs unproven

methods with well-developed rationale or design; other methods

may be better fit.

No

0

Application does not cite appropriate reference; proposal

intends to utilize questionable or unclear/unproven methods.

Not appropriate for proposal.

B.4 – Is the project scope appropriate to meet the goals and objectives?


Yes, scope meets all

project goals (4-5)

Scope appropriate to meet clearly described project goals

Scope appropriate to

meet some goals (1-3)

Scope appropriate to meet only some of the goals

Scope not appropriate

to meet goals (0)

Scope not well matched to project goals

B.5 – Project cost compared to the benefit for salmon?

Sponsors may describe project alternatives analysis and rationale on selected course of actions. Cost

associated with not completing taking actions considered.


Low

5

Cost are well controlled and/or clearly substantiated; costs are

low relative to the benefits for project type or location;

assessment or design work likely to result in realistic project with

high benefit to salmon; creative efficiencies or funding

Moderate 3 Cost are reasonable and realistic given comparable;

High 0

Costs are high and/or unsubstantiated; assessment likely to

result in projects with unrealistic costs

B.6 – What level of expertise/experience does the sponsor have in project management/

implementation of this type of project?





Proposals should include descriptions of how sponsor organizations have appropriate experience

implementing projects similar to what is proposed. Proposal should describe which organizations will

support elements of the proposals.


High 2

Sponsor organization has a high level of experience

implementing projects similar in scope and scale to proposal.

Moderate

1

Sponsor organization has some experience implementing

similar projects; scope and/or scale may be different than

proposal.

Low 0

Sponsor organization has low/no experience implementing

similar projects; or experience not documented.

B.7 – What is the level of matching funds? Does Not Apply to Design Only Projects

This question is intended reward proposals which are better able to leverage the very limited

SRFB/PSAR funds. It should be noted that some proposal are not required by the SRFB to have the

15% match (see Manual 18). If sponsors do not provided at least 15% match they may be scored 0.


>60% 10

More than 60% of the project is funded by match (non-

SRFB/PSAR)

>30% 5 30% to 60% of the project is funded by match (non-SRFB/PSAR)

At least 15% 1 15% to 30% of the project is funded by match (non-SRFB/PSAR)

Capital Projects Only

B.8 – CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY - Does the project include a monitoring and evaluation plan?

Proposals may include monitoring and evaluation plans to help gauge anticipated habitat benefits, or

level of success in implementing actions. It may be appropriate to describe monitoring metrics and

describe how the implemented project may be evaluated. May not be applicable to all project types.


Detailed with

identified funding

4

Plan, but no funding

identified

3

No 0

B.9 – CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY - What level of maintenance will be required?

Proposals should describe potential maintenance issues, likeness, frequency, costs, and impacts of

not performing maintenance. Identify who will perform. May not be applicable to all project types.


None/Low 5

Moderate 3

High 0

B.10 – CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY - If maintenance is required, has funding been identified?

See descriptions below. May not be applicable to all project types.


Yes 5 Funding secured or budgeted; no maintenance will be needed.

Potential 1 Funding sources identified and possible to receive funding for

this activity.

No 0 No funding likely to be available for maintenance and

maintenance likely.

B.11 – What is the level of community support for the project? (Project sponsors should

provide documentation of support.)





Sponsors should provide documentation related to level of public awareness and support. Review

and reference to the “Salmon Recovery Communication Checklist” is recommended as possible.


High 10 High level of community support is documented from diverse

stakeholders.

Medium 5 Moderate level of community support documented.

Low 0 Minimal community support can be demonstrated, or no

outreach has yet been performed.

B. 12 – Has the project sponsor identified and addressed the potential risks to the

landowner/community?

Protecting property rights from uncompensated “take” as well as protecting against the “take” of

habitat; consideration of potential impacts to neighboring property, uses, and/or environment have

been described and addressed, or proposal includes a plan to identify and address. Review and

reference to the “Salmon Recovery Communication Checklist” is recommended as possible.


All 2

Proposal acknowledges that landowners/community is well

informed of all risks and are supportive of proposal; there are no

known risks and/or stakeholders are very familiar with scope of

project.

Some 1 Proposal acknowledges some potential risks and community is

aware.

No 0

Proposal does not document if and/or how risks have been

communicated to adjacent landowners/community; generally the

proposal does clearly acknowledge potential risk or plan to

identify or address risk nor disseminate.

B. 13 – Has the project sponsor secured written assurance of landowner agreement and

participation, where necessary? (Applicable to protection, restoration, and enhancement

projects)

Proposal should document any agreements with landowners necessary to complete proposal. Note:

additional requirements related to this are described in Manual 18.


All/None Required 2

Documented agreement/willingness provided by all necessary

landowners. Or not necessary. Documentation/evidence provided

that describe how proposal will have authority to move forward.

Some 1

Documentation of landowner agreement/willingness has only been

provided for some properties. Additional landowner support will

need to be obtained prior to full project being implemented.

No 0 Proof of landowner agreement/assurance/participation have not

been provided and are needed for success of proposal.

B.14 – Is volunteer participation included in the proposal for all phases of the project?

Such volunteer activities are important opportunities to engage/educate the community and leverage

resources. Island County includes a talented pool of active volunteer resources thanks to its

attractiveness to live and retire.


All 5 App project phases include volunteer participation.

Some 3 Some project phases all include volunteer participation.

No 0 There are no project phases that include volunteer participation.

B.15 – Are outreach activities included in the proposal for all phases of the project?

Goal #3 of the WRIA 6 Salmon Recovery Plan is to “Engage An Informed Community”. Meaningful

increases in habitat protection and restoration will continue to be limited without broad public





support, engagement, and participation. “Salmon Recovery Communication Checklist” is

recommended as possible.


All 2 Specific outreach activities planned for all phases of proposal as

appropriate.

Some 1 Some outreach activities planned for some phases, although

additional outreach could be considered.

No 0 No outreach activities planned.

Technical Advisory

Group

Organization Name Affiliation Expertise

Citizen Julius Budos Citizen, water

quality

Citizen Tom Vos Citizen science

volunteer

Citizen John Lovie Citizen, policy,

water quality

Natural Resource

Rep

Barbara Brock Sound Water

Stewards

Citizen science

volunteer

Natural Resource

Rep

Dave Thomson MRC Citizen, project

management

Natural Resource

Rep

Rick Baker WWS Education

Natural Resource

Rep

Ryan Elting WCLT Land Trust, land

steward

Local Business Mona Campbell Kristoferson Farms Business owner,

land steward

Local Business Terica Ginther Deception Pass

Tours/commercial

fishing

Business owner

Conservation District

(WICD and Sno

shared)

Matt Zupich/Kristin

Marshall

WICD Education, land

management,

project

management

FEG Jim Somers SFEG Citizen science

volunteer

Island County Greg Goforth Planning/ CA Critical areas

planner

Island County Nathan

Howard/Meredith

Penny

Planning/Long

Range

Long range

planner

COG Vacant

State/Fed Paul Marczin WDFW Biologist

State/Fed Michael Bianchi USN Biologist

Swinomish Tribe Erik Mickelson SRSC Ecologist

Stillaguamish Jason

Griffith/Francesca

Perez

biologist

Tulalip Todd Zackey Ecologist,

geography,

monitoring

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

The SRFB Review Panel (Kelly Jorgensen and Pat Powers) visited 3 sites for specific projects

and heard a presentation by the sponsor about a project that was not site specific. The panel





provided great feedback and suggestions during those visits. They also later summarized

those comments or concerns on the official comment forms, which were forwarded to the

lead entity by the RCO grant manager. The lead entity coordinator forwarded the comment

forms to the respective sponsors and to SRTCC members. Sponsors finalized their

applications in response to the Review Panel and local reviewer’s questions and comments.

Use of

Implementation

Plans or Habitat

Work Schedule

Neither our 4 year work plan nor HWS were used to develop the project list that was scored

and ranked. The projects submitted are entered into those tools to track progress. But

information flows from the proposals to the 4 yr. workplan and to HWS, not from them.

We have reviewed our local transportation improvement plan (TIP) and capital investment

plan (CIP) for projects that could be included in our LE long term implementation plan and if

there are any projects in the near future that could benefit from, or be partnered with,

salmon recovery (or LIO) funding. None of our 2017 projects came from these lists, however.

They were submitted by their sponsors independently.

How Comments

Addressed

Comments from the SRFB RP, and the sponsor’s responses/resolutions, were summarized in

a table for the Committee. The table is below.

Project Name Comments Received New Proposal/Change

17-1062

Ducken

Acquisition

“It is unclear if/what commercial

shellfish production would have on

salmon. But because of the

importance of Dugualla Bay estuary

for Skagit juvenile salmon, a high level

of protection is warranted and the

Panel is supportive of protection

efforts”

No changes necessary.

17-1063

Acquisition

Framework

Would be strengthened by including

specific landowner outreach task and

budget

This is a prioritization

framework and will support

any outreach conducted by

whichever partner uses this

too. There is budgetary

restrictions on this project.

These kinds of tools are helpful to

stakeholders and decision makers,

including review panel, in

understanding where the LE priorities

are and the context and rationale for

go/no-go decisions.

No change necessary.

17-1140

Greenbank

Design

Is the fresh water wetland west of

North Bluff Rd included?

Yes.

What is likelihood of Chinook use of

west area?

Design will provide

backwatering so access is

possible, even with current

culvert. This will be

reevaluated during final

design to seek even more

improvement on passage,

incl. discussing with IC PW a

bigger culvert.

Is a concrete box culvert still an option

for the nearshore opening?

3 options are concrete box

culvert, straight open

channel and curved open





channel with berm are all

options. A natural opening is

preferred. Final design will

include coastal engineering

to determine.

What was the conceptual design

approved by the GBBC?

Was attached to original

app. Open channel and set

back dikes.

Costs for completing preferred

alternative?

$450,000 – $650,000

Species present in freshwater

wetland? Predators, fish, water

quality?

Not much information is

known. Observationally,

there does not appear to be

any bullfrogs or and water

quality appears to be good,

though not measured.

Surely, it’s better than

Tukwila or Edmonds where

other projects have been

conducted.

How will salinity change the current

plant community in the wetland?

Current project includes a

MTR tidegate between the

estuary and wetland and the

current plant community is

expected to change to a

more salt tolerant

community.

Is a 6’ x 20’ culvert big enough to

allow wood transport into marsh?

Not all of it. It would require

maintenance. Preferred

design is open channel,

which would allow wood

transport.

Provide acreage of habitat provided Location

West of North Bluff Road

East of North Bluff Road

Do fish currently access roadside ditch

and will they access through tidegate?

There is a not much

information on current fish

use of lagoon. Current design

would prevent access to

roadside ditch.

Added $15000 to budget to

pay for supplemental

hydraulic modeling

17-1064

Sunlight

Shores

Review Panel wanted more

justification of armor removal in this

particular area and its benefit to

Sponsor added language

with further explanation to

benefit of pocket estuary and





salmon. They support removal of

armor but usually where it restores

processes (i.e. removed from feeder

bluffs). They liked the strong

community support

intact habitat even in low

energy systems like this.

Added language from Jim

Johannessen and Hugh

Shipman about the spit and

site.

WRIA 7 Snohomish Basin Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria Our evaluation criteria are divided into two types: Benefit to Salmon Criteria which score

projects based on their technical merit and fit to our salmon plan recommendations and

Certainty of Success Criteria which consider a project’s readiness, the threat the project

addresses and also takes into account social consideration and constraints. The

combined Benefit to Salmon score is the primary score for ranking projects, with

Certainty of Success providing a secondary screen to flag and potentially lower the rank

of a beneficial salmon project that may benefit from more preparation and public

outreach.

The Local Technical Review Team (below) scored projects in both criteria types

individually and then met to review project scores, discuss and provide

recommendations and feedback to project sponsors, and create a recommended ranked

list. The resulting list and local technical team review scores were reviewed, discussed

and approved by the Policy Development Committee before being presented and

approved by the Forum on August 3rd.

Criteria, comment sheets provided to project sponsors and final scores can be found at

https://app.box.com/s/zgpndxtlbgtjtafxax353s9x2a8504jp.

Technical Advisory

Group


Alex Pittman Habitat Restoration

Specialist

Snohomish Conservation

District

Colin Wahl Environmental Scientist Tulalip Tribes

Mike Rustay Sr Habitat Specialist Snohomish County

Beth leDoux Snoqualmie Technical

Coordinator

King County

Jessica Lange Habitat Restoration

Project Coordinator

Sound Salmon Solutions

Denise Krownbell Senior Environmental

Analyst

Seattle City Light

Jamie Bails Area Habitat Biologist WDFW

Micah Wait Director of Conservation Wild Fish Conservancy

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two members of the SRFB review panel (Kelley Jorgensen and Steve Toth) participated in

our processes for the 2017 round as follows: (1) reviewed draft applications (2) attended

the May 24th site visits to view project sites and meet with project sponsors, and (3)

provided comments and feedback to the individual project sponsors using the

standardized review panel comment form. Project sponsors answered questions and

received feedback during the site visit and in written form. The project sponsors

responded to SRFB technical review panel member feedback in their final PRISM

submittals.




WRIA 7 Snohomish Basin Lead Entity



Schedule

Proposals for restoration, acquisition, planning, and combination projects must be

consistent with the Snohomish Basin Salmon Conservation Plan and be represented on

the Snohomish 4-Year Work Plan. The Project applicant entered application information

in Habitat Work Schedule (HWS). One project (Wallace May) was added to the 4YWP

prior to preproposal submission.

How Comments

Addressed

Project sponsors were encouraged to respond to comments from our local technical

review team prior to the review team making their final scoring recommendations. In

three cases, project sponsors provided additional detail to address local reviewer

concerns and requests for clarification. In one instance, project sponsor was unable to

address local reviewer concerns. Ultimately, the benefit to salmon score was deemed too

low to proceed in the grant round. This decision was supported by both the PDC and

Forum. Project sponsor has been encouraged to work with lead entity staff in the future

to improve project proposal and address concerns expressed by reviewers.

WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Lead Entity

Evaluation

Criteria

The project evaluation for the 2017 grant round followed the same process employed in

previous years. The WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee used the grant review criteria

established in 2012 (and refined annually since that time) to evaluate each project’s

benefit to Chinook and certainty of success, which supported the Subcommittee’s

determination of the degree to which projects align with the conservation strategies and

priorities in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The Project Subcommittee

developed consensus benefit/certainty scores for each project, and the scores and

ranking of projects informed the Project Subcommittee’s discussion and subsequent

development of funding recommendations. The funding recommendations were

reviewed and approved by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council without modification.

The WRIA 8 project review criteria and scoring sheets from this grant round are available

at https://pspwa.box.com/s/plhj92d4e79b759y7ifbqfy5jf16sfgx.

Technical

Advisory Group


Jim Bower Fisheries Ecologist King County

Casey Costello Habitat Biologist WDFW

Brett Gaddis Ecologist Snohomish County

Peter Holte Environmental Planner City of Redmond

Cyndy Holtz Watershed Program

Manager

Seattle Public Utilities

Mark Phillips Councilmember City of Lake Forest Park

Frank Reinart Water Resources Engineer City of Issaquah

Scott Stolnack Ecologist/WRIA 8

Technical Coordinator

WRIA 8

Jason Wilkinson Subcommittee Chair/WRIA

8 Funding Coordinator

WRIA 8

SRFB Review

Panel

Participation

SRFB Review Panel members Steve Toth and Kelley Jorgensen reviewed all WRIA 8 pre-

proposals, participated in project site visits on May 4, and provided written comments

during the post-site visit period that outlined questions or concerns requiring follow-up

prior to the final application deadline. The site visits offered the Review Panel members

the opportunity to hear presentations from project sponsors, to ask questions, and to

provide initial technical feedback. All comments provided by the Review Panel—either

through the initial review comment forms or via other correspondence with project

sponsors—were addressed by the sponsors in their final submitted applications.

https://pspwa.box.com/s/plhj92d4e79b759y7ifbqfy5jf16sfgx




Use of

Implementation

Plans or Habitat

Work Schedule

Developing the final recommended grant round project list began with updating the

WRIA 8 Four-Year Work Plan. To be eligible for SRFB/PSAR funding, projects must be on

the WRIA 8 Four-Year Work Plan. Project sponsors are invited to propose additions to

the Four-Year Work Plan project list by identifying actions in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon

Conservation Plan that experienced a change in either feasibility or timing that warrant

advancing the project onto the Four-Year Work Plan. This notification happened in

September 2016. For the current grant round, both projects submitted for funding

consideration were already on the Four-Year Work Plan, indicating their priority.

Sponsors with projects on the Four-Year Work Plan must submit a notice of intent to

WRIA 8 to apply for grant funding. In this grant round, one other sponsor submitted a

notice of intent to apply but eventually did not submit a grant application due to

readiness issues.

WRIA 8’s Habitat Work Schedule contains all projects listed in the WRIA 8 Plan, and

WRIA 8 updates HWS as warranted, including identifying Four-Year Work Plan projects

as such in HWS. Projects added to the Four-Year Work Plan leading up to the grant

round were updated to reflect this status.

The 2017 grant round, while short on projects in terms of number of applications,

demonstrated a significant funding need. Only due to PSAR returned funds and a

strategic trade last year that boosted our available 2017 SRFB funding were we able to

get close to funding both of these priority projects. In a normal year, using our normal

SRFB allocation, we would have significantly less funding available than the

demonstrated need.

How Comments

Addressed

The WRIA 8 Project Subcommittee reviewed the proposals submitted, scored and ranked

them, and developed prioritized funding recommendations based on the technical

merits of the proposals and the overall readiness to proceed. The Subcommittee

discussed each proposal and documented concerns or areas for improvement. These

comments, along with those in the 2017 SRFB Review Panel Project Comment Forms,

were provided to project sponsors in May.

Neither of the two projects elicited a high degree of scrutiny during the technical or

policy reviews. The Royal Arch Reach Acquisition project is a very straight-forward

acquisition that will protect riparian and floodplain habitat and will contribute to a

substantial future floodplain reconnection project. Both property owners are willing

sellers, and there were no issues surrounding these acquisitions.

The technical review of the Issaquah Creek Instream Restoration Design proposal raised

questions about the types of treatments being contemplated and how those treatments

will address targeted life stages at key times of year. However, given that this project is

only now at the conceptual level and is requesting funding for preliminary design, these

comments are more to ensure the sponsor is advancing the design in the most

thoughtful way possible. A second comment raised about this proposal is to begin

stakeholder outreach early and to follow-up with frequent outreach as the design

proceeds.

