WRIA 9 FORUM by yaosaigeng

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 7

									      WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed)
                                     Steering Committee
                              Draft Summary for February 21, 2008

                                             ATTENDEES

  Name                                             Affiliation
  Steering Committee:
  Councilmember Bill Peloza, Co-Chair              City of Auburn
  Councilmember Dow Constantine, Co-Chair          King County
  Al Barrie                                        Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group/Trout Unlim.
  Jay Covington                                    City of Renton
  Noel Gilbrough                                   Army Corps of Engineers
  Derrick Toba (for David Lorence)                 WA Department of Natural Resources
  Charles Keller                                   The Boeing Company
  Kirk Lakey                                       WA Department of Fish and Wildlife
  Paul Meyer                                       Port of Seattle
  Kathy Minsch (for Councilmember Richard
                                                   City of Seattle
  Conlin)
  Mayor Joan McGilton                              City of Burien
  Darcy Nonemacher                                 American Rivers
  James Rasmussen                                  Green-Duwamish Watershed Alliance
  Councilmember Dennis Robertson                   City of Tukwila

  Other Attendees:
  Dale Anderson                                    David Evans & Associates
  David Batker                                     Ecological Economics
  Mike Mactutis                                    City of Kent
  Dennis Clark                                     WRIA 9 Public Outreach/Stewardship Coordinator
  Linda Grob                                       WRIA 9 Administrative Coordinator
  Doug Osterman                                    WRIA 9 Watershed Coordinator
  Gordon Thomson                                   WRIA 9 Plan Manager

I. Welcome and Introductions
Bill Peloza opened the meeting and invited attendees to introduce themselves.

II. Public Comment
Kirk Lakey announced that he is now the Region 4 coordinator for the WA Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) responsible for submitting WRIA 9 action agenda items to the Puget Sound
Partnership (PSP). He has been working on including wildlife in the action agenda for WDFW, and is
putting forward a lot of WRIA 9 programs and projects. He said that for now the process is at a very
high level, and PSP is looking at who we are, what we do, etc. Bill Peloza inquired if the information
will be distributed via the PSP e-newsletter. Kirk explained that he isn’t sure how PSP plans to pull this
information together. It should be going out to agencies, cities, non-profits, and the King Conservation
District (KCD), all of whose programs affect terrestrial land in Region 4.

Doug Osterman announced that he was elected to the Normandy Park City Council. He pledged full
disclosure to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest with his position as WRIA 9 Coordinator.

Dennis Clark, Public Outreach/Stewardship Coordinator, pointed out the WRIA 9 federal lobbying
priorities in the meeting packet, which are to be used to lobby federal and state elected officials. He said
2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                    Page 1 of 7
we are also working on legislation in Olympia. Dennis also announced that Earth Day is coming up in
two months, and he highlighted two events in WRIA 9. One is the Duwamish Alive! event, which will
have eight projects in Seattle and Tukwila this year, and will be receiving an award from the NOAA
Coastal America program. He is also organizing an event in Burien on Miller Creek.

Dow Constantine reported that he was in Washington D.C. a couple of weeks ago. There he met with
our congressional delegates, who have been very supportive on salmon issues. Congressman Norm
Dicks wants to get the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund back to $67 million, and Patty Murray
wants to make it $90 million, as it was historically. Councilmember Constantine is going back to D.C. in
two weeks, and he said letters are always welcome and helpful.

III. Approval of Meeting Summary
 The Steering Committee unanimously approved the summary for the September 13, 2007
 meeting.

IV. Proposed Re-Allocation of Previous Grants to Tukwila for Duwamish Gardens
Acquisition
Dennis Clark said he first started working on Duwamish Gardens in 2006, which is the year it received a
Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grant, the first of five grants that were received in 2006 and
2007. Duwamish Gardens is located in the upper part of the transition zone, the area where 40% of
WRIA 9 funding is to be directed per the Salmon Habitat Plan. He explained that the City of Tukwila
and WRIA staff have been working on the Carosino property acquisition to make a shallow water
embayment, and what we are trying to do now is come up with a new approach. Mr. Temkin of Amalfi
Investments, the adjoining property owner to the north, came to us with a deal to also sell part of their
property to Tukwila, but due to sequencing problems Amalfi ended up offering to buy the Carosino
property instead (they could pay more than the County/Tukwila). Mr. Temkin then turned around and
said he would still work with Tukwila and WRIA 9 to sell 2.1 acres (versus the original 2.16 acres) to
the City. This new approach would provide a longer shoreline and produce a better project. The
property is worth about $2 million. Dennis said we need the Steering Committee’s approval of this new
configuration in order to move forward with the modest re-scope of the SRFB grant.