The Subcommittee’s final project list and funding recommendations were presented to

and approved by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council on July 20, 2017. The Salmon

Recovery Council raised no significant policy concerns with the Subcommittee’s

recommendations and unanimously supported the projects on WRIA 8’s funding list.




WRIA 9 Green, Duwamish, and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)

Lead Entity

Evaluation

Criteria

WRIA 9 accepted a grant application for this year’s estimated SRFB funding allocation for

the Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal project. This grant request supplements the 2016

PSAR funding, and provides the funds needed to complete the design (including

updated site analyses and multiple property owner negotiations), permitting, and

construction.

The project addresses the highest priority conservation hypothesis from the WRIA 9

Salmon Habitat. Policy MS-1 in the Salmon Habitat Plan states:

The focus of management action implementation efforts in this habitat plan will be on

the following distinct habitats that are limiting viable salmonid populations in WRIA 9:

Duwamish Estuary transition zone habitat;

Middle Green River, Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary, Marine Nearshore

rearing habitat; and

Middle Green and upper Lower Green River spawning habitat.

The Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal project was selected for funding because the

project is located within the Duwamish Transition Zone, has been funded for feasibility

work in prior grant rounds, and will improve fish access to a small tributary and salt

marsh. The project is located directly across from the Duwamish Gardens Shallow Water

Habitat and Chinook Wind restoration projects and within 2500 feet of the North Wind’s

Weir Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation project.

This project will restore approximately 400 lineal feet of privately-owned Duwamish River

bank adjacent to the site. This bank along the Duwamish River is categorized as 'critical'

on the Muckleshoot Tribe's Sun Aspect Map, which identifies the areas along the river

most in need of shade based on solar aspect. These funds will restore more than a half-

acre of additional riparian buffer along Riverton Creek. This project will install a new

pedestrian bridge/culvert for the Green River Trail and structural reinforcement to the

adjacent roadway (Tukwila International Blvd). The creek will provide off-channel rearing

habitat for salmonids, including the ESA listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout,

and compliments other completed projects that provide similar functions.

The review panel and WRIA 9 Technical Advisory Group members provided input to

improve the technical aspects of all projects. The SRFB Review Panel members, Kelley

Jorgensen and Steve Toth, reviewed project applications in PRISM and Steve attended

the project meeting on April 20 with the Technical Advisory Group members and

provided written feedback. The project sponsor, Mike Perfetti from the City of Tukwila,

responded to the questions from the SRFB review panel and addressed their comments

in the final grant application.

The project was recommended for funding by WRIA 9 and presented to the full WRIA 9

Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) for discussion along with the 4-Year

Workplan. Following discussion, the project and funding recommendation was endorsed

by the full ITC at the April 19 ITC meeting. The Technical Advisory Group members, a

sub-committee from the ITC, attended the project review meeting in April and provided

feedback to project sponsors regarding strong points, weak points, follow up questions

and general comments on each project.

Technical

Advisory Group

The members of the Technical Advisory Group included:





WRIA 9 Green, Duwamish, and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)

Lead Entity

Chris Gregersen Fisheries Biologist King County

Kerry Bauman Ecologist King County

Matt Knox Ecologist City of Kent

Kollin Higgins Ecologist King County

SRFB Review

Panel

Participation

The review panel and WRIA 9 Technical Advisory Group members provided input to

improve the technical aspects of all projects. The SRFB Review Panel members, Kelley

Jorgensen and Steve Toth, reviewed project applications in PRISM and Steve attended

the project meeting on April 20 with the Technical Advisory Group members and

provided written feedback. The project sponsor, Mike Perfetti from the City of Tukwila,

responded to the questions from the SRFB review panel and addressed their comments

in the final grant application.

Use of

Implementation

Plans or Habitat

Work Schedule

The WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee developed and adopted a project

prioritization and sequencing methodology in 2009 that was used to evaluate all of the

WRIA 9 priority projects. The highest priority projects from this effort are the focus of

restoration and acquisition efforts. As current projects on the Four-year Workplan are

completed, this prioritized list is being used to select additional projects to add to the

workplan. The WRIA 9 prioritization methodology has been posted on the Habitat Work

Schedule and on the WRIA9 website in order to make it accessible to the SRFB Review

Panel Members, RCO staff, and other interested individuals.

How Comments

Addressed

The Technical Advisory Group comments focused on how the project design or proposal

could be improved and these comments were incorporated by the project sponsors into

the final grant application. The project and funding strategy was presented and

approved at the May 11, 2017 WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF) meeting,

which serves as the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. There were no concerns about the

project and the WEF unanimously approved the project to proceed for funding.

WRIA 10 and

12 Pierce County Lead Entity

Evaluation

Criteria

(WRIA 10/12 did not run a new grant round this year. The 2016 process is documented below)

The TAG scoring criteria and the CAC socio-economic questions remained unchanged from

previous years (other than asking for more detail in the CAC questions). There are separate

evaluation criteria for both the technical and citizens committee scoring and ranking process.

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) evaluates projects based on (1) benefit to salmon, (2)

certainty of success, and (3) “fit to the lead entity strategy.” The guidance from Manual 18 was

used for the benefit to salmon and certainty of success criteria is used during this process. The

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) evaluates projects based on socio-economic criteria,

including (1) public visibility and participation, (2) encouraging cooperative watershed

partnerships, (3) other economic and social benefits, and (4) landowner willingness. The criteria

and point scores are specified in Chapter 8 (Project Ranking Criteria) in the lead entity Salmon

Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy (strategy) at the following link:

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/968

When looking at the TAG and CAC scores separately, the Number 1 ranked project was the

same, but the similarities ended there. This is not surprising since the scoring criteria for each

differs greatly. The following is from the strategy and is meant to prevent a project that is

important according to our strategy from being outranked by a project that does not have as

great of a benefit to fish. “The TAG and CAC scores will be scaled to reflect a contribution to the

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/968




WRIA 10 and


final score of 30% from the CAC and 70% from the TAG. The total score will determine the

projects ranking with the exception that the application of the S/E (socioeconomic or CAC

)scores will affect the project’s ranking only within the benefit category (high, medium, low)

generated by the TAG ranking, and cannot move a project ahead of another project with a

higher benefit rating”.

During this grant round, no project ranked higher than another project with a higher benefit

rating once the CAC and TAG scores were combined.

Technical

Advisory Group Name Occupation Organization Phone

Russ

Ladley

Fish Biologist Puyallup Tribe 253-845-9225

Tyler

Patterson

Fisheries Biologist Tacoma Water 253-502-8654

Tom

Nelson

Environmental/Fisheries

Biologist, TAG Chair

Pierce County

Water Programs

253-798-4645

Mathew

Curtis

Habitat Biologist Washington

Department of

Fish and Wildlife

360-902-2578

Carl Ward Regional Biologist State Dept. of

Transportation

360-570-6706

Martin Fox Fisheries Biologist Muckleshoot

Indian Tribe

253-876-3121

Karen

Chang

Fish Habitat Biologist US Forest

Service

425-888-8758

Sherrie

Duncan

Fish Habitat Biologist Citizen 253.255.8634

Stephanie

Shelton

Senior Ecologist King County 206- 477-3158

SRFB Review

Panel

Participation

One member of the SRFB review panel (Michelle Cramer) participated in our process for the

2016 round as follows: (1) reviewed of draft applications for the projects (2) attended the site

visits to view the project sites, and (3) provided comments and feedback to individual sponsors

using the standardized review panel comment forms. Project sponsors answered questions and

received feedback during the site visits and in written form.

Use of

Implementatio

n Plans or

Habitat Work

Schedule

Typically the project sponsors in the watershed are aware of the goals in our local Salmon

Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy. When we announce the grant round for the

SRFB/PSAR and when we send out RFP’s for Future Project Development design or feasibility

studies we emphasize the need for the project applications to reflect the Strategy. We do not

have a prioritized list of projects in the watershed, but we do have priorities. Last year we

began to ask specifically for projects that reflect our strategy in the following announcement:

Our current understanding is that the most important actions for salmon recovery in the

Puyallup/White Watershed are those that benefit ESA listed species (Chinook, steelhead and bull

trout):

1. Reconnect the mainstem rivers with their floodplains;

2. Restore nearshore areas;




WRIA 10 and


3. Remove high priority physical barriers to fish movement and migration;

4. Protection and/or restoration on presently functional salmon streams, including: South

Prairie Creek and its tributaries, Boise Creek, Greenwater River, Huckleberry Creek and

Clearwater River

In Chambers/Clover Watershed WRIA 12 high-priority actions include those that benefit ESA

listed species and coho:

Passage restoration at barriers;

1. Restoration within Chambers Bay

2. Restoration along the WRIA 12 nearshore;

3. Projects in the lower four miles of Chambers Creek;

4. Restoration of flow in seasonally dry sections of Clover Creek;

5. Projects to restore in-stream habitat diversity (LWD) may be high priorities (if they

are cost effective and properly sequenced relative to other restoration needs)

How

Comments

Addressed

We did have one member of our citizens committee whom was concerned about our PSAR

Large Capital Project – he stated that the project was too expensive, and voiced his concerns

about the acquisition element of the project being funded. He voiced concern that the project

was going to benefit flood control. One of our TAG members mentioned that this project was in

a very high priority area in our Lead Entity and that it benefits every fish that uses the Puyallup

Watershed. The CAC voted to vet the Large Cap Project and the concerned CAC member

abstained from voting. Dan Calvert, Pierce County Lead Entity’s ERC and PSP liaison and Dave

Caudill, the RCO Grant Manager were both present at our ranking meeting.

WRIA 11 Nisqually River Salmon Recovery Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria Because the Nisqually scoring criteria worksheet clearly outlines geographic areas of

priority and habitat benefit based on EDT modeling, scoring is a relatively simple task.

That being said, this year was slightly more complicated considering the unknowns

surrounding the State budget. In addition to that, the 2016 round left the LE with

multiple projects below the funding line. This being a small funding year and the

expected reduction in the Puget Sound allocation as per the funding allocation update,

project sponsors chose to “re-apply” for the unfunded projects from 2016. The only

“new” project in this year’s round was for continued treatment of knotweed in the

Nisqually Watershed.

The Nisqually Salmon Habitat Work Group (NSHWG) met on July 5th to rank the 2017 list

of projects. Members each ranked individually, submitting their scores to LE coordinator

to be recorded and ranked into an initial project list. The group then identified which

projects on the list were up for also up for funding in the 2015-17 Capital Budget (PSAR

and WWRP programs). This allowed for clear identification of which projects would be

funded with 2017 SRFB $$ if Capital dollars are awarded and which would get funded if

they are not. Projects were then slightly reorganized to be sure that the Nisqually

knotweed project would be awarded funding as to not lose momentum on treatment

and maintenance.

The list was then presented to the Nisqually River Council (NRC) at their July 28th

meeting and approved without change.





The Nisqually ranking spreadsheet sheet and criteria ranking are available here:

https://pspwa.box.com/s/w8tc72q24q10fik4htbmny4kxiuw09f5

Technical Advisory

Group

Nisqually Salmon Habitat Workgroup Members – August 2017

Amber Martens – Joint Base Lewis McChord

Erica Guttman – Native Plant Salvage Project

John Himsl - Natural Resources Conservation Service

Christopher Ellings – Nisqually Indian Tribe

Sayre Hodgson – Nisqually Indian Tribe

Jed Moore – Nisqually Indian Tribe

Cathy Sampselle – Nisqually Indian Tribe

Ashley Von Essen – Nisqually Indian Tribe

George Walter – Nisqually Land Trust/Nisqually Indian Tribe

Kim Bredensteiner -- Nisqually Land Trust

Joe Kane – Nisqually Land Trust

Justin Hall – Nisqually River Foundation

Emmett O’Connell – Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Jessica Moore -- Northwest Trek

Kate Terpstra – Pierce Conservation District

Matt Barnhart – Pierce County

Amber Moore – Puget Sound Partnership

Brian Combs – South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

Jerilyn Walley – South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

Lance Winecka – South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

Mara Healy – Thurston Conservation District

Cindy Wilson – Thurston County

Rich Carlson – US Fish and Wildlife Service

James Losee -- Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Matt Curtis -- Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Alice Rubin – Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Because 6 of the 7 projects had received site visits as part of last year’s round, we were

not required to schedule site visits this year, nor did the SRFB Review Panel fill out

comment forms for these projects. Our only “new” project in the 2017 round was for

continued treatment of knotweed in the Nisqually Watershed, in which the review panel

felt a site visit wasn’t necessary. They did, however, complete a comment form for this

project.



Schedule

All projects put forward for funding are ranked using priorities set by the Nisqually

Chinook and steelhead recovery strategies developed with Ecosystem Diagnosis and

Treatment (EDT) software. Developing multi-year implementation plans and/or habitat

work schedules allow co-managers, project sponsors, and the Lead Entity the ability to

not only see what projects have been completed and where, but highlights those

projects that are on the horizon. This work queue, along with clear communication with

our local partners, streamlines our process and identifies projects of need and readiness,

while aiding the Nisqually LE in their approach and strategy. In addition, the 4-Year

Work Plan also allows us to show financial need over a period of two biennium.

How Comments

Addressed

All comments put forward by the NSHWG are reviewed and discussed at the annual

ranking meeting. All members must be in agreement before a recommended list can be

presented to the NRC for final approval. There were no issues brought forward by the

NRC, but if there were, they would be resolved before a final list would be put into

PRISM.

https://pspwa.box.com/s/w8tc72q24q10fik4htbmny4kxiuw09f5





All comments from the SRFB Review Panel are addressed in PRISM in both the

application and on the Salmon Project Proposal.

WRIA 13 WRIA 13 Salmon Habitat Recovery Committee Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The TAG and CAC meet in a cooperative workshop style format to discuss the overall

merits of each project. The technical and community ranking criteria are on a single form

and evaluates both technical and community components. It is incumbent on the project

sponsor to address all of the criteria contained within the ranking documents to ensure a

robust understanding by all members. Given the iterative nature of the process, there are

many opportunities for Workgroup members to ask questions in the months leading up

to the ranking meeting, at the site visits, and at the ranking meeting itself.

The ranking criteria contains questions to determine if a project addresses the following

factors:

Benefits to Salmon

Certainty of Success

Consistency with Strategic Plan

Cost / Benefit

Consistency with the current year’s 4-year-work-plan

Education and Outreach

Partnerships

Consistency with Strategic Plan

The goal of the ranking discussion is to come to a consensus on the various merits of

each project. This holistic approach will incorporate a full discussion of each project, the

outcome of which will outline the ranking rational for each proposal. A consensus of

ranking between all members of the LE is the intent of this exchange.

There are four sets of criteria for each project type: acquisition, combination acquisition

and restoration, restoration, and planning/assessment projects. Those criteria can be

seen in the 2017 Salmon Habitat Recovery Process Guide:

https://pspwa.box.com/s/vvcd5wwm73un9fandu6e5dnmthy53i7i

Technical Advisory

Group


Laurence Reeves Forester, Conservation Project

Manager

Capitol Land Trust

Theresa Nation Area Habitat Biologist WDFW

Jamie Glasgow Director of Science and

Research


Scott Steltzner Environmental Program

Manager

Squaxin Island Tribe

Kathleen Berger Habitat Specialist Thurston Conservation District

Sarah Zaniewski TFW Biologist Squaxin Island Tribe

Michelle Stevie Restoration Biologist City of Olympia

Jerilyn Walley Restoration Project Manager South Puget Sound SEG

Rich Carlson Restoration Ecologist USFWS

Allison

Osterberg

Senior Planner Thurston County Long-Range

Planning

https://pspwa.box.com/s/vvcd5wwm73un9fandu6e5dnmthy53i7i





Candace Penn Climate Change Biologist Squaxin Island Tribe

Robin

Buckingham

Resource Specialist Thurston Conservation District

Andy Fritz Professor of Environmental

Science

Clover Park Technical College

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two members of the SRFB review panel (Marnie Tyler and Pat Powers) participated in our

process for the 2017 round as follows: (1) review of draft applications for five pre-

applications (2) attendance at the field trip on May 10 to view the project sites, and (3)

comments and feedback to individual sponsors using the standardized review panel

comment forms. Project sponsors answered questions and received feedback during the

site visits and in written form. The project sponsors are to address all feedback in their

final PRISM submittals.



Schedule

The WRIA 13 Salmon Habitat Recovery Committee accepted grant applications for

projects that were identified as high priority actions within the South Sound chapter of

the Chinook Recovery Plan and called out specifically on the 2016-2020 4-year-work-

plan implementation schedule. All projects requesting funds were developed in tandem

with citizen and technical committee members, from the conceptual stage through

funding. The committee received five projects requesting SRFB funds; two that were

variations on those submitted, ranked and approved on the 2016 PSAR/SRFB grant list.

Once a capital budget is passed, the Coordinator with work with PSP, RCO, the sponsors,

and the Lead Entity Committee to ensure all are apprised of the project details and

funded components. It is possible that the LE Committee will request to the Salmon

Recovery Council to hold back a portion of the 2017-2019 PSAR funds (again, once there

is an approved capital budget) to fund a project in the 2018 round. Since the funding

allocation reduction that occurred in 2017, the opportunity to fund even one project is

challenged and the citizen’s committee is frustrated with this reality. Keeping a

representative and active citizen’s committee is the intent of both the legislation and of

the LE Coordinator; the ability to see the results of their hard work and dedication and

the change it creates on the landscape is the reason they volunteer their time to

restoring habitat in South Sound. Retaining the ability to keep a portion of the PSAR

funds for use to implement the numerous designs (through design-only grants) before

they need radical re-design would be an excellent use of taxpayer investment and enable

continued participation and project implementation to occur.

Each of the five original projects were identified from a conceptual stage using PSAR or

SRFB project development funds, and/or vetted scientific reports.

How Comments

Addressed

Project sponsors were required to respond to comments from our Technical Review

Team and from the SRFB Review Panel. The TAG and CAC continue to assist project

sponsors as they work to address questions and concerns held by the SRFB Review Panel

and resolve any issues TAG/CAC members might have. This year, the number one ranked

project (Middle Deschutes Habitat Acquisition, Phase 1) utilized the majority of the funds,

leaving the second ranked project with approximately half of the sponsor request. The LE

Committee discussed this at length and decided to leave the order as it stood, while

asking the sponsor to be in communication with them about the acquisition projects

progress towards its funding goal. If unable to secure the necessary funds for

implementation, the LE Committee would like to reallocate the funds before the 12-

month period eclipses for such action.

The ranked project list did not have any discrepancies and was finalized as originally

ranked by both the TAG and the CAC.





Evaluation Criteria Please refer to Appendices A and B for evaluation criteria for Citizen’s Committee and TAG

at

https://www.masoncd.org/uploads/3/1/5/9/31598011/wria_14_process_guide_final__2_.pdf

Please see final ranked list attached for technical scores. The Citizen’s Committee altered

the TAG ranking. Please see WRIA 14 7_20_2017 minutes.docx

(https://pspwa.box.com/s/qaeu5ej8mxlrppoq1kbkzkxuba8ty6u4) for an explanation of the

difference between the two group’s rankings along with the Citizen’s Committee’s final

ranked list.

Technical Advisory

Group


Rich Carlson Restoration Ecology; Habitat

Restoration; Watershed

Management; Fish Biology;

General Biology

USFWS

Sarah Zaniewski Restoration Ecology; Habitat

Restoration; Forest Ecology;

Fish Ecology; Fish Biology;

General Biology

Squaxin Island Tribe

Brian Combs Restoration Ecology; Wetland

Ecology; Project


General Biology

South Puget Sound SEG

Mitch Redfern Environmental Policy;

Restoration Ecology; Project


General Biology

Mason CD

Laurence Reeves Restoration Ecology; Habitat

Conservation; Project


General Biology

Capitol Land Trust

Margie Bigelow Environmental Permitting;

Hydrology; Fish Biology;

General Biology

WDFW

Alicia Olivas Environmental Policy;

Program Management;

Strategic Planning

Hood Canal Coordinating

Council

Brandon Palmer General Biology, Engineering,

Project Management,

Restoration Ecology, Fish

Ecology, Aquatic Ecology,

Environmental Permitting,

Strategic Planning

Port of Shelton

Amber Mount Fish Biology, General Biology

and Environmental Policy

Green Diamond

Jim Irving Environmental Permitting,

Project Management, Wildlife

Biology, Forestry

Citizen; Retired Habitat

Professional

https://www.masoncd.org/uploads/3/1/5/9/31598011/wria_14_process_guide_final__2_.pdf

https://pspwa.box.com/s/qaeu5ej8mxlrppoq1kbkzkxuba8ty6u4





Jeanne Kinney Hydrology, Restoration

Ecology, Environmental

Permitting

Thurston County

Erik Schwartz Fish Biology, General Biology,

Hydrology, Environmental

Policy, Project Management,

Restoration Ecology, Fish

Ecology, Watershed

Management, Aquatic

Ecology, Environmental

Permitting, Strategic Planning

Mason County

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

The SRFB Review Panel attended site visits on May 9, 2017 and provided feedback to the

project sponsors. One project, McLane Cove Acquisition 17-1135, inspired several

questions from the Citizen’s Committee, Technical Group and the Review Panel. Following

the site visit, review panel members reached out to Mason County staff to more

thoroughly understand the development threat to the site. The RP then shared this

research with the project sponsor, the Citizen’s committee and TAG which helped inform

the final ranking.

Use of

Implementation

Plans or Habitat

Work Schedule

When developing a project, sponsors use multiple planning documents and tools available

for WRIA 14 including the Nearshore Project Selection Tool, the Nearshore Coastal

Catchments Analysis, the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan, Salmon Habitat Protection

and Restoration Plan for WRIA 14, Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors WRIA 14 and EDT

Analysis of Habitat Potential and Restoration Options for Coho in South Puget Sound

Streams. Once a project has been developed, it’s added to multi-year implementation

plans/the Habitat Work Schedule and becomes eligible for funding.

How Comments

Addressed

During the final ranking meeting, concerns were raised over the McLane Cove Acquisition

due to cost and the threat of development. The cost presented in the application assumes

full development potential and it’s clear that a portion of the property is undevelopable;

proposing this cost removes the risk from the landowner and places it on the public. The

citizen’s committee deliberated this point, considered feedback from the review panel and

followed up with additional discussion. Shoreline habitat is at a high level of risk due to

development. This site provides high ecological benefit and a portion of the lot is

developable. The project sponsor was present and shared that he intends to work quickly

to obtain appraisal and initiate negotiation to identify any return funds as soon as possible.

The WRIA 14 Riparian Restoration Project stimulated conversation around appropriateness

of committing salmon funds to invasive weed control. Fellow citizen’s committee members

and the project sponsor were able to identify the high level of scrutiny these projects

undergo. Additionally significant match for this project is coming from the USDA, another

funding sources for terrestrial invasive control. Questions were raised about project

management under the Fish Passage Inventory Project and the project sponsor intends to

incorporate these suggestions.

Finally the citizen’s committee chose to move the Harstine Island project to the bottom of

the list, shifting Habitat Acquisition to the 4th spot and Madrona Beach Bulkhead to the

5th spot. The decision was based on several factors:

Madrona has good qualities—location, willing landowners, unknowns are minimal

and decrease in cost since last grant round; dock is a concern for some TAG

members but can be addressed through design and product that minimizes

footprint and allows light to penetrate. Design work has been done; also has high

value for community impact and education





Harstine is less certain (stability of imported soil), concrete bulkhead remains;

passage barrier 300 ft. upstream from project; beach conditions are already fairly

natural; the group also felt uncertain about the stability of imported soil, a

necessary component for establishing native vegetation since no major

excavation can occur due to cultural resources

The Citizen’s Committee also considered ranking Madrona Beach higher than the Habitat

Acquisition project but failed to bring a motion for this rerank.

WRIA 15 West Sound Watersheds Council Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria:

Scope and cost/benefit of project (10 points)

Benefits to fish (20 points)

Certainty of success (15 points)

The Technical Advisory Group is a subset of the WSWC (Citizens group) and provided the

scores for the projects. The draft rank list was presented to the entire WSWC for

discussion and approval and there were no differences in the groups’ ranking.

Scope and cost/budget of project:

Project implements WSWC recovery strategy and is part of the 4 year work plan?

Scope and cost/budget of project:

Is scope of project appropriate? Could the project be phased?

Is the budget consistent with expected benefits and worth projects of similar

scale?

Benefits to Fish:

Nearshore

o Project addresses high priority habitat and nearshore processes that

will have a demonstrable effect on salmon productivity (restoration)?

o Project targets area with high habitat function, low site disturbance,

and intact processes (acquisition)?

o Acquisition is necessary to carry out high priority restoration project?

o Tier 1 project per nearshore integration tool?

Freshwater

o Project addresses high priority habitat and watershed processes that

will have a demonstrable effect on salmon productivity (restoration)?

o Project is located in a high priority watershed (refugia with source

populations and relatively high abundance and productivity)

(restoration or acquisition)?

o Acquisition is necessary to carry out high priority restoration project?

Certainty of success

Experience of sponsor in implementing similar projects?

Restoration approach is well established with predictable outcomes

(restoration)?

Project restores ecosystem processes vs. simply making structural modifications

(restoration)?

Stewardship/maintenance

o Stewardship plan? Action self-sustaining or low maintenance? Funds

for monitoring/stewardship? (Restoration and acquisition)?

Benefits realized immediately vs. longterm and are independent of other

restoration/acquisition projects?

Benefits of acquisition not dependent on future restoration actions?




WRIA 15 West Sound Watersheds Council Lead Entity

Technical Advisory

Group


Tom Ostrom salmon recovery coordinator Suquamish Tribe

Carin Anderson habitat restoration specialist Kitsap Conservation District

Brenda Padgham conservation director Bainbridge Island Land Trust

David Nash GIS analyst Kitsap County DCD

Brittany Gordon habitat biologist WA Fish & Wildlife

Colin Hume watershed ecologist WA Ecology

Marty Ereth fish biologist Pierce County Surface Water

Zack Holt ecologist City of Port Orchard

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two SRFB review panel members (Marnie Tyler and Michelle Cramer) participated in the

site visits on April 12 & 13 and returned comment forms to the lead entity on May 5.



Schedule

Projects were entered into HWS in order to generate a PRISM number. The project list

was developed from the 4 Year Work Plan for the lead entity.

How Comments

Addressed

The Technical Advisory Group ranked an acquisition project as number one. The project

sponsor is willing to take only a small portion of the funding for the 2017 round since

the match for the project to be complete will not be available until early 2019.

The number of projects funded then expanded significantly. The WSWC discussed this as

a whole and commended the willingness of the acquisition sponsor to support the

funding of the other projects. The WSWC agreed to fund this acquisition from the 2018

SRB round to make the project complete. There were no other issues to be resolved.

WRIAs 15, 16,

17 Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead Entity

Evaluation Criteria The Hood Canal Coordinating Council Board of Directors approved the regional salmon

recovery prioritization guidance, Guidance for Prioritizing Salmonid Stocks, Issues, and

Actions for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. The Guidance guides salmon recovery

project development and evaluation. Evaluation criteria carries this guidance a step further by

asking four overarching questions about a proposed project:

1. What is the priority level of the highest priority salmonid stock that would benefit

from the proposed project?

2. What is the relative importance of the issue (or the priority of that issue) affecting

the performance of the stock that a proposed project aims to positively affect by its

implementation?

3. What is the relative importance of the action corresponding to a proposed project in

its potential for redressing the targeted issue that affects the stock of interest?

4. Do the project merits adequately and logically contribute to the issue affecting the

targeted stock while demonstrating the project readiness for funding?

These questions led to the following Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Scoring Criteria:

Benefit to Salmon: primary stock priority, priority of primary issue affecting stock,

priority of primary action addressing issue.

Certainty of Success: adequate and logical project scope, sequencing and planning

efforts, implementation readiness and support.

Cost Effectiveness: justified project expense, and benefit relative to cost.

Technical Advisory

Group


Kathlene Barnhart Geomorphologist, Project

Manager

Kitsap County




WRIAs 15, 16,


David Tucker Engineer, Assistant Director Kitsap County Public Works

Hans Daubenberger Habitat & Marine Biologist,

Research & Monitory Program

Manager

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Abby Welch Fin Fish Management Biologist Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Randy Lumper Environmental Planner Skokomish Tribe

Matt Kowalski Steelhead Biologist Skokomish Tribe

Eric Carlsen Engineer North Olympic Peninsula Lead

Entity

Joshua Benton or

Michael Blanton

Hood Canal Habitat Biologist WA Fish and Wildlife Service

Marc McHenry Fish Biologist US Forest Service

Carrie Cook-Tabor Fish Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

SRFB Review Panel members and RCO grants managers participated in field reviews and

provided comments on pre-applications and final applications. The RCO grants manager,

Mike Ramsey, also was instrumental in implementing the process and ensuring alignment

with RCO processes and protocols.

Use of

Implementation

Plans or

Habitat Work

Schedule

Project sponsors submitted letters of intent in order to indicate the project-level feasibility of

addressing highest priority salmon recovery actions as defined by the priorities in: the Hood

Canal & Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan, the Mid-Hood

Canal Chinook Recovery Plan, the Skokomish Chinook Recovery Plan, the Guidance for

Prioritizing Salmonid Stocks, Issues, and Actions for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council,

and the keystone actions list. Keystone actions are the actions determined to be the highest

priority need for salmon recovery in the region or where we can make significant headway

where it needs to be made. TAG members then assessed each project’s alignment with

prioritization stocks, issues, actions and keystone actions as it relates to salmon recovery in

the Hood Canal region. This review determined qualifying proposals for the HCCC Salmon

Recovery Work Plan. Proposed projects are listed on the 2016 4-Year Work Plan in which each

project is linked to the recovery strategy it addresses. Projects must be approved for the

Work Plan and entered into the HCCC Habitat Work Schedule before they can be considered

in the Lead Entity grant round process.

How Comments

Addressed

TAG and CAG provided comments on proposals during the work plan development phase

and incorporated feedback into project refinement prior to applications being submitted.

Opportunities for project feedback was given during site visits, presentations, evaluation

meetings, and if needed, sub-group meetings. A sub-group was formed to address

anticipated shellfish impacts in the Dosewallips Estuary due to proposed restoration actions.

The group consisted of geomorphologist experts from the TAG as well as the project sponsor

and tribal shellfish expert representation. The group discussed anticipated impacts and

concerns around location of sediment travel and stakeholders. The agreed upon outcome

resulted in increased neighboring landowner engagement and planned analysis of the

impacts on the shellfish beds utilizing tribal monitoring data to be collected as well as the

project aligning with the keystone action and the associated elevated scoring.

Robust project reviews by the TAG and CAG throughout the evaluation process yielded

several recommendations for improvement that were incorporated into final project

descriptions resulting in increased certainty of success in the implementation of proposed

salmon recovery projects. The TAG and CAG recommendations included developing a

riparian strategy to aid in addressing the priority issues around riparian habitat in salmon

recovery and to coordinate efforts so the projects can be more successful in getting

https://hcccwagov.box.com/s/ru01xmw6q5yga4b2c5mo9f19km5bvxkt

https://hcccwagov.box.com/s/ru01xmw6q5yga4b2c5mo9f19km5bvxkt




WRIAs 15, 16,


implemented in the future. It was noted that by failing to address riparian habitat now, would

result in a keystone action of correcting it in the future.

The SRFB Review Panel also provided technical comments after site visits which were

addressed in the final proposal attached in PRISM. The HCCC Citizens Committee, comprised

of the HCCC Board of Directors and the Citizens Advisory Group, conducted the policy review

and adopted the ranked list as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Group.

WRIAs 17, 18, 19 North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

Evaluation Criteria (NOPLE did not run a new grant round this year. The 2016 process is documented below)

The Lead Entity process guide and associated scorebook – which are available upon

request – are reviewed by our Lead Entity Citizens Group and generally carry significant

weight when they make final funding decisions. Indeed, this year their decision was to

fund down the project list as ranked by the Technical Review Group. Specific evaluation

criteria are as follows:

Watershed priority

Addresses limiting factor

Addresses stock status and trends

Restores formerly productive habitat

Benefits other stocks

Protects high quality fish habitat

Benefits a listed stock covered by recovery or implementation plan

Likelihood of success based on approach

Supports restoration of ecosystem functions

Reasonableness of cost and budget

Likelihood of success based on sponsor's past success in implementation

The project evaluation criteria and technical team scores and comments for all projects

can be viewed here: https://pspwa.box.com/s/6qayvhz8nzxwg8kz25lfj1g19hbfp72c. The

projects were scored in 2016 when all of our projects for funding becoming available in

2017 were vetted. Our Citizens Advisory Groups considers that when making ranking

decisions but does not do a formal score sheet or comment form.

Technical Advisory

Group

Technical Review Group Membership:


Meghan Adamire Conservation

Planner

Clallam Conservation District

Rebecca Benjamin Executive Director North Olympic Salmon Coalition

Chris Byrnes Watershed

Steward

Washington Dept. of Fish &

Wildlife

Coleman Byrnes Streamkeepers; Citizen Salmon

Advocate

John Cambalik Coordinator Straits Ecosystem Recovery

Network

Michele Canale Conservation

Director

North Olympic Land Trust

Kim Clark Project Manager (Alt.) North Olympic Salmon

Coalition

https://pspwa.box.com/s/6qayvhz8nzxwg8kz25lfj1g19hbfp72c




WRIAs 17, 18, 19 North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

Patrick Crain Biologist Olympic National Park

Keith Denton Fisheries Biologist

& Consultant

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

Gretchen Glaub Ecosystem

Recovery

Coordinator

Puget Sound Partnership

Mike Haggerty Watershed

Scientist

Makah Tribe Representative

Joe Holtrop Executive Director (Alt.) Clallam Conservation District

Randy Johnson Habitat Program

Manager

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

Robert Knapp (Alt.)

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

Restoration Planner

Cathy Lear Habitat Biologist Clallam County Dept. of

Community Development

Jim McCullough Streamkeepers; Retired Alaska

Fisheries Regional Biologist

Mike McHenry Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Habitat

Restoration Manager

Ian Miller Coastal Hazards

Specialist

Ph.D; Washington Sea Grant

Tim Rymer Citizen; Formerly NMFS & Retired

WDFW Habitat Biologist

Pete Vanderhoof Citizen; Salt Creek Farmer; B.S.

WWU Environmental Policy

Jim Walton Ph.D; Peninsula College Fisheries &

Centralia College President

SRFB Review Panel

Participation

Two Members of the SRFB Review Panel, Pat Powers and Paul Schlenger; along with SRFB

Project Manager Kat Moore; attended two days worth of site visits to see all the project

areas, hear brief presentations from project sponsors and ask questions and make

suggestions about each of the projects.



Schedule

In order to be considered for SRFB/PSAR funding, all projects must be part of our 2016

Four-Year Workplan which is a multi-year implementation plan and our roadmap as to

how we implement actions listed in salmon recovery plans. Our Workplan is updated

annually in the fall. All new projects are entered in the Habitat Work Schedule at that

time, with project narratives, graphics and estimated costs all listed in HWS. Our

Technical Team then references that information in HWS when they score all newly

proposed projects.

How Comments

Addressed

Our project sponsors give an initial project presentation at the start of the grant round.

They receive comments, questions and suggestions then, as well as during the site visits.

They are then encouraged to make changes to their projects based on input they receive

throughout the grant round. That is how any issues or questions are resolved within the

grant round. Those project changes are included within grant applications and in their

project proposals. We also ask them to speak about those changes when they do a final

grant presentation prior to the projects being scored by our technical team.