Discussion:
▪ James Rasmussen commented that he understood there is an issue with cultural artifacts at the site,
  and he asked how that has been taken into consideration. Dennis Clark explained that he and City
  staff talked to the Muckleshoot Tribe last year about it, and learned that the tribes have used this area
  for thousands of years. Sound Transit, which has done work on the site, investigated the Indian
  cultural resources so much more is known about this site than would otherwise be the case. One of
  the costs of the project will be the initial data recovery, but we do not think we will find graves and
  human remains, like at Port Angeles.
▪ Kathy Minsch asked if this configuration will eliminate the issue with the setback affecting property
  owners adjacent to the site. Dennis Clark replied that it does not eliminate this problem,
  unfortunately. By moving in the shoreline, we are pushing in the 200 foot zone in which Shoreline
  Master Act (SMA) regulations apply. Tukwila is working to address this, and a bill is going through
  state the legislature on this issue.
▪ Dow Constantine asked who we go to to address cultural issues. Dennis Clark responded that we deal
  primarily with the Muckleshoots and also inform other tribes in the area, as Sound Transit did when
  excavating. We also work with the state.
▪ Dow Constantine inquired if the contamination issue is covered before purchase of the property.
  Dennis Clark replied that contamination will be investigated during the “due diligence” phase prior to
  purchase. Once we buy the property we are on the hook to clean it up so we don’t want to purchase it
  without knowing what we are getting. Some contamination occurred historically because it was a

2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                    Page 2 of 7
  farm, with lots of herbicides and pesticides dumped on the ground. We also have dioxin
  contamination which is more expensive to clean up if it is at a level that requires cleanup. Dennis
  Clark explained that we have some information on contamination already because of a previous
  Sound Transit survey.
 The Steering Committee unanimously approved the re-scope of the Duwamish Gardens
 Acquisition project and the reallocation of Salmon Recovery Funding Board funds.

V. Shoreline Armoring Policy and Model Ordinance
Gordon Thomson, Plan Manager, reported that WRIA staff drafted preliminary shoreline armoring
policies and a model ordinance, sent them around to cities for review, had a meeting in Burien in
October 2007 with planning staff of WRIA 9 cities, and revised the policies and model ordinance based
on the comments received. He said we circulated drafts a second time to nearshore jurisdictions in
November 2007, and reached consensus on both documents. Gordon requested that if the Steering
Committee has proposed changes to the documents we make them now, and approve them tonight. The
intent of the policies and ordinance is to clarify local jurisdiction’s authority to regulate single family
bulkheads in the Shoreline Master Act (SMA).