2017 Project List Summary Table

Organization Ranked List Status Alternate or Partial

Rank Project Number

Project Type

Project Sponsor Project Name Grant Request

Sponsor Match

Proposed Salmon Funding

Proposed PSAR Funding

PSAR Large Cap Request

Total Proposed Award

Total Funding

Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Lead Entity

Returned Alternate 1 17-1048 Rst City of Tukwila Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal II 295895 52217 0 0 0 0 52217

Island County Lead Entity Submitted 1 17-1063 Pln Whidbey Camano Land Trust

Nearshore Acquisition Strategy Development

49300 8700 49300 0 0 49300 58000

Island County Lead Entity Submitted 2 17-1062 Acq Whidbey Camano Land Trust

Dugualla Bay Tidelands Acquisition 31500 6500 31500 0 0 31500 38000

Island County Lead Entity Submitted 3 17-1064 Rst NW Straits Marine Cons Found

Sunlight Shores Shoreline Bulkhead Removal

99049 17480 99049 0 0 99049 116529

Island County Lead Entity Submitted Partial 4 17-1140 Pln Greenbank Beach and Boat Club

Greenbank Marsh Restoration Design

100000 0 37796 0 0 37796 0

Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Lead Entity

Submitted Partial 1 17-1040 Acq Seattle Public Utilities

Royal Arch Reach Protection 800000 808200 541360 0 0 541360 1349560

Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Lead Entity

Submitted Partial 2 17-1074 Pln Mountains to Sound Greenway

Isssaquah Creek In-Stream Restoration

183300 72145 182645 0 0 182645 254790

Nisqually River Salmon Recovery Lead Entity

Submitted 1 17-1088 Acq Nisqually Land Trust Wilcox Small Lots Acquisition 279045 50000 279045 0 0 279045 329045


Submitted Partial 2 17-1101 Acq Rest

Nisqually Land Trust Middle Ohop Protection Phase III-B 179951 31787 97704 0 0 97704 129491


Submitted Alternate 3 17-1081 Rst Pierce Co Conservation Dist

Nisqually River Knotweed #6 62110 11628 0 0 0 0 11628


Submitted Alternate 4 17-1086 Acq Nisqually Land Trust Busy Wild Creek Protection Phase II 300004 53000 0 0 0 0 53000


Submitted Alternate 5 17-1100 Acq Rest

Nisqually Land Trust Middle Ohop Protection Phase II copy

216877 38900 0 0 0 0 38900


Submitted Alternate 6 17-1087 Pln Nisqually Land Trust Lower Ohop Acquisition for Restoration Design

25169 4454 0 0 0 0 4454


Submitted Alternate 7 17-1085 Pln South Puget Sound SEG

Nisqually Tributaries Habitat Assessment

92650 16350 0 0 0 0 16350

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

Submitted 4 17-1344 Pln North Olympic Salmon Coalition

Lower Hoko River Restoration Planning 2017

188561 0 188561 0 0 188561 0

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

Submitted Partial 5 17-1345 Acq North Olympic Land Trust

Lower Elwha River Protection 2017 643077 113485 140288 0 0 140288 253773

Pierce County Lead Entity Submitted 1 17-1354 Pln Pierce County Planning

Carbon Bridge ST Setback Feasibility Study

215050 37950 150100 64950 0 215050 253000

Pierce County Lead Entity Submitted 2 17-1355 Acq Pierce County Planning

Alward Rd. Acquisition Phase 3 181613 32050 181613 0 0 181613 213663

San Juan County Salmon Recovery Lead Entity

Draft

1 17-1143 Rst Friends of the San Juans

Mud Bay Salt Marsh Restoration Sucia Island

404531 71388 404531 0 0 404531 475919




San Juan County Salmon Recovery Lead Entity

Draft

2 17-1163 Mon KWIAHT Early Pacific Sandlance Life History & Survival

75785 57645 75785 0 0 75785 133430

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 1 17-1159 Pln Dept of Fish & Wildlife

IMW - Deepwater Slough Ph 2: Alternatives Analysis

177894 31393 177894 0 0 177894 209287

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 2 17-1154 Pln Skagit Fish Enhancement Group

IMW - Skagit Forks Final Design and Permitting

159263 0 159263 0 0 159263 0

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 3 17-1156 Rst Skagit Fish Enhancement Group

2017 Skagit Riparian Stewardship 107467 19171 107467 0 0 107467 126638

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 4 17-1155 Pln Skagit Fish Enhancement Group

Carey Slough - Fish Passage Final Design

199707 0 199707 0 0 199707 0

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 5 17-1160 Rst Skagit County Public Works

Martin Ranch Road Culvert Fish Passage

221000 39000 221000 0 0 221000 260000

Skagit Watershed Council Lead Entity Submitted 6 17-1357 Rst Skagit County Public Works

Hansen Creek Reach 5.1 Restoration

255345 2953767 255345 0 0 255345 3209112

Snohomish Basin Lead Entity Submitted 1 17-1153 Pln Tulalip Tribe Pilchuck Dam Removal Restoration Designs Project

188870 33534 188870 0 0 188870 222404

Snohomish Basin Lead Entity Submitted Partial 2 16-1608 Rst Snohomish County Woods Creek Culvert Replacements Cooperative

363000 527500 24436 0 0 24436 551936

Snohomish Basin Lead Entity Submitted Partial 3 14-1226 Rst Sound Salmon Solutions

Cherry Creek Restoration-Ph I 326360 70000 135000 0 0 135000 205000

Snohomish Basin Lead Entity Submitted Alternate 4 17-1269 Acq Forterra Wallace-May Nexus CE Acquisition 90227 36500 0 0 0 0 36500

Snohomish Basin Lead Entity Submitted Alternate 5 17-1238 Pln Snohomish Conservation Dist

Woods Creek Culvert Cooperative Design (Phase II)

86900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stillaguamish River Salmon Recovery Co-Lead Entity

Submitted 1 17-1124 Acq Rest

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

Continued Stillaguamish Floodplain Acquisitions

420470 77000 420470 0 0 420470 497470

Stillaguamish River Salmon Recovery Co-Lead Entity

Submitted 2 17-1107 Pln Sound Salmon Solutions

Grant Creek Construction Designs 78600 0 78600 0 0 78600 0

West Sound Watersheds Council Lead Entity

Submitted 1 17-1039 Acq Great Peninsula Conservancy

East Fork Rocky Creek Phase II 16677 3000 16677 0 0 16677 19677


Submitted 2 17-1032 Pln Mid-Puget Sound Fish Enh Grp

PNP Restoration Reconnection Feasibility Study

59212 10450 59212 0 0 59212 69662


Submitted 3 17-1045 Rst Kitsap County Kitsap Shoreline Armor Removal 20000 5000 20000 0 0 20000 25000


Submitted 4 17-1035 Pln Great Peninsula Conservancy

Ross Creek Estuary Acquisition Feasibility

17000 0 17000 0 0 17000 0


Submitted 5 17-1046 Pln Kitsap Conservation District

Fleming Fish Passage and Restoration Feasibility

88450 2000 88450 0 0 88450 90450


Submitted 6 17-1072 Pln Mountaineers Foundation

Chico Creek Confluence Restoration Design

65000 17000 65000 0 0 65000 82000



Bainbridge Island Land Trust

Little Manzanita 1 Protection and Restoration

372500 124400 0 0 0 0 124400



Bainbridge Island Land Trust

Little Manzanita 2 Protection and Restoration

382500 127490 0 0 0 0 127490




WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board Returned

2 17-1253 Pln Lummi Nation SF Cavanaugh-Fobes Phase 2 Restoration Design

101709 0 101709 0 0 101709 0

WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board Returned

3 17-1261 Rst Lummi Nation MF Porter Creek Reach Ph 4 In-Stream Restoration

382437 268836 382437 0 0 382437 651273

WRIA 13 Salmon Habitat Recovery Committee Lead Entity

Submitted 1 17-1245 Acq Capitol Land Trust Middle Deschutes Habitat Acquisition phase 1

150000 400000 150000 0 0 150000 550000


Submitted Partial 2 17-1246 Rst South Puget Sound SEG

Butler Cove Estuary Design & Restoration

57460 10140 26039 0 0 26039 36179


Submitted Alternate 3 17-1247 Pln Capitol Land Trust Shermer-Deschutes Restoration Design

39991 0 0 0 0 0 0


Submitted Alternate 4 17-1248 Pln South Puget Sound SEG

Spurgeon Creek Headwaters Restoration Design

35000 0 0 0 0 0 0


Draft

1 17-1138 Pln South Puget Sound SEG

Fish Passage Inventory WRIA 14 80158 15000 80158 0 0 80158 95158


Draft

2 17-1135 Acq Great Peninsula Conservancy

McLane Cove Shoreline & Estuary Protection Project

93000 17000 93000 0 0 93000 110000


Draft Partial 3 17-1134 Rst Mason Conservation Dist

WRIA 14 Riparian Restoration 68615 13000 37398 0 0 37398 50398


Draft Alternate 4 17-1094 Pln Capitol Land Trust WRIA 14 Habitat Acq Project Assessment

22665 4000 0 0 0 0 4000


Draft Alternate 5 17-1133 Rst South Puget Sound SEG

Madrona Beach Nearshore Restoration

87000 25000 0 0 0 0 25000

Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead Entity

Submitted 1 17-1052 Plan Acq

Jefferson County Big Quilcene Riparian Protection 82660 50000 82660 0 0 82660 132660


Submitted 2 17-1060 Rst Jefferson Co Public Works

Salmon Creek Bridge Construction - W Uncas Rd 2017

145472 25672 145472 0 0 145472 171144


Submitted 3 17-1054 Pln Hood Canal SEG Moon Valley Reach - Additional Acquisition Support

45463 30000 45463 0 0 45463 75463


Submitted Partial 4 17-1053 Pln Hood Canal SEG Lower Big Quilcene Restoration Final Design 2017

962732 814375 856366 0 0 856366 1670741


Submitted Alternate 5 17-1056 Pln North Olympic Salmon Coalition

Snow Creek Whole Watershed Analysis

199847 35309 0 0 0 0 35309


Submitted Alternate 6 17-1055 Rst North Olympic Salmon Coalition

Snow Creek Riparian Recovery Project

114567 30000 0 0 0 0 30000


Submitted Alternate 7 17-1058 Pln Hood Canal SEG Tahuya River Watershed Assessment 2017

229124 51879 0 0 0 0 51879


Submitted Alternate 8 17-1059 Pln Hood Canal SEG Union River Reach Restoration Planning

122635 21647 0 0 0 0 21647


Submitted Alternate 9 17-1057 Pln Hood Canal SEG Tahuya River Estuary Feasibility Prelim Design

287134 200462 0 0 0 0 200462




4 Year Work Plan Consistency Reviews

2017 Consistency Review of Puget Sound Lead Entity Salmon Recovery Projects – Submitted August 31, 2017

WRIA 1 Nooksack

Q1. Projects are clearly linked to the 2005 Recovery Plan for Chinook populations in the Nooksack system. The projects follow-

on from the recovery goals developed in the plan and are consistent with the strategic choice of the North Fork portion of the

Nooksack system and its attendant populations.

a. There will be a lag between the completion of the projects and their predicted positive effects on the population.

This could be due to lags in population response or to lags in the cumulative effects of various related projects that

are necessary to improve the overall performance of the system. It would be useful to have some estimate

(however crude) of when the improvement effect might begin to show.

b. The analysis was accomplished during the run-up to the recovery plan. Given the many years between the plan

development ant current conditions, some further analysis (a limited EDT approach) might be useful to verify that

conditions still warrant the project approach.

Q2. Yes, the watershed does have a clear sense of priority among populations and the projects reflect that priority.

Q3. In general, the scientific foundation is quite strong. Considerable work—from data collection to analysis to system

modeling—has been accomplished over the life of the plan and its implementation so far. However, many years have passed

and a re-visit to some of the plan assumptions and its modeling outcomes might be useful. This should not require a system-

wide analysis but rather a statistically robust sub-sample of some selected areas where projects or actions are proposed in the

near future (2017 projects, for example).

Q4. Without some current analysis it is difficult to make an assessment of gaps in the current strategy or actions. If, as we

might suspect, some conditions have changed in the watershed or in the populations, then analysis might reveal gaps or

alternative in the strategy. This may be important for assessing the likely effects of climate change in the system. Of course,

such an analysis is no small task and would require considerable resources to carry out.

Q5. The region could provide guidance for future analyses, especially for potential climate change effects (already in the

works, I believe) and for habitat and VSP-based analyses.

Q6. Goals, objectives, and outcomes appear to be closely linked, at least conceptually. That is, given the uncertainty in

outcomes (these are not linear outcomes) the goals are logically clear and the projects are derived directly from the interplay

of the strategy and goals.

Final review Comment

In my estimation, the proposed projects are consistent with the overall strategy for salmon recovery in WRIA 1. I am of the

opinion that the projects have been considered as practical steps necessary to implement the recovery strategy as described

in the recovery plan chapter. Although the success of any project is not assured, especially given the uncertain nature of

salmon ecosystem response to climate change, the overall strategy for WRIA 1 remains robust until analysis demonstrates

otherwise. The proposed projects are well fit to the current strategy. I find no concerns about the consistency of the proposed

projects with the recovery strategy.

WRIA 2 San Juan Island

The Puget Sound Partnership must certify to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that all projects proposed for SRFB funding

are consistent with lead entity strategies. Do you have concerns about any project’s fit to strategy that the Partnership should

consider when making this certification?

No concerns with the two projects included in the final list. However, a number of projects included in the 2017 preliminary

4YWP Project List were red flagged. The reasons why those projects were red flagged were summarized (i.e., comments were

provided) in the preliminary 2017 4YWP and SRFB project list; recommendations on how to move the projects from the red-

flagged list were also provided. The reasons were further discussed with the lead Entity Coordinator on a phone conference,

also attended by Suzanna Stoike.

The following additional recommendation are intended to help improve San Juans’ recovery efforts:

a. With support from the Partnership, WRIA 2 should consider including a strategy intended to coordinate efforts (and

potentially funding) with the watersheds from where the Chinook populations using WRIA 2 originate.

b. WRIA 8 just completed its recovery chapter update and monitoring and assessment plan development. WRIA 2 could

coordinate with the Partnership and WRIA 8 to use this watershed’s chapter update (the document and its

development process) to build upon and develop its chapter update. Likewise, WRIA 2 should consider using WRIA 8’s

monitoring and assessment plan to build upon and develop its own; doing so is likely to save time and money.




(San Juan preliminary review is available upon request)

WRIA 3/4 Skagit

The 2017 4YWP project list submitted by the Skagit Watershed Council is the same as the 2016 project list except for one

additional project: the Martin Ranch Road Culvert Fish Passage project. For this reason, our comments for the 2017 4YWP project

list are nearly the same as those submitted for the 2016 project list.

1. Are projects and activities appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan (or updated strategies from adaptive

management work), a tribal treaty rights population and/or 2016 4YWP narrative? Please note that projects benefiting fish

populations of tribal importance are permitted to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding even if the populations are not ESA listed. Lead

Entities should submit letters from the tribes if there is not a documented strategy associated with the population.

Yes, the projects are appropriately linked to, and are consistent with, the recovery strategies identified in the 2005 Skagit

Chinook Recovery Plan, and in the Skagit Watershed Council’s (SWC’s) Year 2015 Strategic Approach. In addition, all of on the

2017 4YWP list would benefit tribal treaty rights populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead. The majority of projects

would also benefit tribal treaty rights populations of Chum, Pink, and Coho salmon, and some projects would benefit tribal

treaty rights populations of sockeye salmon. Most sockeye salmon in the Skagit spawn and rear in the Baker Lake drainage,

and recovery efforts for this species have been developed through mitigation measures implemented as part of the recent

relicensing of Puget Sound Energy’s Baker River Hydroelectric Project.

The Skagit 4YWP list includes a diversity of projects that are located within the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Target Areas identified and

described in the 2015 Strategic Approach. The project list is reasonable in size for a large watershed, and the projects on this

list are achievable within a four-year timeframe given sufficient grant funding and sponsor capacity.

Tier 1 areas include the Skagit estuary, the freshwater tidal delta, and large-river floodplains that provide habitat for two or

more of the six independent Chinook populations present in the watershed. A total of 10 projects are located within the

estuary, and include projects that would restore estuary habitat types (including blind channels and distributaries) that are

identified in the 2005 Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan as limiting to the production of all six Chinook populations. The estuary

projects include major habitat restoration projects that will substantially increase the amount of juvenile rearing habitat

available to Chinook and other salmon species, connectivity restoration projects that would improve access to off-channel

rearing habitats, and dike setback design and implementation projects. The project list also includes a comprehensive

hydrodynamic modeling study of the estuary and freshwater delta that will result in preliminary design of at least two major

restoration projects. Together, these projects will significantly contribute to achieving the estuary and freshwater tidal delta

habitat goals identified in the 2005 Chinook recovery plan.

A total of 12 projects located within Tier 1 large-river floodplains are also included on the 2017 Skagit 4YWP list. These

include several large floodplain restoration projects that would substantially improve the habitat capacity of juvenile Chinook

salmon, thus contributing to the freshwater floodplain restoration goals identified in the 2005 Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan.

The projects would restore the connectivity of the mainstem river to side-channel to off-channel habitats in the floodplain by

removing barriers and restoring hydrological processes to these areas. Several of the projects would result in a major increase

in the amount of side-channel and off-channel habitat available to juvenile Chinook salmon. The project list also includes an

instream feasibility study for the introduction of large woody debris habitat improvement structures in the Nookachamps

River subbasin, and a feasibility study for restoring habitat connectivity to off-channel habitats and tributaries in the lower

Cascade River. Several projects would remove bank hardening (e.g., riprap) along the mainstem Skagit River that would

improve quality and habitat capacity of juvenile rearing habitat. The project list also contains a large conservation land

acquisition project that that will result in the purchase of high quality salmonid habitats in the Skagit and Sauk Rivers. This

ongoing land acquisition project has resulted in the protection of large areas of riverine, floodplain, and riparian habitat that

are critical to maintaining health of Chinook populations in the watershed. Finally, the Tier 1 large-river floodplain project list

includes a comprehensive riparian restoration and stewardship program that will maintain and restore native riparian

communities important to fish habitat and water quality on conservation lands. The majority of these projects would also

benefit ESA-listed steelhead, which use all of the large-river floodplain habitats used by Chinook salmon. These projects

would also benefit tribal fisheries by restoring habitats important to the spawning and rearing of Chum, Coho, and Pink

salmon.

New to the 2017 4YWP list of Tier 1 floodplain projects is the “Martin Ranch Road Culvert Fish Passage” project that would

replace two undersized culverts in the Barnaby Reach of the Upper Skagit River. While this project would support steelhead

and coho salmon, the SWC’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) has questioned whether project would benefit Chinook

salmon. The project is located on two small tributary channels that extend into the Barnaby Slough area of the Skagit

floodplain, and are not of sufficient size to support Chinook salmon spawning. The project may support small numbers of

juvenile Chinook that migrate far into the floodplain, though the use of these small tributary channels by Chinook has not yet

been documented. The consistency of this project with the current SWC recovery plan and 2015 Strategic Approach is

questionable due to lack of verified use of the project area by Chinook salmon.

The Tier 2 Target Areas identified in the SWC’s 2015 Strategic Approach are: 1) nearshore pocket estuaries; 2) major river

floodplains that support a single independent population of Chinook salmon; and 3) key tributaries that provide important

spawning and rearing habitat to Chinook.

Only two pocket estuary projects are included in the 4YWP, the Similk Beach Estuary Restoration Project and the Kukatali

Preserve Tombolo Restoration Project. Both of these projects will result in the restoration of pocket estuaries in Skagit Bay,

subsequently improving the habitat capacity and growth of Chinook fry migrating out of the Skagit River. Also included




under Tier 2 of the 4YWP are seven projects that will address habitat limitations to spawning and rearing Chinook salmon in

Skagit tributaries including Hansen Creek, Day Creek, Illabot Creek, Goodell Creek, Tenas Creek, and the Suiattle River. All of

the Tier 2 river floodlplain and tributary projects would benefit steelhead in additional to Chinook salmon. Several of the

projects, including restoration projects planned for Illabot Creek, Goodell Creek, Tenas Creek, and the Suiattle River would also

restore habitats used by genetically distinct populations of ESA-listed bull trout.

The Skagit 4YWP project list also includes a single steelhead project, the Steelhead Fish Passage Restoration Planning project.

This is the first steelhead project placed on the Skagit 4YWP project list in concurrence with the SWC’s approved 2016 Interim

Steelhead Strategy, and as such represents a major milestone towards multi-species recovery for the Skagit watershed. This

project was approved for inclusion on the 4YWP by the SWC’s Technical Working Group (TWG), after being developed by the

TWG’s Steelhead and Bull Trout Subcommittee. A recovery plan for steelhead in the Skagit River is currently being written by

a group of Skagit fish biologists under the leadership of the co-managers (Skagit River System Cooperative, Upper Skagit

Indian Tribe, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). The SWC’s Strategic Approach will be updated to fully

address steelhead once the Skagit chapter of the Puget Sound steelhead recovery plan has been completed.

a. How confident can we be that the chosen strategies and actions will lead to an improvement in one or more salmon

populations?

There is a high level of confidence that the chosen strategies and actions will lead to improvements in the six independent

populations of Chinook present in the Skagit River watershed. The strategies and actions in the 2005 Skagit Chinook

Recovery Plan and the 2015 SWC Strategic Approach update focus on the freshwater, tidal freshwater, and estuarine

habitats that have been identified by scientific research as most limiting to the Chinook abundance, productivity, and

spatial and life history diversity in the watershed. The strategy is supported by long-term data sets that empirically

demonstrate how the current scarcity of freshwater floodplain, tidal freshwater, and estuarine habitats limits the capacity

of juvenile Chinook salmon, thereby limiting the productivity of the six independent Chinook population. The 2015

Strategic Approach is also supported by a recent analysis completed by the SWC’s TWG that demonstrates the importance

of key tributary habitats in supporting the spawning abundance, spatial diversity, and life history diversity of Chinook

salmon in the Skagit. As result of this analysis, the Strategic Approach now includes 15 tributaries that are identified as

Tier 2 priority habitats for recovery.

b. Was there any scientific modeling or analysis completed that informs the chosen strategies and actions? If yes, did it

provide adequate justification for the strategies? If not, would you recommend an approach that would strengthen the

strategies?

Yes. The 2005 Chinook Recovery Plan and the 2015 Strategic Approach were informed by statistical models developed

from long-term data sets that show that the six Chinook populations present in the Skagit are limited by the current

availability of juvenile rearing habitat in the estuary, tidal freshwater delta, and riverine floodplains. The strongest

relationships were developed in estuary and tidal delta ecological zones, since these are the areas where the most long-

term research and monitoring on juvenile Chinook habitat use has been conducted. The data and statistical models on

juvenile Chinook habitat capacity for the Skagit estuary and freshwater tidal delta are likely the best available in the Puget

Sound. The justification for the protection and restoration of riverine floodplain habitats comes from the analysis of

Chinook juvenile outmigrant data that has been collected since the late 1990s at WDWF’s mainstem Skagit smolt trap at

Burlington. A scientific paper published in 2015 verifies one of the key assumptions presented in the 2005 Skagit Chinook

Recovery Plan: riverine floodplain habitat is currently limiting the capacity of Chinook parr (juvenile) outmigrants from the

Skagit watershed.

2. Does the watershed have a clear sense of priorities among salmon populations, including listed populations and populations

important for treaty rights? Do the strategies and actions chosen reflect those priorities?

Yes, though progress needs to be made in addressing the weakest Chinook salmon populations in the watershed, and in

addressing ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout in approved recovery plans. The Skagit watershed possesses six independent

populations of Chinook salmon: Lower Skagit fall run, Upper Skagit summer run, Lower Sauk summer run, Upper Sauk spring

run, Suiattle spring run, and Cascade spring run. The 2005 Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan and the SWC’s 2015 Strategic

Approach placed the highest priority in terms of habitat restoration and protection efforts on those areas of the watershed

that support multiple Chinook populations. These areas include the estuary and tidal delta regions of the Lower Skagit

watershed, which provide juvenile rearing habitat for all six populations of Chinook salmon. The mainstem river and

floodplains of the Lower and Middle Skagit River (the latter extending up to the Sauk River confluence) are also used by all six

populations of Chinook salmon. The Upper Skagit River, Lower Cascade River, and Lower Sauk River are all used by two

populations of Chinook salmon. The remaining areas of the watershed with large mainstem floodplains, including the Upper

Sauk River, Upper Cascade River, and Suiattle River support a single population of Chinook.

While six independent populations of Chinook salmon are present in WRIAs 3 & 4 (the most of any WRIAs in the Puget

Sound), they are managed as two stocks (Summer/Fall Chinook and Spring Chinook) for harvest and recovery planning

purposes. The disadvantage of this approach is that the weakest populations of Chinook in the watershed may not be

receiving the priority they require in terms of recovery project funding. This is especially the case for Suiattle Spring Chinook,

which are the smallest and most vulnerable population in the Skagit. In 2015, the SWC TWG completed an assessment of

tributaries in the Skagit watershed that identified the tributaries that are most important to the production of Chinook. This

assessment resulted in the designation of 14 tributaries as Tier 2 target areas for protection and restoration project

prioritization in the SWC’s 2015 Strategic Approach, including several major tributaries that are critical to the long-term

viability of Suiattle and Upper Sauk Spring Chinook. The inclusion of these tributaries in the Strategic Approach goes a long

way towards addressing Spring Chinook populations in the Skagit, which are much more dependent upon tributary habitats

than summer-run and fall-run populations.




The Skagit is a stronghold watershed for ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout. It is the most important watershed in the Puget

Sound in terms of steelhead abundance and amount of high quality steelhead habitat. It is by far the most important

watershed in the Coastal Recovery Unit identified in the USFWS’s final recovery plan for bull trout, which includes the west

coasts of Washington and Oregon. Up to 2015, the SWC’s recovery approach focused solely on Chinook salmon. Benefits to

steelhead and bull trout were often identified and discussed in project proposals submitted for SRF Board and PSAR funding,

but have not been included in the scoring of projects for grant funding in SWC’s technical review and priorization process. In

2016, SWC made a good start towards incorporating steelhead into their recovery strategy by creating a new “Tier 2”

steelhead target area, which includes tributaries where steelhead are present and Chinook are not present.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the recovery plan for bull trout in the conterminous United States in 2015. Two

core areas for bull trout were identified in this recovery plan: the Lower Skagit (estuary up to Gorge Dam), and Upper Skagit

(watershed above Gorge Dam). The Skagit contains the most abundant and diverse populations of bull trout in the Coastal

Recovery Unit (western Washington and western Oregon). Bull trout recovery is not currently included in SWC’s Strategic

Approach, and is not addressed in the project review and prioritization process. The SWC currently regards bull trout

recovery as a low priority for grant funding because populations of this species in the lower and upper core areas are

considered among the healthiest for this listed species in the United States. In contrast, Chinook salmon and steelhead have

reached historically low levels in the Skagit since 2000. Nevertheless, SWC’s inclusion of 15 tributaries as Tier 2 target areas

is a major step towards protecting local populations of bull trout in the Skagit. The majority of tributaries in the Upper Skagit,

Upper Sauk, Suiattle, and Cascade subbasins possess genetically distinct local populations of bull trout. As such, projects in

Tier 2 tributaries will protect and restore some of the most important spawning and rearing habitats of bull trout in the

Coastal Recovery Unit, which includes western Washington and western Oregon. The SWC is encouraged to examine grant

funding opportunities that would primarily benefit bull trout, including USFWS ESA Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) grants, in

the Tier 2 tributaries of the Skagit watershed.

3. How strong is the scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this chapter? Would you recommend other or more

scientific modeling or analysis tools to strengthen the basis for the hypotheses that inform the chosen strategies and

actions? (Reviewers may not have enough content to fully answer these questions this year, but they should start the

conversation with the watershed; note that many watersheds may be doing additional work that is not adequately captured in

the 4YWP)

The scientific foundation for the 2005 Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan is very strong, and provides the basis for recovery actions

described in the chapter, as well as the recovery strategies described in the SWC’s 2015 Strategic Approach for Chinook

recovery. The scientific foundation is based upon empirical data that have been collected over a period of several years on

the abundance and habitat capacity for spawners and rearing juvenile fish among major ecological zones in the watershed.

The best available data for juvenile rearing abundance and capacity is found in the estuary and freshwater tidal delta areas of

the Skagit, with most of this data collected by the Skagit River System Cooperative (SRSC). Juvenile density data has been

collected in these areas of the watershed on an annual basis for several decades.

Data on the distribution, abundance, and habitat capacity of juvenile Chinook in the freshwater floodplain areas of the

watershed were collected in several major studies. Unlike the estuary and tidal delta, where juvenile densities are monitored

on an annual basis, data available for the freshwater floodplain areas of the watershed are restricted to a couple of years. The

first data set was collected by SRSC in 1995 as part of an assessment of juvenile Chinook habitat use in the estuary and large

river floodplain areas of the watershed. This study provided a comparative assessment of juvenile densities among freshwater

habitat types present in the mainstem Skagit and Sauk Rivers. A broad-scale assessment of freshwater habitat use by juvenile

Chinook salmon, and other juvenile salmonids, in the Skagit River basin was conducted in the late 2000s and early 2010s by

the Upper Skagit Tribe, SRSC, WDFW, University of Washington, and Seattle City Light. This study focused on the distribution,

densities, and habitat use patterns of salmonids with a yearling life history, but included observations on the densities of both

fry and yearling juvenile Chinook.

The Skagit watershed also possesses a very high-quality, long-term data set on the annual production of juvenile Chinook

outmigrants. This data is collected at the WDFW smolt sampling facility (inclined plane and screw traps), located in the Lower

Skagit River upstream of the town of Mt. Vernon. The WDFW smolt trap has been operating since 1990. The Skagit also

possesses a high quality data set on the annual abundance of Chinook spawners in the basin. Annual estimates are provided

for each of the six independent Chinook stocks present in the Skagit.

Altogether, these data provide strong scientific evidence that the productivity of Chinook salmon in the Skagit watershed is

limited by the availability of high-quality juvenile rearing habitat, especially in the estuary, freshwater tidal delta, and large

river floodplain areas of the watershed. Pocket estuaries in the nearshore areas of the Skagit and large freshwater tributaries

are regarded as important for sustaining the diversity of different Chinook life history types in the Skagit, including estuary fry

migrants (which use pocket estuaries) and yearling life history types (which are mainly supported by tributaries). The recovery

actions identified in the 2005 Plan are based upon the hypothesis that the scarcity of high-quality rearing habitat for juvenile

Chinook is the most important factor limiting the six independent Chinook populations in the Skagit.

Although the Skagit Chinook recovery plan is fundamentally strong due to its reliance on data and empirical relationships, the

2005 Plan (and SWC’s overall recovery strategy) could be made even stronger by the following recommendations:

• Validate and improve recovery hypotheses and models with data that has been collected since the recovery plan chapter

was completed in 2005. A considerable amount of data has been collected in the Skagit in the decade following the

completion of the Chinook recovery chapter. This data should be used to validate the key recovery hypotheses described

in the recovery plan. In some cases, alternative hypotheses may need to be developed and tested against this data as

part of the adaptive management process. Additional funding support will likely be required for the additional analysis

required to complete these adaptive management steps.




• Use new monitoring data and scientific information to improve predictions of fish and habitat benefits that will be yielded

from recovery actions. The Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan employs a number of empirical relationships, statistical models,

and landscape models to predict the number of Chinook smolts that would be produced by specific recovery actions.

Over the last decade, a number of major restoration projects have been completed in the Skagit which have included

post-project monitoring. These monitoring studies have provided valuable data on the response of fish and habitat to

specific restoration actions. This new information should be used to refine these empirical relationships and models,

where applicable, to improve the estimates of fish and habitat benefits for future projects. Additional regional funding

may be required to support these adaptive management steps.

• Include the key findings of the salmonid yearling research study in updates to the Chinook Recovery Plan, and the

Strategic Approach. The recently completed salmonid yearling study provides a basin-wide description of the

distribution, abundance, and freshwater habitat preferences of juvenile salmonids, including stream-type Chinook salmon,

ocean-type Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The key findings from this study should be included in future

updates to the Recovery Plan and Strategic Approach.

4. Are there gaps in strategies or actions that the watershed should consider filling in future revisions?

Several gaps in strategies and actions are identified in the 2005 Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan, the SWC’s 2015 Strategic

Approach, and the 2016 4YWP narrative. Based upon a review of these documents, the watershed should consider addressing

and filling the following gaps in future revisions:

Consider including the protection and restoration of nearshore processes (especially sediment transport) in the recovery

strategy. With the exception of pocket estuaries, SWC’s 2015 Strategic Approach does not address the nearshore areas of

the watershed. Protecting and restoring natural processes in the nearshore areas of the watershed, including sediment

production areas (e.g., bluff-backed beaches) and sediment transport processes (drift cells), are important to the recovery

of nearshore habitats important to Chinook salmon.

Improve understanding of linkages between upland watershed areas and Tier 1 and 2 habitats in the freshwater floodplain

areas of the watershed. Under the SWC’s current project prioritization approach, projects in the Tier 3 Target Area

(sediment and hydrology impaired watersheds) receive the lowest priority for restoration and protection grant funding.

However, the condition of these upland areas can have a major impact on the quality of habitat in downstream Tier 1 and

Tier 2 habitats, especially tributaries and off-channel floodplain habitats that are vulnerable to high sediment and altered

streamflows. Restoration and land acquisition projects in the upper watershed may substantially protect or improve the

quality of high priority habitats in downstream areas of the watershed, thus sustaining and improving Chinook

productivity.

Determine if the scarcity of spawning habitat, rather than juvenile rearing habitat, is limiting the Suiattle Spring Chinook

population. Recent data from spawning surveys and fish research suggest that the Spring Chinook population in the

Suiattle River drainage may be limited by spawning habitat. As such, this population may be an exception to the

hypothesis that the scarcity of juvenile rearing habitat is limiting Chinook production. The recovery strategy could be

improved by addressing the special conditions that may be limiting Suiattle Spring Chinook, which are the weakest

Chinook population in the Skagit watershed.

Develop and implement recovery actions that will improve the production of stream-type Chinook in the watershed. The

Skagit watershed includes three populations of Chinook salmon that produce substantial numbers of stream-type

(yearling) juveniles: Upper Skagit Spring Chinook, Cascade River Spring Chinook, and Suiattle River Spring Chinook.

NOAA’s recovery guidance for Puget Sound Chinook requires the recovery of at least one of these spring Chinook

populations to achieve ESA recovery goals.

Address the habitat needs of forage fish in Skagit Bay in nearshore and estuary recovery actions. Forage fish (e.g., herring

and sandlance) provide an important food source for juvenile Chinook salmon during their rearing period in Skagit Bay

and the Whidbey Basin. Identifying and implement recovery actions that improve forage fish production and would

benefit the growth and survival of juvenile Chinook by improving their estuarine and nearshore marine forage base.

Address impacts of marine mammal predation on juvenile and adult Chinook survival. The findings of recent research

studies by NOAA and others indicate that predation by marine mammals, especially harbor seals, can substantially reduce

the survival of steelhead smolts outmigrating from the Puget Sound. Marine mammal predation may also significantly

reduce the survival of immigrating Chinook salmon spawners, and emigrating Chinook salmon fry. The impacts of marine

mammal predation on Chinook should be addressed in the development of future recovery strategies and actions.

Address the impacts of climate change in habitat restoration and protection project planning and prioritization. The SWC is

currently examining ideas for addressing climate change in future revisions to their strategic approach for salmon

recovery. This will likely involve collaboration between the SWC TWG, and the Skagit Climate Science Consortium (SC2).

Identifying and implementing recovery actions that protect and restore the most resilient habitat areas (e.g., cold water

refugia) that are resilient to climate change would be a high priority.

5. In reviewing the gaps/needs/barriers section, are there places where the region should assist in providing additional technical

support or guidance to help the watershed strengthen its chapter in the future? Do you have recommendations on potential

solutions to overcoming these challenges?

As mentioned earlier, a considerable amount of new data and information have been produced in the Skagit River watershed

since the Skagit Chinook recovery chapter was completed in 2005. Examples of sources of new data include the Intensive

Monitoring Watersheds (IMW) program being conducted in the Skagit by SRSC and NOAA Fisheries, the recently completed

yearling salmonid study, WDFW’s expanded smolt trapping program in the Skagit watershed, post-project monitoring of

major restoration and protection projects, and SRF Board project effectiveness monitoring studies. The region should consider

providing funding support, and technical assistance if required, for incorporating these new data into the adaptive

management process and future revisions to the Recovery Plan and Strategic Approach.




6. How clear and specific are the goals for the populations and habitat in this chapter? What additional work do you recommend

to make them more clear and specific? How strong is the scientific foundation for the goals?

The specific goals for Chinook populations and habitat are very clear in the recovery chapter, and these goals are well

summarized in the 2016 4YWP Narrative Report submitted by SWC. The recovery goals could be improved by addressing all

of the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) metrics in future revisions to the Skagit Recovery Plan and Strategic Approach.

Identifying recovery approaches and strategies that address the weakest populations (e.g., Suiattle Spring Chinook) are

strongly encouraged.

a. Is there a clear link made between the strategies and actions within the work plan in accomplishing the stated goals?

(Action, approach, outcome)

Yes, there is a clear link between the strategies and actions within the work plan in accomplishing the stated goals.

The linkages between actions, approaches, and outcomes are well described in the “results chains” developed for the

different Skagit restoration strategies, which are presented in SWC’s Phase 1 M&AM report.