Discussion:
▪ Kathy Minsch remarked that Seattle would like to propose that new policy SL-4 (dealing with
  geological assessment) move up to number one, as it determines the need for a bulkhead. She also
  proposed that ordinance item 7 be clarified by adding feeder bluff language, which is what the 120-
  year regression area means. She said this puts a lot of expense on property owners, so the studies
  should be up front. Gordon Thomson responded that the point of the policies and ordinance is to get
  the cities to focus on determining and confirming the need for armoring.
▪ Noel Gilbrough mentioned that he would like to see a section in the ordinance on non-permitted
  armoring, and a new policy added against banded armoring. He said right now the vast majority of
  these aren’t being enforced. Doug Osterman clarified that the ordinance and policies are about marine
  shoreline armoring.
▪ Paul Meyer commented that we don’t know the context of why the policies and ordinance were
  prepared. For example, the policies do not explain that they are just about residential armoring. A lot
  of commercial establishments with existing bulkheads would find this very difficult to do if it applies
  to them. He asked if there is a preamble that says this is just for residences. Gordon Thomson
  explained that these policies are targeted to single family bulkheads. He said that is what the Steering
  Committee wanted in October, and members should let him know if they want to take a different
  approach.
▪ Dennis Robertson suggested changing the title of the policies to “WRIA 9 Final Draft Marine
  Shoreline Armoring Policies for Single Family Bulkheads”.
▪ Doug Osterman said we might want to clarify how repairs of existing armoring are handled in the
  model ordinances and policies. Currently, “repairs” go through the local process really quickly, when
  in fact the existing bulkhead ends up being replaced (not repaired) by a newer thicker and higher
  bulkhead of concrete. Also, we have categorized feeder bluffs in the Salmon Habitat Plan technical
  documents according to their critical importance. Perhaps we should emphasize in the policies the
  most important beach-feeding functions and processes and their locations that are the most important
  to protect from armoring. This approach would give some flexibility to homeowners if there are some
  areas that aren’t as critical to protect, and it also targets protection of the most critical feeder bluffs.
▪ Paul Meyer suggested adding a modifier like “significant repair”, so it might tighten up the exemption
  language. The policies have to identity the difference between repair and replacement.

Bill Peloza, in noting that committee members have different types of concerns with the wording in the
armoring documents, proposed that staff incorporate the new amendments, look at the policies, and

2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                      Page 3 of 7
come back to the Steering Committee in April with clean documents. Dennis Robertson proposed that
the changes be incorporated as track changes.

VI. 1st Annual WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Implementation Progress Report
Gordon Thomson went over some of the high points of the Implementation Progress Report, which
demonstrates what WRIA 9 has accomplished, as well as the hurdles we face. Since 1999, 26 on the
ground projects were completed. Gordon noted that projects in the Upper Green are not included in the
progress report.

Discussion:
▪ Noel Gilbrough said he would still like to see the Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) bridge replacements
  in the Upper Green mentioned in the progress report. Gordon is still accepting comments on the
  progress report, but he said the Habitat Plan focuses on the Middle Green and below in the first ten
  years of Plan implementation. Though there are a significant number of projects going on above
  Howard Hanson Dam, it might “muddy the water” to include the Upper Green projects in the progress
  report.
▪ Joan McGilton said she really liked the progress report, but the piece missing is the statement “we are
  doing this because it is a federal requirement”. She commented that this is the perfect document to
  take to our councils and show what we can create collectively. She also suggested adding a map of
  the completed projects on page seven of the progress report. Bill Peloza said he would like additional
  information on the completed projects, such as location, river mile, and dollars involved.
▪ James Rasmussen remarked that if we are actually going to present the report as product of WRIA 9,
  then it has to be a progress report on WRIA 9’s activities, not TPU’s or other projects that have gone
  on in the watershed. He said we should be as honest as possible, and he added that the Green-
  Duwamish Watershed Alliance is also going to do a “report card” on progress on watershed
  restoration in WRIA 9. Gordon Thomson noted that the projects Noel is referring to are in the Habitat
  Plan but are not an immediate priority based on the Plans ten year management strategy. Noel
  Gilbrough explained that his pitch is we are spending in excess of $100 million dollars in the upper
  watershed, so it would be great to include those projects in the progress report.
▪ Kathy Minsch asked who the audience is for the progress report. Gordon Thomson responded that the
  audience is the WRIA participants, and the report also will be sent off to PSP. Kathy said if the
  completed projects are mapped, there should be individual maps for each subwatershed.
▪ Paul Meyer asked if WRIA 9 should be a compiler of everything that is going on along the river by all
  parties, and if not, what group is going to do that compiling. Dennis Clark explained that he did that
  for 2002, 2003, and 2004-2005 time periods, and it was very time-consuming.

Gordon Thomson encouraged members to take a look at the benchmarks that were taken from the
WRIA 9 Implementation Guidance document (approved by the Steering Committee in 2007). He also
directed attention to the Conclusions section, which lists the three fundamental needs in order to keep
this effort going:
     Continued involvement of all jurisdictions;
     Additional funding; and
     Regional support for salmon recovery in the form of advocacy from PSP. Obtaining support
         from PSP is a challenge given their focus on non-urban watersheds.