WRIA 5 Stillaguamish

1. Are projects and activities appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan (or updated strategies from

adaptive management work), a tribal treaty rights population and/or 2016 4YWP narrative? Please note that projects

benefiting fish populations of tribal importance are permitted to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding even if the populations are not

ESA listed. Lead Entities should submit letters from the tribes if there is not a documented strategy associated with the

population.

a. How confident can we be that the chosen strategies and actions will lead to an improvement in one or more

salmon populations?

The chosen strategies and actions are intended to restore, maintain, and/or protect physical and biological

processes that create, enhance, and maintain functioning freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore habitat supporting

salmonids and their prey resources. However, monitoring and adaptive management are needed at the watershed

and regional level to assess the effectiveness of the chosen strategies and actions in improving one or more

salmon populations.

b. Was there any scientific modeling or analysis completed that informs the chosen strategies and actions? If yes, did

it provide adequate justification for the strategies? If not, would you recommend an approach that would

strengthen the strategies?

Yes. The projects and activities are appropriately linked to strategies in the 2005 recovery plan and the 2016 4YWP

narrative used for 2017. While the project list does not specifically link the projects and activities to a tribal treaty

rights population, it is assumed that these projects would qualify as benefiting tribal treaty rights populations such as

steelhead and coho.

The Stillaguamish 2017 4YWP project list is very specific and succinct and only includes 12 projects (4 added to 2016

4YWP project list which previously included 8 projects). During the 2016 4YWP review, it was expected that the eight

listed projects would more than likely occur in the next four years. It is not clear when the four new projects are

expected to occur. As in the 2016 review, one project, a culvert project, is not assigned a strategy in the table because

a fish passage strategy was not developed for Chinook. However, it should be noted that a fish passage strategy will

be added as part of the steelhead recovery plan for the watershed which will ultimately cover projects of this type. As

steelhead are a tribal treaty rights population, it is recommended that the Tribal Treaty Rights Population Benefitting

column be filled in to show this link.

This recovery chapter is based on EDT modeling. There is a strong scientific foundation for the strategies and actions

in this chapter. The watershed is considering a rerun of EDT to provide an update for the watershed to further

strengthen this scientific foundation.

Additionally, the watershed has realized that climate change is becoming an ever-increasing issue. The watershed

realizes there is a need to investigate long term climate change scenarios to better inform restoration and preservation

actions throughout the watershed.

It is recommended that a climate change study be conducted for the watershed.

2. Does the watershed have a clear sense of priorities among salmon populations, including listed populations and

populations important for treaty rights? Do the strategies and actions chosen reflect those priorities?

Yes. Summer and fall Chinook salmon are the priority salmon populations for the Stillaguamish watershed. There is a

clear sense of priorities and the chosen strategies and actions reflect these priorities.

As stated above in the answer to question #1, steelhead recovery planning for the watershed is underway and the projects

and activities occurring in the watershed will provide benefit to this tribal treaty rights population.

3. How strong is the scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this chapter? Would you recommend other or

more scientific modeling or analysis tools to strengthen the basis for the hypotheses that inform the chosen strategies and





conversation with the watershed; note that many watersheds may be doing additional work that is not adequately

captured in the 4YWP)

This recovery chapter is based on EDT modeling. There is a strong scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this

chapter. The watershed is considering a rerun of EDT to provide an update for the watershed to further strengthen this

scientific foundation.

Additionally, the watershed has realized that climate change is becoming an ever-increasing issue. The watershed realizes

there is a need to investigate long term climate change scenarios to better inform restoration and preservation actions

throughout the watershed.

It is recommended that a climate change study be conducted for the watershed.


The majority of the strategies, listed in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017, have a note of “under development” in the

Adaptive Management of Strategy column. However, the Phase I MAM report includes results chains for all of the strategies

listed in the 2016 4YWP narrative. It is recommended that either this note be removed where applicable or additional notes

be added to the 4YWP narrative to better explain to the reader the status of the strategies.

As mentioned above, the Stillaguamish does not have a fish passage strategy for Chinook. However, one will be developed

for steelhead which will cover culvert and passage projects.

During the 2016 review process, Stillaguamish provided information that an Acquisition Strategy has been developed and will

be added to the strategies for the watershed.

During the 2016 review process, it was also recommended that the Stewardship Strategy be renamed to include Outreach and

Education in the title to better convey the intent of the strategy which does include an Outreach and Education component.

In 2016, a subcommittee was formed to work on the Stewardship and Outreach and Education efforts for the watershed.

5. In reviewing the gaps/needs/barriers section, are there places where the region should assist in providing additional

technical support or guidance to help the watershed strengthen its chapter in the future? Do you have recommendations

on potential solutions to overcoming these challenges

Stillaguamish would benefit from regional technical support for refining indicators, developing targets, conducting a pressure

assessment and viability binning.

Regional support and guidance on how to set goals for non-natal Chinook populations in nearshore areas of Stillaguamish is

also a need.

Regional support for conducting steelhead recovery planning would beneficial.

To accomplish the work identified in the gaps/needs/barriers section of the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017, additional

funding and capacity will be needed for Stillaguamish and will also aid them in further developing their goals and targets.

Many gaps/needs/barriers are listed in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017. The majority of which seem to reflect the

gaps/needs/barriers of most of the other Puget Sound watersheds. This information should be referenced and regional

support should be provided that will address these recurring themes for all Puget Sound watersheds.

Based on the drought conditions experienced during the summer of 2016, it is apparent that Stillaguamish will need to

include climate change scenarios in their adaptive management efforts to inform restoration and protection activities.

Stillaguamish will also need to continue to review and refine their indicators, goals, and targets and update them with current

data. To support this work, the following needs for regional support (including regional support for funding and capacity)

have been identified:

• Regional support for a rerun of EDT would be beneficial to inform target updates and continued refinement of

indicators and goals.

• Regional support for setting goals and targets for non-natal Chinook populations using the nearshore areas of

Stillaguamish is a necessity.

• Regional support to conduct viability binning for common indicators would benefit Stillaguamish.

• Regional support for freshwater and marine regulatory programs is needed.

• Regional support for iterative white papers addressing their strategies as opposed to a static chapter update.

• Regional guidance and support for conducting a watershed level pressure assessment which could begin by

cross-walking the recently developed LIO pressure assessment.

• Regional support for developing and implementing a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan.

• Regional support for developing a Steelhead Recovery Plan.

6. How clear and specific are the goals for the populations and habitat in this chapter? What additional work do you

recommend to make them more clear and specific? How strong is the scientific foundation for the goals?

a. Is there a clear link made between the strategies and actions within the work plan in accomplishing the stated

goals? (Action, approach, outcome)




The goals listed for Stillaguamish are very clear and specific. Based on review of the 2016 4YWP narrative used for

2017 and other documents there is a clear link made between strategies and actions and goals. However, many of the

targets associated with the goals are dated as they came from their 2005 recovery plan. A rerun of EDT and

development of white papers addressing the strategies will aid Stillaguamish in updating the potentially outdated

targets.

Stillaguamish is planning to update their targets using current data when available. To inform this work and to further

refine targets and goals, several white papers are being developed. Instead of completing a static chapter update,

Stillaguamish is intending to use these white papers as an iterative tool to provide continued and up to date

information and data for the ever-changing conditions in the watershed. This seems like a reasonable approach, but it

is recommended that Stillaguamish receive regional guidance and support on how best to structure these white

papers to better ensure they meet the requirements of a chapter update.

Consideration of long term climate change scenarios will provide critical information to inform restoration activities.

7. The Puget Sound Partnership must certify to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that all projects proposed for SRFB funding



No concerns. Based on review of the 2017 proposed project list and supporting materials, the reviewer has determined

that the project list is consistent with the Stillaguamish Watershed strategies. The two projects will further efforts in the

watershed to support recovery of Stillaguamish Chinook populations and tribal treaty rights populations including

steelhead and coho.

WRIA 6 Island





population.

Yes, the projects and activities are appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan. The 2005 recovery plan

is multi-species (salmon, trout, and forage fish species), the narrative in the Island County Chinook M&AM, Four Year

Work Plan Narrative Report – 2016 (4YWP hereafter) only focuses on salmon, specifically Chinook (Chinook and Coho are

mentioned in the 4YWP project list). Yet, most projects in the 4YWP project list are likely to benefit most salmon, trout,

and forage fish populations using WRIA 6.


salmon populations?

I think that no one can be confident until a conceptual model is developed, metrics are assigned, and monitoring is

performed to see if the expected results are being obtained. This should be based on: Puget Sound Recovery

Implementation Technical Team. 2015. Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery: A framework for the development of

monitoring and adaptive management plans. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-130.

Nonetheless, strategies intended to improve physical processes and ecosystem components (i.e., bluff backed

beaches, coastal landforms, offshore marine systems, pocket estuaries, rocky beaches, small channels, and uplands)

have reasonable scientific foundation. These strategies include restoration and enhancement. Hence, one would

expect that such strategies would result in salmon population improvements.

However, protection strategies associated with acquisition projects may have low confidence if they are not

acquiring lands directly used by the target species. This should be kept in mind when prioritizing 4YWP projects.




Yes, (theory of change), but just for Chinook.



No, WRIA 6 does not have a clear sense or priorities among salmon populations. This is due to the fact that likely all 22

Chinook salmon populations and most salmon populations in general use this watershed. Hence, WRIA 6 does not

prioritize any population over the others. However, WRIA 6 states that they select projects that directly address juvenile

Chinook, other juvenile salmonids, and forage fish in that order of priority. Consequently, to the extent that Chinook, other

juvenile salmonids, and forage fish are the priorities for WRIA 6, the strategies and actions chosen do reflect (are

consistent with) those priorities.

What appears to be missing is project prioritization. This will require the identification and use of indicators, which metrics

are based on readily available watershed-scale data, such GIS data. Ideally, the indicators will be selected from the

common set identified by the nearshore working group. Given that WRIA 6 did not complete a viability assessment, which




is needed for Phase II M&AM, consideration should be given to using information generated during recent Critical Areas

and SMP updates as well as recent research perform to fill the viability assessment gap. Regarding project prioritization, if

not already done, within given Ecosystem Components, WRIA 6 should focus on those areas where most current research

has shown juvenile Chinook habitat use.

WRIA 6 will benefit from looking back at (and implementing) the recommendations provided in the document: Compiled

2014 RITT and NOAA Reviews of Watershed M&AM Reports and 3YWPs.






On one hand, from a multi-species perspective, the strategies intended to improve physical ecosystem components (i.e.,

bluff backed beaches, coastal landforms, offshore marine systems, pocket estuaries, rocky beaches, small channels, and

uplands) have reasonable scientific foundation. These include protection, restoration and enhancement. This is

particularly the case, given that WRIA 6 states that it prioritizes projects that directly address juvenile Chinook, other

juvenile salmonids, and forage fish in that order of priority. However, juvenile Chinook, other juvenile salmonids, and

forage fish do not use equally (and the extent of use is likely a data gap) the habitat associated with these physical

ecological components. Therefore, project prioritization and ranking is likely to be subjective, even if quantitative

indicators are selected. Note that in 2014, the RITT recommended developing a strong focus on the relationship between

nearshore habitats and Chinook salmon use.

On the other hand, there does not appear to be strong scientific foundation for the other strategies and actions listed in

the 4YWP (see Table 3 of the 4YWP). Also, the scientific linkage between these strategies and the overarching goal

included in the 4YWP is not provided. However, providing such linkages may only address political and societal

sensitivities that while may facilitate process may not be needed to achieve recovery objectives. Nevertheless, a cost-

benefit analysis should be performed, given that the majority of the strategies fall within the category of those without

strong scientific foundation. The Skagit watershed has a very sophisticated approach to nearshore strategies with very

specific targets, which perhaps can be adapted for use in WRIA 6. This will help measure progress and do adaptive

management.

One strategy, Marine Mammals and Other Predators, does not seem relevant and should be removed from the future

chapter.


While several gaps were filled since 2005, many gaps identified in the Island County Chinook Monitoring and Adaptive

Management Phase I Summary Report – 2014 (Phase I M&AM report hereafter) still remain. It is recommended that gaps

identified in the Phase I M&AM report be filled, but only to the extent that they may contribute to determine current

status of ecosystem components and define desired future status associated with future goal and objective setting (Phase

II). Given that WRIA 6 did not complete a viability assessment, which is needed for Phase II M&AM, consideration should

be given to using information generated during recent Critical Areas and SMP updates as well as recent research perform

to fill the viability assessment gap.

In addition, WRIA 6 recognizes the following gaps:

• Marine Riparian Vegetation amounts: WRIA 6 is waiting for the common protocol to be determined.

• Drift cell indicators: data exist, but WRIA 6 is waiting for protocols to then extract the data.



on potential solutions to overcoming these challenges?

The gaps, barriers, and challenges are not clearly identified and they should be in a concise way. As written, in most

instances it is not clear what are the specific gaps barriers, and challenges. As stated under question 4 earlier in this

document, many gaps identified in the Phase I M&AM report still remain. However, there may no longer be a need to try

to fill all of those gaps. It may be good to focus just on filling gaps that may help to support the following strategies:

Enhancement, Beach Restoration, Pocket Estuary Restoration, and Stream Restoration. Regarding stream restoration, the

current scientific knowledge is that yes, juvenile Chinook rear in small coastal streams, but only in the lowermost portion

of those streams and their associated estuary/delta areas. Hence, projects aimed at, for example, improving downstream

sediment transport and quality would likely directly benefit juvenile Chinook. However, culvert replacement projects in the

upper portion of those small coastal streams may only benefit coho and trout, and therefore, should rank lower in the

prioritization.

To address these challenges, the region could support WRIA 6’s efforts by coordinating/helping to coordinate exchange of

information regarding current recovery effort’s processes, scientific knowledge, and WRIA documentation from the Skagit,

Snohomish, and WRIA 8. Additionally, the region could further assist WRIA 6 by funding a position to support the lead

coordinator’s efforts.



Not clear. Only one goal (IC-G01) is included:




Over the long term, achieve a net increase in salmon habitat through protection, enhancement, and restoration of

naturally-functioning ecosystems that support self-sustaining salmon populations and the species that depend on

salmon.

This same goal is included for eight different ecological components, which include both physical and biological ones.

While the goal could be seen as appropriate for the physical ecological components, it would not be appropriate for the

biological components (i.e., Chinook salmon Nearshore Generic Population and Species & food webs). Regardless, it

should be noted that protection would never result in a net increase in salmon habitat. Also, given the multi-species

nature of this WRIA’s recovery plan, this goal seems too narrow and not inclusive of other species (i.e., trout and forage

fish).

Overall, the goal lacks specificity regarding quantification because only mention “a net increase” as the outcome. For

Phase II, the goal setting should follow a SMART approach: Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time Bound.

Specific metrics will be needed for each of the listed physical ecosystem components. As stated in the answer to question

number 2 above, this will require the identification and use of indicators, which metrics are based on readily available

watershed-scale data, such GIS data. Ideally, the indicators will be selected from the common set identified by the

nearshore working group. For example, lineal feet of bluff backed beaches restored, acquired, or protected in perpetuity

through a conservation easement. Of the Ecosystem Components included in the 4YWP, priority should be given to those

that provide greatest direct benefits to juvenile Chinook and forage fish (sand lance and surf smelt): bluff backed beaches,

coastal landforms, and pocket estuaries. Regarding small channels, the focus should be in their lowermost portions,

estuaries, and delta areas.

In addition, no clear link is provided between the strategies and actions and how the goal will be accomplished. For

example, what specific actions will be implemented, what approach will be used, and what are the expected outcomes or

results chains. This information should be included in the 4YWP.

Please see also answer to question 3, which in part addresses the strength of the scientific foundation of the goal.



Yes. However, see answers to parts a and be of question 1.




No concerns. However, the following recommendation are intended to help improve WRIA 6 recovery plan as this

watershed goes through its chapter update and associated monitoring and assessment plan development process:

c. Read all the comments and recommendations provided in 2016 and 2017 (this document) as part of the 4YWP

review process. Keep them in mind as applicable while developing the chapter update.

d. The WRIA 6 Site-Scale Nearshore Acquisition Strategy (proposed Project Number 17-1063) seems to be a good

initiative. The WRIA 6 Lead Entity Coordinator should convey to the folks that will develop the strategy this:

protection strategies associated with acquisition projects may have low confidence of improvement in one or more

salmon populations, if they are not acquiring lands directly used by the target species. A conceptual model should

be used to help guide the acquisition strategy.

e. Future goal setting should follow a SMART approach: Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time Bound.

Specific metrics will be needed for each of the listed physical ecosystem components.

f. WRIA 8 just completed its recovery chapter update and monitoring and assessment plan development. WRIA 6

could coordinate with the PSP and WRIA 8 to use this watershed’s chapter update (the document and its

development process) to build upon and develop its chapter update. Likewise, WRIA 6 should consider using WRIA

8’s monitoring and assessment plan to build upon and develop its own; doing so is likely to save time and money.

WRIA 7 Snohomish



benefiting fish populations of tribal importance are permitted to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding even if the populations are

not ESA listed. Lead Entities should submit letters from the tribes if there is not a documented strategy associated with the

population.


salmon populations?





salmon populations.







Yes, based on the information added to the end of the 2017 4YWP project list table, the projects and activities are

appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan, to tribal treaty rights populations, and/or to the

4YWP.

The 2017 4YWP list appears to be the same as the 2016 4YWP list with the exception that one acquisition project has

been added. The 2017 4YWP project list is long with over 170 projects included. As commented on in the 2016

review, the 2017 4YWP project list table includes additional strategy and prioritization information from the

Snohomish recovery plan and other documents. However, the main body of 2017 4YWP project list does not include

an assigned results chain strategy for each of the projects. This column of the table has the place holder “LE to assign”

inserted throughout. The Phase I M&AM framework and former 3YWP includes numerous results chain strategies.

The Snohomish Basin Protection Plan includes additional protection strategies. It is recommended that the projects in

the 2017 4YWP project list be assigned a results chain strategy to better inform the reader/reviewer of the linkages

with the strategies developed for the Phase I M&AM.

To better convey the in-depth and immense amount of information contained in several documents developed for the

basin, the 2017 4YWP project list would benefit from a review, edit, and update to assign results chain strategies

developed during the Phase I M&AM framework process, including the strategies from the protection planning efforts,

and other missing information such as activity type columns (primary and secondary).

The 2005 recovery chapter is based on EDT, SHIRAZ, and an Ecological Analysis for Salmonid Conservation (EASC).

Recent work has included the development of a Snohomish Basin Protection Plan. As a result, there is a strong

scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this chapter. However, because of the immense amount of

information, data, and documents that exist for the Snohomish chapter, the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 does

not sufficiently or effectively present this strong scientific foundation and the reader/reviewer is required to routinely

seek out and reference several other documents such as those listed above.

As with many other Puget Sound watersheds, there is a need to conduct climate change modeling and gather

information on projected sea level rise to better inform strategies and future actions in the basin. Snohomish is also

considering a rerun of EDT using current data. A status/trend update to refine the basin’s 10-year targets is also in

order and would be the first step in a chapter update.

As stated above, the basin has an immense amount of data and information that is not sufficiently or effectively

communicated in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 and 2017 4YWP project list. It is recommended that efforts

be made to synthesize and analyze the data and information to make it useful and accessible.



Yes. There is a clear sense of priorities among the salmon populations that are the focus of this multi-species plan and

the strategies and actions that have been chosen reflect those priorities. Work is focused on Chinook salmon and bull

trout as well as coho salmon and steelhead trout. However, the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 only includes

information for Chinook. As a result, the reader/reviewer is required to review several other documents to gain an

understanding of strategies and actions geared toward the other species in the chapter.

The 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 provides very general information. It is not formatted in a way that translates

and conveys the immense amount of information and data that has been developed over the years for this basin.

Several other documents, listed above, including the 2014 3YWP, better presents the years of work that has gone in to

developing actions and strategies for the Snohomish as well as provides informative information regarding the tools

and methods that are used to prioritize and sequence projects and allocate funds throughout the basin.






See comment 1b.


There are numerous strategies identified in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 for the basin including the recent

protection strategies. However, there are currently no strategies for water quality, water temperature, and toxics in the

estuary.

To fill these gaps in strategy, Snohomish is considering developing strategies to address water quality. While these

strategies are a gap that should be filled, it may be beneficial to work them in to other existing strategies as opposed

to making the strategy list even longer.




Additionally, as with other watersheds in Puget Sound, it would be beneficial for Snohomish to reevaluate their

nearshore strategies as the scientific knowledge regarding the importance of nearshore areas has greatly expanded

since 2005.

The 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 4YWP project list would benefit from a review and edit to ensure that the

listed strategies are consistent with the other background documents. It appears that the titles may differ across these

various documents which is confusing for the reader/reviewer.



on potential solutions to overcoming these challenges?

As stated in the discussions to the previous questions, there is an immense amount of data and information for the

basin that the format of the 4YWP narrative does not effectively translate and convey. The Snohomish would benefit

from regional direction and guidance on how best to translate and communicate this in-depth and impressive amount

of information so that it is useful at a regional level.

The Snohomish would benefit from working with the region to determine a way in which to have their chapter update

include the watershed’s identity and translate the great body of work that has already been conducted. The format of

the 2016 4YWP narrative, based on the MIRADI files, does not present a full picture of this work and may actually

hinder efforts towards adaptive management of the Snohomish chapter because critical information seems to have

been lost in the process and is not readily available to the reader/reviewer.

Many gaps/needs/barriers are listed in the 2016 4YWP narrative; the majority of which seem to reflect the

gaps/needs/barriers of most of the other Puget Sound watersheds. The 2016 4YWP narrative table should be

referenced and regional support should be provided that will address these recurring themes for all Puget Sound

watersheds. Additionally, Snohomish would benefit from regional guidance on viability binning.

During the 2016 review process, several additional needs for technical support and “Big Picture” monitoring from the

region to inform the Snohomish and other chapter updates were identified and include the following:

• Climate change

• Sea level rise

• LiDAR

• Land cover change analysis

• Marine survival studies

• Non-natal Chinook use of nearshore areas

• Communication of science for decision making and policy process

As commented on in the 2016 review, the Snohomish would benefit from regional training and resources on how to

effectively communicate and conduct adaptive management with decision and policy makers. This would also include

regional guidance on when it is time to shift gears from planning efforts to doing work and adaptively managing the

efforts.





The Snohomish recovery chapter has clear and specific goals for populations and habitat that have been developed

with a strong scientific foundation and based on review of other documents there is a clear link made between

strategies and actions and goals. However, as stated above, the goals are better defined and communicated in

previous documents such as the 2014 3YWP. It is recommended that the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 be

updated to include this information.

As the format of the 2016 4YWP may be restricted by MIRADI, it is recommended that the region provide guidance

and support on how to accomplish this. One recommendation for a short-term fix would be to include the

goals/targets tables from the 2014 3YWP as an attachment to the 2016 4YWP narrative, as it would take away some of

the required burden to hunt down information to gain insight in to the efforts being conducted in the basin.

It should also be noted that many of the existing 10-year goals and the information used to develop them may be

outdated, hence a status/trend/10-year targets update has been identified as a need.

7. The Puget Sound Partnership must certify to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that all projects proposed for SRFB

funding are consistent with lead entity strategies. Do you have concerns about any project’s fit to strategy that the

Partnership should consider when making this certification?

No concerns. Based on review of the 2017 proposed project list and supporting materials, the reviewer has determined

that the project list is consistent with the Snohomish Basin strategies. The five projects will further efforts in the watershed

to support recovery of Snohomish Basin Chinook populations, bull trout and tribal treaty rights populations including

steelhead and coho.




WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish

We reviewed project consistency between the four year workplan (4YWP) strategies and hypotheses, and the proposed

projects submitted for funding to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SFRB). There are two projects proposed to receive

SRFB funding this year. Our objective was to evaluate project consistency with the salmon recovery strategies articulated in

the WRIA8 4YWP. In order to make this assessment, we addressed three questions:

1. Is the sequence of actions identified in the 4YWP project list consistent with the current hypotheses and strategies

identified in the 4YWP narrative;

2. Is the sequence of actions identified in the 4YWP consistent with the current hypotheses and strategies for other species

(steelhead trout); and,

3. Are actions sequenced and timed appropriately for the current stage of implementation?

The WRIA 8 project list is comprised of 50 proposed actions including physical habitat restoration and property acquisitions.

Within WRIA 8, restoration priorities are established by reach, with specific projects identified within reaches. This structure

provides flexibility to be adaptive and opportunistic. Landowners or project sponsors put forth project ideas that coincide with

the WRIA 8 four year work plan (4YWP), potential projects get scored according to the “functional tier” of the area where the

project is proposed. Tier 1 areas have spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for Chinook salmon. Tier 2 areas are

characterized by less use and habitat area for Chinook spawning. Projects that advanced for funding must demonstrate that

they align with certain scientific principles and are consistent with the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters. By the

time projects have been advanced for funding, they have already been vetted by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. The 4YWP

for WRIA 8 is continuously updated and involves revisiting their conceptual model of salmon recovery in the WRIA. Projects in

the plan are reviewed according to their consistency with the conceptual model and used to refine a “big” list of all potential

projects in the WRIA. Through this evaluation, some projects fall out, and others become better understood and are added to

the 4YWP to be eligible for funding. Each project is evaluated relative to the species and life stage has specific benefits, and

the ways in which critical restoration strategies address critical life stages. This information is used to refine potential projects

on the list.

While the complete WRIA 8 4YWP project list includes 50 projects, only 2 of these were put forward in 2017 for funding to the

SRFB including:

1. Royal Arch Reach Protection Project – Property Acquisition (#17-1040). The Royal Arch Reach Protection project acquires

two parcels along the Cedar River in King County, covering 10.8 acres and 1.08 acres, and is located at approximately River

Mile 14.5 near the intersection of Highway 169 and Highway 18 near Maple Valley. The project goal is to secure land that will

be part of a larger floodplain reconnection project in the future once all key parcels are acquired. During the 20th century the

Cedar River in the Royal Arch Reach was channelized with bank hardening structures such as levees and revetments, cutting

off the wide, low gradient floodplain from the main channel. Reconnecting this floodplain to the mainstem will provide

important rearing and refuge habitat for Chinook salmon, which has been identified as a limiting factor for Chinook salmon

recovery in the Cedar River basin. Seattle Public Utilities has already acquired 14 acres in this reach, and is in the process of

acquiring an additional 15 acres, including the two subject parcels. Only two privately owned parcels (totaling 38 acres) remain

to be acquired to enable a 67-acre floodplain reconnection project.

2. Issaquah Creek Instream Restoration Project- Preliminary Design (#17-1074) The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust is

requesting funding for preliminary design of an instream restoration project involving large woody material installations and

other habitat features along the 6,600-foot stretch of Issaquah Creek within Lake Sammamish State Park. Instream restoration

through this reach of Issaquah Creek will provide significant habitat benefits for ESA-listed Chinook salmon and other

salmonids by providing instream structural diversity and more functional habitat. This project is a continuation of the effort

underway between the Greenway Trust, State Parks, and other partners, and will move the instream restoration planning

process toward implementation in 2020. Within the project area, Issaquah Creek is incised in many locations and thus

disconnected from the surrounding floodplain. This condition adversely impacts habitat for Chinook and other salmonids by

confining moderate to high flows to a primary, single-thread channel with very few high-flow refugia and little floodplain

activation. To compound matters, there are no longer substantial sources for wood recruitment to provide structure, diversity,

and habitat within the channel. This project will create a plan to address these factors along the lower portion of Issaquah

Creek, with an emphasis placed on improving juvenile Chinook rearing habitat, emphasizing the restoration of natural

processes to permanently restore productive salmonid fish habitat for Chinook and other species.

Below we summarize the response to the three key questions regarding consistency of proposed actions:


identified in the 4YWP narrative?

Yes. Because of the approach that WRIA 8 uses to generate the 4YWP, both of these projects are consistent with current

strategies identified in the 4YWP. Because lands in the WRIA are of relatively high economic value, project planning and real




estate acquisition are key to the success of the 4YWP. Moreover, the Royal Arch property acquisition is recommended for

funding in part, by taking advantage of $258,640 in 2015 - 2017 returned PSAR funds. The Issaquah Creek

Instream Restoration Preliminary Site Design Project, if approved for funding would receive the balance of funding available

for the WRIA during 2017, which almost fulfills the total request.


(steelhead trout)?

Yes. Both of these proposed actions as well as most projects identified in 4YWP for WRIA 8 are focused on Chinook and are

known to benefit other species of salmon and steelhead trout. Both project proposals mention how the projects are expected

to specifically benefit steelhead trout, as well as other salmonids. The expected benefit of both of these projects will extend to

adult and juveniles of all target species.


Yes, both the property acquisition, and preliminary site design projects are necessary first steps of restoration projects. As

mentioned above, this is crucial in WRIA 8 where the sequencing of real estate acquisition can affect the overall restoration

timeline.

Conclusion: Our review of the two projects proposed for SRFB funding indicates that they are consistent with salmon recovery

strategies articulated by the 4YWP for WRIA 8. The proposed actions focus on protecting and restoring critical habitat for

Chinook and other species as identified in the WRIA 8 Recovery Plan.

WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish

WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish/Central Puget Sound Watershed) is submitting one project for funding.

To determine the consistency of this project with the recovery strategies for WRIA 9, the technical review examined the WRIA

9 Salmon Habitat Plan, the watershed’s four-year work plan list, a sub-area plan for the Duwamish Transition Zone (RM 1 – 10)

developed in 2014, and the project proposal information available in the PRISM database

(https://secure.rco.wa.gov/prism/search/projectsnapshot.aspx?ProjectNumber=17-1048).

The Riverton project is one of nine projects identified in the 4YWP list located in the Duwamish Transition Zone.

The project description as described by the project sponsor is the replacement of two tidal flapgates at the mouth of Riverton

Creek with self-regulating tidegates that would allow normal tidal flushing while reducing flooding on Riverton Creek during

high flows in the Duwamish. The project and associated creek restoration will restore and enhance salmonid habitat within

lower 700 feet of Riverton Creek and improve its connection to the Duwamish River for fish access to the lower creek.

The Duwamish Blueprint identifies strategies and actions targeting the creation of shallow water habitat, and improved

riparian vegetation and in-channel complexity wood placement (Ostergaard et al., 2014). The Duwamish Blueprint is intended

to provide guidance to focus habitat enhancement activities in the transition zone to improve survival of juvenile Chinook as

they transition to the marine environment. Riverton Creek reconnection and restoration is an action identified in the

Duwamish Blueprint plan.

This reviewer concludes the project is consistent with recovery strategies and priorities for the Green-Duwamish watershed

based on the material provided and a review of the recovery documents for the Green-Duwamish watershed. The Riverton

project will reconnect and enhance the lower section of a tributary stream in the Duwamish River transition zone providing

off-channel habitat for juvenile salmonids and providing a small enhancement of ecosystem floodplain functions in a highly

altered portion of the watershed.

References

Ostergaard, E., D. Clark, K. Minsch, S. Whiting, J. Stern, R. Hoff, B. Anderson, L. Johnston, L. Arber, and G. Blomberg. 2014.

Duwamish Blueprint: Salmon Habitat in the Duwamish Transition Zone. Prepared by the Duwamish Blueprint Working Group

for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Seattle, WA.

WRIA 11 Nisqually

Nisqually River is submitting one project for funding, one partial, and five alternative projects.

To determine the consistency of this project with the recovery strategies for the Nisqually River, the technical review examined

the watershed Salmon Habitat Plan for Chinook, the draft Nisqually Steelhead Recovery plan, the watershed’s four-year work

plan list, and the project proposal information available in the PRISM database.




The top ranked project continues the very successful acquisition and protection of the Nisqually River mainstem shoreline.

This project proposes to acquire up to four properties on the south shoreline of the Wilcox Reach.

The project proposal states the following description:

“These properties occupy the channel migration zone, and include 0.4 miles of river front. The river is rapidly eroding the

shoreline of these properties. Of the 34 acres included in the original parcel boundaries, approximately 14 acres are

currently within the active channel area and 20 acres are on the adjacent floodplain. In early 2016, a shift in channel

location between river mile 28.8 and 30.8 eroded over 60 feet of bank in front of structures on these properties, leaving

one home uninhabitable and a nearby residence at risk. The project would also include demolition of structures and

cleanup of the properties, where needed, to enhance natural floodplain and riverine processes. Eliminating structures and

infrastructure from these properties will ensure that residential materials and debris do not fall into the river, and

minimizing threats to water quality and aquatic habitats.”

This project and projects 2 – 7 are the continuation of protection and restoration strategies in the Ohop and Mashel

watersheds or the restoration of riparian habitat. The planning projects (17-1087 and 17-1085) will allow the watershed to

identify new areas for acquisition and restoration.

This reviewer concludes the project list is consistent with recovery strategies and priorities for the Nisqually River watershed

based on the material provided and a review of the recovery documents for the watershed. The top ranked Wilcox acquisition

will allow future restoration to reconnect and restore Nisqually River floodplain habitats.

South Sound (WRIA 13 (Deschutes), WRIA 14, WRIA 15 (West Sound), WRIA 11 (Nisqually), WRIA 12)





population.

Yes and no. a) Yes, in that listed projects (2016 4YWP Project List’s spreadsheet) are linked to the corresponding result chain

strategy codes described in the South Sound M&AM Project, Four Year Work Plan Narrative Report – 2016 (4YWP hereafter),

the South Sound M&AM Project Chinook Monitoring and Adaptive Management Phase I Summary Report:

Preliminary Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework (Phase I M&AM here after), and to strategies within the 2005

recovery plan, which address species based in part on their tribal importance. b) No, because it appears that species other

than Chinook have not been modelled, and therefore, it is challenging to reflect those projects and strategies aimed to

benefits the Tribe’s priority species within a Chinook focused M&AM process.

In addition, the 2017 4YWP Project List’s spreadsheet contains projects from multiple WRIAs:

Pink: WRIA 13 (Deschutes)

Tan: WRIA 14

Light blue: WRIA 15 (West Sound)

Purple/lavender: WRIA 11 (Nisqually)

Purple: WRIA 12

Of these, most projects from WRIA 15 are missing the information under the Results Chain Strategy in the 2017 4YWP Project

List’s spreadsheet.

a. How confident can we be that the chosen strategies and actions will lead to an improvement in one or more salmon

populations?

Perhaps except for Chinook, I think that no one can be confident particularly on those species that have not been

modelled. Until they are modeled, metrics are assigned, and monitoring is performed to see if the expected results are

being obtained, it would be difficult to be confident. This should be based on: Puget Sound Recovery Implementation

Technical Team. 2015. Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery: A framework for the development of monitoring and

adaptive management plans. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-130.

Nonetheless, strategies intended to improve physical processes and ecosystem components (e.g., pocket estuaries,

coastal landforms) have reasonable scientific foundation. Hence, one would expect that such strategies would result in

salmon population improvements.

However, protection strategies associated with acquisition projects may have low confidence if they are not acquiring

lands directly use by the target species. This should be kept in mind when prioritizing 4YWP projects.

b. Was there any scientific modeling or analysis completed that informs the chosen strategies and actions? If yes, did it

provide adequate justification for the strategies? If not, would you recommend an approach that would strengthen the

strategies?

Yes, (theory of change), but just for Chinook. It seems to provide adequate justification for the strategy. However, I

believe that Island conceptual model did not consider any stresses to the ecosystem components included in the

4YWP list.




2. Does the watershed have a clear sense of priorities among salmon populations, including listed populations and populations

important for treaty rights? Do the strategies and actions chosen reflect those priorities?

Yes and no. a) Yes, South Sound has priorities among salmon populations, including those identify by the Squaxin Island

Tribe as priority (Freshwater: chum, coho, cutthroat trout, and steelhead; Nearshore: chum, coho, cutthroat trout, steelhead,

and Chinook. b) No, because as stated above under answer to question number 1, it appears that species other than Chinook

have not been modelled, and therefore, it is challenging to reflect those projects and strategies aimed to benefits the Tribe’s

priority species within a Chinook focused M&AM process.

Also, new strategies are being proposed, and these strategies are not yet linked to the goals, objectives, or priorities.

Regarding the newly proposed strategies, some seem to be redundant (based on the descriptions provided in the 4YWP), or

include redundant elements when compared with the existing strategies, and lack specificity. For example, Habitat Protection

strategies are being proposed. These strategies focus on improving & increasing habitat protection: Safeguarding existing

physical habitat and habitat forming processes through voluntary, regulatory, acquisition, technical assistance, incentive, or

education/outreach approaches. However, existing strategy RC1, Nearshore Protection & Restoration, already addresses

habitat protection. Perhaps is the lack of specificity what makes them look redundant.