VII. Ad-Hoc Funding Committee Report
Dennis Robertson explained that the Ad-Hoc Funding Committee got together a little over a month ago.
Its members are Joan McGilton, James Rasmussen, Noel Gilbrough, and Al Barrie. Councilmember
Robertson commented that when he joined the Steering Committee he was amazed with the quality of
the Salmon Habitat Plan and the groups involved. However, we are only getting about ¼ of the money
we need for implementing the Plan. He said great questions to ask are:

2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                  Page 4 of 7
 Who is the audience for the Plan and who is “buying” it;
 What is our product; and
 Are we actually going to make this watershed “fit for a King”?
Instead of acting like government folks here, we should be looking at selling something, creating a
marketing plan, looking at resources out there that we could use, and looking at multiple years instead of
one year. The next steps are to:
  Create product descriptions and sketch out a business plan and a marketing plan;
  Have the Steering Committee and Forum meet to talk about what our products are;
  Have the Forum and Steering Committee jointly create the product description;
  Have the Forum create the business plan;
  Have the Steering Committee create a marketing plan;
  Raise lots of cash using our marketing plan; and
  Make our watershed Fit for a King!
 Dennis Robertson said when you talk about a product you talk about who would want it and how to sell
 it.

Discussion:
▪ Dow Constantine asked for clarification about the point of the marketing: is it to get money or is it to
  give politicians the words to say to justify spending public money on implementation? James
  Rasmussen responded that it is both of those things. Marketing the Plan was not done very well to
  date, and we should have technical help in marketing the Plan like we did in writing it.
▪ Joan McGilton mentioned that we are competing with every WRIA out there for the same pot of
  money. We should be looking at broadening the funding base.
▪ Dow Constantine commented that we should get people to value what we are doing in WRIA 9 so
  they support making the pie bigger.
▪ Darcy Nonemacher noted that marketing is also about being more efficient. It’s important that we stay
  true to our vision of our watershed.
▪ Kirk Lakey asked whether we need $25 million to $30 million from outside sources or in total (local
  and outside sources combined). Dennis Robertson said he thought it was $30 million externally. Al
  Barrie remarked that the public doesn’t even know that we (WRIA 9) are here or what we are doing.
  People need to know that we are here doing this for them.
▪ Doug Osterman asked if the Steering Committee wants to present the marketing proposal to the
  Forum. Bill Peloza said he like this proposal, would like to take it to the next Forum meeting on
  March 19, and hire a professional marketing firm. He said we have to do something pretty fast.
▪ Noel Gilbrough commented that with a marketing plan we will be taking the development of the
  Habitat Plan and moving it up another level.

VIII. Ecological Economics Update
David Batker, Earth Economics, reported that Washington State is both blessed and cursed with more
taxing districts than anywhere else. We have taxing districts for various traditional services, flood
districts, stormwater districts, etc. Many of those services are based on watershed scale, like flooding.
Ideally we would have a flood district that is the whole watershed, because WRIA 9 is the right size for
addressing flooding problems.

David noted that Chapter 6 in the Salmon Habitat Plan is the ecologic economics chapter. The natural
capital in WRIA 9 is valued between $1.7 and 6.3 billion. When you rebuild natural capital you are
building a value that doesn’t depreciate, it appreciates. The most important thing for the WRIA is
determining our goal, and then securing the funding mechanism and budget that is going to complete the
job. An example is Costa Rica, which was down to 20% forestation, and needed a new funding source
to reforest. Taxes were established, and now the country is 42% forest.

2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                   Page 5 of 7
David said WRIA 9 is almost at the same natural place as it was for those who lived here in the
beginning. We don’t have a funding mechanism yet, but with 700,000 people living in the watershed,
there is probably enough money right here to fund WRIA 9 restoration. It is worth considering a wide
variety of ideas, because there is going to be a custom fit for the watershed that gets the $30 million/year
that you need. The WRIA scale is where we want to move eventually for coordination for lots of things.
Perhaps we should have a salmon assessment in addition to the KCD assessment, with $10/household
dedicated to salmon.

Discusssion:
▪ Jay Covington remarked that one thing he really liked about our Habitat Plan was Chapter 6. He said
  we have to have a product that people are willing to invest in. Until we create this message that what
  we have is worth buying, we aren’t going to get the funding. This will take some form of WRIA 9-
  wide assessment. The federal government should step up more, but they probably are not going to do
  this. Working this message and the benefit of recreating habitat is a message that needs to be
  incorporated into our marketing plan. David Batker mentioned that he uses WRIA 9 as an example
  all the time to other audiences.
▪ Dow Constantine explained that the Flood Control District was just enacted, and to get the Flood
  District coordinated with salmon money is tricky. Some people are worried salmon restoration is
  going to steal the flood money. We need to do political education to show people it is all tied
  together, and is a watershed scale issue. Councilmember Constantine said secondly, every time he
  meets with Representative Norm Dicks, the congressman talks about a “flush tax” that is tied to sewer
  use. There is a tax on water discharge in Chesapeake Bay. We have to get new ideas on what is our
  funding mechanism, and people like Norm Dicks can help.
▪ Charlie Keller said David’s suggestion to find a funding mechanism is a complement to the Ad Hoc
  Committee suggestion. He said he is at the Steering Committee table because he thinks this group can
  do some good, but he is afraid that $100 million dollars isn’t going to do the job. However, if we
  work to change behaviors, and integrate ith Ecology’s and similar group efforts to change behavior, it
  will do a lot of good.
▪ Dennis Robertson commented that a new funding source will need to be shared by every entity. Jay
  Covington reported that the WRIA 9 Forum needs to hear this presentation, because more than half of
  current Forum members are new.

IX. Large Woody Debris
Al Barrie reported that a whole lot of “gasoline” was dumped on the large woody debris “fire”
controversy by Frank Urabeck, a Cedar River Council member who capsized a drift boat in the Green
River recently. March 1 is the deadline for submitting comments to Nancy Faegenburg, King County
DNRP, who worked on a King County motion regarding placement of large wood and safety of river
users. A County Council motion needs to go forward, and the boaters group is very active in pushing
for no wood at any costs. Al said he read copies of the e-mails from Frank and Judy Phillips about
putting wood in the river, and put out a note to all the Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups about it.
The most common element of every mainstem project dealing with salmon recovery and our Habitat
Plan is wood and refugia and we need to protect against efforts that would prevent us from using wood
in restoration projects.

James Rasmussen inquired if King County realizes that doing a motion ties the hands of everyone doing
restoration. Now is the time to get people who have the salmon restoration experience to say there is a
danger to large wood in rivers -- whether it was placed there or not – and that river users need to be
aware of this. Kirk Lakey explained that there is a RCW that says a natural sweeper (a tree in the river)
that poses a danger can be removed. Frank’s accident was an act of nature and not a result of
restoration.


2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                    Page 6 of 7
Al Barrie commented that last July an inner tuber tipped over and grabbed an overhead branch to save
himself. There was known wood in the vicinity. Dale Anderson, David Evans and Associates,
remarked that he almost flipped a drift boat on the Nisqually River, which has a lot more wood and is in
a more natural state than the Green. To say more wood needs to be taken out of the Green is ridiculous.
Noel Gilbrough mentioned that when he started this process in 1995, he was told two things: keep gravel
coming downstream and get wood in the Middle Green.

Bill Peloza directed WRIA staff to prepare a letter expressing the concerns voiced today for the Steering
Committee Co-Chairs to sign, and we will get it off to the County Council.

X. Public Comment
Kirk Lakey announced that Puget Sound Partnership is asking for updates to the Three-Year Work
Plans, which are due to them by April 18. He also said he will be the technical team representative for
Fish and Wildlife.

XI. Wrap Up/Next Steps
The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. The next Steering Committee meeting is April 10, 2008, 6:30
to 9:00 p.m.




2/21/08 Steering Committee Meeting Summary                                                  Page 7 of 7

								
To top