A chapter update is needed to explain how the newly proposed strategies will result in benefit to the species.

Also, project prioritization seems missing. This will require the identification and use of indicators, which metrics are based on

readily available watershed-scale data, such GIS data. Ideally, the indicators will be selected from the common set identified by

the nearshore working group. WRIAS 13/14 (South Sound), WRIA 6, and WRIA 2 could benefit by working together on the

establishment of indicators, given that these watersheds are using many common Ecosystem Components. South Sound may

also be able to incorporate some of the advance indicator establishment work that WRIA 8 has already completed for its

nearshore area.

3. How strong is the scientific foundation for the strategies and actions in this chapter? Would you recommend other or more

scientific modeling or analysis tools to strengthen the basis for the hypotheses that inform the chosen strategies and


conversation with the watershed; note that many watersheds may be doing additional work that is not adequately captured in

the 4YWP)

Species other than Chinook have not been modelled, and therefore, it is challenging to reflect those projects and strategies

aimed to benefits the Tribe’s priority species within a Chinook focused M&AM process. South Sound is planning on model

these other species using Open Standards structure, which would be consistent with what PSP has been doing since 2009.


South Sounds has already identified, characterized, and grouped a large number of gaps, barriers, and challenges. This plan

does not include a harvest management strategy because harvest is addressed in the watershed plans for the areas where the

where the populations spawn. This seems to be the appropriate approach; hence, not sure why a new Harvest Management

strategy is being proposed. If the Lead Entity believes it makes sense to add this strategy, then the rational should be clearly

articulated in the 4YWP and fully addressed in the chapter update. Chinook populations with highest use of the habitats

addressed in the South Sound plan are Nisqually and Puyallup/White. So, perhaps the newly proposed Harvest and Hatchery

Management strategies should be part of these two watersheds and not South Sound.

5. In reviewing the gaps/needs/barriers section, are there places where the region should assist in providing additional technical

support or guidance to help the watershed strengthen its chapter in the future? Do you have recommendations on potential

solutions to overcoming these challenges

Many of the gaps already identified by South Sound will require support from the region (see table under the Identified

Recovery Plan Gaps, Barriers, and Challenges section of the 4YWP). The most fundamental, and critical gap is the lack of a

structured technical and policy process for managing and implementing the plan. In addition, the South Sound recovery

chapter is not managed by a single lead entity, which seems to impose a significant barrier to the plan implementation.



The 4YWP includes two main categories of goals: those associated with the Nisqually estuary (natal Chinook estuary) and

those associated with Ecological Components of WRIA 13 and 14’s nearshore.

The goal associated with the Nisqually estuary are from the Nisqually M&AM. I would suggest considering the removal of the

Nisqually estuary from South Sound and be added to WRIA 11 (Just like WRIA 8 and 7 have their own nearshore areas). If this

is not a viable option, then I would suggest avoid presenting as part of WRIAs 13 and 14 the goals for the Nisqually estuary as

a separate set of goals. The region should consider this suggestion.

The goals associated with Ecological Components of WRIA 13 and 14’s nearshore. These goals are: Nearshore Reconstruction

(NS RECON_Major), Nearshore Reconstruction (NS RECON_Minor), and Protect through Acquisition (NS PRT). These goals

seem somewhat clear and include some specificity in terms of quantity; however, they don’t fully follow a SMART approach:

Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time Bound, as no timeframe is provided for most. Also, the qualifiers “Major”

and “Minor” are not defined and should be.

a. Is there a clear link made between the strategies and actions within the work plan in accomplishing the stated goals?

(Action, approach, outcome)




The plan provides some rationale on why goals from the Nisqually M&AM are included in this plan; however, what is

not explained is the technical and policy process structure for managing and implementing this multi-WRIA, rather

convoluted, plan. In addition, the South Sound recovery chapter is not managed by a single lead entity, which seems

to impose a significant barrier to the plan implementation. Whether acknowledged or not, this is likely a barrier to this

plan implementation. The region should work closely with South Sound to develop a structured technical and policy

process for managing and implementing the plan, perhaps under a singly lead entity.

Indicators provided in the Phase I M&AM appear to be in conflict with metrics associated with the goals (see Table 1,

4YWP) listed for the physical Ecological Components: Coastal landforms, Bluff backed beaches, and Pocket estuaries.

The 4YWP narrative should explain how the two (indicators and metrics associated with goal) tie together.




No concerns.

However, is South Sound needed, or should its recovery efforts be adopted by the different WRIAs that comprise South

Sound? The region should consider this question in coordination with the lead entity from the various WRIAs. Regardless, the

following recommendation are intended to help improve South Sound’s recovery efforts:

g. Read all the comments and recommendations provided in 2016 and 2017 (this document) as part of the 4YWP review

process. Keep them in mind as applicable while developing the chapter updates for each of the pertinent watersheds.

h. The 2017 preliminary 4YWP Project List’s spreadsheet provided for review contained projects from multiple WRIAs

(color coded as describe below):

i. Pink: WRIA 13 (Deschutes)

ii. Tan: WRIA 14

iii. Light blue: WRIA 15 (West Sound)

iv. Purple/lavender: WRIA 11 (Nisqually)

v. Purple: WRIA 12

Of these, most projects from WRIA 15 were missing the information under the Results Chain Strategy in the 2017

preliminary 4YWP Project List’s spreadsheet. Given that South Sound includes multiple projects from multiple WRIA,

the project list will benefit from the use of a database similar to what WRIA 8 recently started to use. It includes Excel

data entry spreadsheets to track projects, and Access database file with report templates for various project types.

i. A critical gap potentially affecting South Sound’s plan implementation is the lack of a structured technical and policy

process for managing and implementing the plan. In addition, the South Sound recovery chapter is not managed by a

single lead entity, which seems to impose a significant barrier to the plan implementation. The region should assist in

providing additional technical support or guidance to help the watershed strengthen its chapter in the future.

j. WRIA 8 just completed its recovery chapter update and monitoring and assessment plan development. South Sound

could coordinate with the region and WRIA 8 to use this watershed’s chapter update (the document and its

development process) to build upon. Likewise, South Sound should consider using WRIA 8’s monitoring and

assessment plan to build upon a; doing so is likely to save time and money.

WRIA 10/12 Puyallup/White and Chambers/Clover

To determine the consistency of this project with the recovery strategies for the Puyallup River, the technical review examined

the watershed Chinook Recovery plan, a 2012 plan update, the watershed’s four-year work plan list, and the project proposal

information available in the PRISM database.

The projects for WRIA 10 funding are appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan, the 2012 update, the

4YWP narrative, or to fish species of tribal treaty rights importance.

The top ranked project continues restoration planning for floodplain restoration in the lower Carbon River. This project will

develop a feasibility report with design alternatives and cost estimates for levee setbacks.

The second ranked project is the acquisition of one or two properties in floodplain along the Carbon River allowing for a

future levee setback to restore floodplain connectivity and functions for salmonids.

This reviewer concludes the project list is consistent with recovery strategies and priorities for the Puyallup River watershed

based on the material provided and a review of the recovery documents for the watershed. The two projects will allow future

restoration to reconnect and restore floodplain habitats in the lower Carbon River.

WRIA 15 West Sound Watersheds








population.


salmon populations?





salmon populations.




Yes. The projects and activities for nearshore work are appropriately linked to strategies within the 2005 recovery plan,

to tribal treaty rights populations, and/or to the 4YWP. While the 2005 recovery plan and Phase I MAM do not

include freshwater strategies, the freshwater projects can be appropriately linked to a tribal treaty rights population.

Based on review of the 2017 4YWP project list which includes just over 70 projects (2016 4YWP list included just over

100 projects), numerous projects continue to be in the freshwater portions of the watershed, it is recommended that a

freshwater strategy or strategies be developed for the West Sound. The numerous freshwater projects included on the

2017 4YWP project list will benefit tribal treaty rights populations such as coho and steelhead. Projects in the lower

reaches will likely benefit non-natal Chinook populations rearing in the nearshore area. Other salmonid species and

forage fish, an important prey species for Chinook and other salmonids, will also benefit from the freshwater projects

that promote restoration of ecosystem processes that will benefit nearshore habitat throughout the watershed.



The West Sound does not have a specific listed natal Chinook salmon population. Their recovery chapter is a

multispecies/multipopulations plan addressing 22 populations of non-natal Chinook, as well as steelhead, coho, and chum.

Pink and coastal cutthroat trout are also supported by the West Sound. In reviewing the 2005 recovery plan, Phase I M&AM,

and other documents for the West Sound, there is a clear sense of priorities among the various salmon populations found in

the watershed. However, this sense of priorities is not necessarily conveyed in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017.

While the Phase I M&AM document includes a brief discussion of the 22 populations of non-natal Chinook that use the

nearshore areas of the watershed, the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 does not include any discussion. To better inform

the reader/reviewer, it is recommended that this information, including information briefly describing the use of the lower

reaches of freshwater habitats by non-natal Chinook populations, be added to the Description of Chinook Populations in the

Watershed section, which is currently blank. Additionally, as all of the West Sound nearshore is designated as critical habitat

for Chinook, it is recommended that a brief description of designated critical habitat also be included in this section. This will

help to explain to decision and policy makers the regional importance of nearshore habitats to the recovery of Puget Sound

Chinook salmon which is needed to gain support for funding and capacity building.

Because of the importance of prey resources, namely forage fish, and the strategies and actions that are occurring or are in

the planning stages for the West Sound nearshore area, it is recommended that a brief description of forage fish also be

included in the Description of other Fish Populations in the Watershed section.

It is recommended that the watershed assessments for Chico, Curley, and Blackjack Creeks be referenced in the 2016 4YWP

narrative used for 2017, as these documents will provide additional information and support for the numerous freshwater

projects occurring in the watershed.






West Sound is employing several scientific modeling and analysis tools and programs throughout the watershed to provide a

strong scientific foundation for their strategies and actions. Studies to inform their work include eelgrass, kelp bed, and

forage fish surveys; nearshore culvert inventory and prioritization; water typing and eDNA analysis; and watershed

assessments such as those conducted for Chico, Curley, and Blackjack Creeks.

As with other chapters lacking a specific listed natal Chinook population, West Sound struggles with articulating VSP

parameters for non-natal Chinook using the nearshore and freshwater areas. Baseline studies, a monitoring and adaptive

management plan, and regional support identifying and developing VSP parameters for the nearshore would benefit West

Sound.


Yes. The 2005 recovery plan did not include a strategy for restoration and preservation of freshwater habitat. It is

recommended that a freshwater strategy or strategies be included in the West Sound chapter during the adaptive

management process which will allow West Sound to more clearly address tribal treaty rights populations and link the




numerous freshwater projects on the 4YWP project list to a strategy. Many of these projects include a floodplain

restoration component and it is recommended that this be included in the freshwater strategy or strategies.



on potential solutions to overcoming these challenges

In reviewing this section of the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 and referring back to comments from the 2016 review,

several areas of regional assistance for technical support and guidance were identified and include those listed in the 2016

4YWP narrative and the following:

• Updating the Regional Nearshore Chapter

• Issuing of a Regional Steelhead Recovery Plan

• Funding and guidance to develop a West Sound Steelhead Chapter

• Supporting multispecies and multipopulation chapters such as West Sound

• Identifying VSP parameters and habitat goals for nearshore

• Funding to gather baseline information and data for West Sound nearshore to address VSP parameters

Many gaps/needs/barriers are listed in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 for the West Sound. The majority of which seem

to reflect the gaps/needs/barriers of most of the other Puget Sound watersheds. West Sound lacks clear regional direction and

support for setting VSP parameters and habitat goals for non-natal Chinook populations in the nearshore and lower freshwater

portions of the watershed. While the development of Regional Nearshore Common Indicators provided an important tool, West

Sound would benefit from an update of the Regional Nearshore Chapter and a Regional Steelhead Recovery Plan.

A technical gap in achieving this work is lack of baseline information and a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan to inform

development of indicators, targets, viability assessment and binning, pressure assessment, etc. Additionally, West Sound would

benefit from regional guidance on viability binning.

To achieve the updates and work required to address gaps/needs/barriers, West Sound will need regional technical support and

additional capacity and funding.





As stated in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017 and in the recommendations from the 2014 3YWP review, there is lack of

quantitative goals and status information for VSP parameters and habitat for nearshore indicators and strategies in the West

Sound. Additionally, it is not clear in the 2016 4YWP narrative used for 2017, that the regional indicators developed by the

Nearshore Working Group are being used. It would be helpful to include information in the 4YWP narrative to inform the

reader/reviewer that the regional nearshore indicators are being used.

It is recommended that VSP parameters and habitat goals for nearshore be developed and clearly linked to strategies and actions.

To achieve this, more guidance will be needed from the region on how to set goals for non-natal Chinook populations in

nearshore and pocket estuary areas such as West Sound. Additional funding and capacity would also aid West Sound in

developing these goals and targets.

As this is a multispecies and multipopulation chapter, more guidance will be needed from the region to address other species and

populations such as steelhead. Aligning Chinook and steelhead planning would provide efficient and potentially cost-effective

benefits to further support West Sound efforts.

Based on review of the 2017 proposed project list and supporting materials, the reviewer has determined that the project list is

consistent with the West Sound strategies. The eight projects will further efforts in the watershed to support recovery of 22

Chinook populations and tribal treaty rights populations including steelhead and coho as well as chum, coastal cutthroat trout,

and forage fish. Several of the proposed projects are in the freshwater portions of the watershed. As noted throughout this review

document, it is recommended that a freshwater strategy be developed for West Sound.

WRIA 15/16/17 Hood Canal

We reviewed project consistency between the four year workplan (4YWP) strategies and hypotheses, and the proposed

projects submitted for funding from the salmon recovery funding board (SFRB). Our objective was to evaluate project

consistency with the salmon recovery strategies articulated in the Hood Canal salmon recovery 4YWP. In order to make this

assessment, we addressed three questions:


identified in the 4YWP narrative;


including summer chum salmon and steelhead trout; and,





The Hood Canal Coordinating Council submitted 9 projects to SRFB for consideration for funding this year. This list was

ranked by the Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG), and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The Hood Canal project list, or 4YWP,

is comprised of 61 projects that address physical habitat restoration, and property acquisitions. Of the 9 projects proposed for

funding in 2017, six of them are primarily planning, two are restoration, and one is planning and acquisition. All nine proposed

projects expect to provide benefits for summer chum, Puget Sound coho, and Puget Sound steelhead (Table 1). Four of the

proposed projects (17-1052, 17-1054, 17-1053, and 17-1057) expect to also benefit Chinook, two of the projects expect to

benefit fall chum (17-1054, and 17-1057), one expects to benefit pink (17-1054), three expect to benefit bull trout (17-1052,

17-1054, and 17-1053), and two of the projects expect to provide benefits for coastal cutthroat trout (17-1060, and 17-1054).

In Hood Canal, restoration prioritization is accomplished through a metaprocess that defines “Keystone Actions” for high

priority productive river systems in the Hood Canal recovery area. Priority actions target fluvial ecosystem processes that are

most important for restoring salmon in a given watershed (Lestelle 20151). Once identified, these actions are weighted based

on their relative importance to three viable salmonid population (VSP) recovery criteria (core population viability, population

diversity, and ESA listings) to develop a list of highest priority actions called Keystone Actions.

Projects on the 4YWP embody ranked factors thought to be limiting salmon in the Hood Canal recovery area (Lestelle 2015).

The list of nine projects submitted to the SRFB for potential funding, as a subset of the 4YWP, are all consistent with what is

known about salmon recovery and habitat restoration efforts. By taking this approach, projects on the list directly address

watershed process and system deficits. As a result, projects submitted for funding are direct efforts to resolve issues affecting

salmon recovery. Each proposed project in the list contains project titles, brief descriptions, the geographic location and

extent of proposed projects, the species expected to benefit, the issues addressed by the project (e.g., planning and

engineering, land ownership, habitat restoration) and the expected cost among other variables.


identified in the 4YWP narrative?

Yes. Because of the way the HCCC generates the 4YWP, all the projects are inherently prioritized in the HCCC Salmon

Recovery Work Plan (Work Plan) approval process. In order for proposed projects to make it onto the Work Plan, they must

address the high priority actions that have been identified for each targeted river system and species. The Technical Advisory

Group (TAG) evaluates the potential projects to assess consistency with river-specific actions and prioritizes them according to

how well specific projects address the Keystone Actions. Proposed projects that successfully make it through this round of

scrutiny are included in the Work Plan indicating alignment with prioritized actions as determined by the TAG. The project list

submitted to SRFB for funding is ranked following the technical review by the citizen’s advisory group (CAG).


including summer chum salmon and steelhead trout?

Yes. Because the HCCC is the regional recovery organization for summer chum, as well as the lead entity for Mid Hood Canal

and Skokomish Chinook, their 4YWP is a multi-species plan by design. In addition, their approach to identifying and

prioritizing Keystone Actions addresses degraded ecosystem processes. The assumption is that by taking this approach,

restoration Applied Research in Fisheries, Restoration, Ecology, and Aquatic Genetics. 3 projects address fluvial ecosystem

deficits that likely benefit all fish using those habitats, regardless of species (see Table 1 above).


The answer to this question is less clear from simply reviewing the projects in the proposed list because it is not explicitly

addressed in the 4YWP. But the answer is assumed to be yes. Again, the prioritization approach employed by the HCCC,

explicitly incorporates project feasibility, project scale, and cost effectiveness at all levels of project proposal review by asking

three questions that ensure project implementation occurs consistent with the 4YWP (Lestelle, 2015).

a. What is the priority level of the highest priority salmonid stock that would benefit from the proposed project?

b. What is the relative importance of the issue (or the priority of that issue) affecting the performance of the stock

that a proposed project aims to positively affect by its implementation?

c. What is the relative importance of the action corresponding to a proposed project in its potential for redressing

the targeted issue that affects the stock of interest?

In conclusion, our review of the nine projects proposed for SRFB funding indicates that they are consistent with salmon

recovery strategies articulated by the 4YWP for both freshwater and estuarine habitat projects in Hood Canal. Proposed

projects are comprised of some combination of actions that address property acquisitions, planning and engineering, riparian

enhancements, and habitat accessibility. All proposed projects directly address keystone actions that have been identified and

prioritized as critical to restoring ecosystem conditions.

WRIA 17/18/19 Elwha/Dungeness/Straits

No review necessary (no new projects this year).

Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region - Washington … Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region is comprised...

Documents

Transcript of Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region - Washington … Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Region is comprised...