1. Fish in/Fish out Monitoring - exploring funding options DRAFT WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council October 18, 2007

2. What Weve Heard Develop alternatives/options for funding fish in and fish out monitoring that is; Develop alternatives/options for funding fish in and fish out monitoring that is; Stable (not in jeopardy) Stable (not in jeopardy) Long-term Long-term Requires less staff/committee effort annually Requires less staff/committee effort annually KCD Board concerns regarding fit to fund KCD Board concerns regarding fit to fund WRIA 8 Project sub-committee feedback WRIA 8 Project sub-committee feedback

3. What is fish in/fish out monitoring? For our discussion, we are talking about monitoring Cedar River and Sammamish populations, specifically For our discussion, we are talking about monitoring Cedar River and Sammamish populations, specifically Spawner surveys – fish in Spawner surveys – fish in Outmigrant smolt trapping – fish out Outmigrant smolt trapping – fish out Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks – fish out Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks – fish out Does not include many other biological monitoring/studies/sampling that also occurs

4. Plan Recommends…..Chapter 6 Table 6.1 - Minimum Necessary Table 6.1 - Minimum Necessary Smolt trapping – Cedar and Bear Smolt trapping – Cedar and Bear Juvenile migration survival – to Locks – Cedar, Bear and Issaquah (hatchery) Juvenile migration survival – to Locks – Cedar, Bear and Issaquah (hatchery) Salmon spawner surveys – Cedar, Bear, Cottage and other tributaries Salmon spawner surveys – Cedar, Bear, Cottage and other tributaries

5. Biological Monitoring for VSP Since 1998, we have monitored; Since 1998, we have monitored; Relative spawner abundance (spawner surveys) Relative spawner abundance (spawner surveys) Redd location and number Redd location and number Fish characteristics (hatchery or natural; size, age, spawning success) – Carcass surveys Fish characteristics (hatchery or natural; size, age, spawning success) – Carcass surveys Juvenile production/survival to smolt traps Juvenile production/survival to smolt traps Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks (PIT tagging) Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks (PIT tagging)

6. 2008 funding Type of Core Monitoring2008 costs 2008 Match 2008 WRIA 8 KCD Smolt Trapping and PIT tagging:Cedar and Bear $214,000$46,100$167,900 Spawner Surveys:Numerous locations $187,564$54,716$132,848 Total $401,000 Total $401,000 KCD funding $300,000 KCD funding $300,000 Match from Seattle Public Utilities, Bellevue, King County, MIT, ACOE and WDFW Match from Seattle Public Utilities, Bellevue, King County, MIT, ACOE and WDFW

7. Funding support historically Army Corps of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers King Conservation District King Conservation District WDFW WDFW King County (Wastewater and Water and Land) King County (Wastewater and Water and Land) Seattle Public Utilities Seattle Public Utilities City of Bellevue City of Bellevue Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Muckleshoot Indian Tribe WRIA 8 ILA (starting in 2007) WRIA 8 ILA (starting in 2007)

8. What is funding landscape? Need to identify support from potential existing or future fund sources Need to identify support from potential existing or future fund sources Fund SourceEstablishedFuture WRIA 8 KCDYESYES WRIA 8 ILAYESMaybe Co-ManagersYESYES Jurisdictional match YESYES Puget Sound Partnership, Lead Entity, Capacity Funding, or other State/Fed sources YES, but not specifically for monitoring Maybe Regional Funding SourceNOUnknown Other grants/ MitigationNOUnknown

9. Alternatives to investigate 1. Status quo – 1. Status quo – KCD project funding with annual Council/KCD allocation and review KCD project funding with annual Council/KCD allocation and review 2. Status quo + streamlined process – 2. Status quo + streamlined process – e.g., allocation and review is set as programmatic effort by Council and KCD Board. e.g., allocation and review is set as programmatic effort by Council and KCD Board. 3. Maximize match to KCD from existing sources – 3. Maximize match to KCD from existing sources – WRIA 8 ILA funding/Jurisdictional/Co-managers WRIA 8 ILA funding/Jurisdictional/Co-managers Backfill ILA staffing with existing and future lead entity grants Backfill ILA staffing with existing and future lead entity grants 4. Develop/lobby for other sources of funding – 4. Develop/lobby for other sources of funding – Puget Sound Partnership?, State (Lead entity or DOE grants), Federal funding through PCSRF?, NEW locally controlled WRIA funding solution Puget Sound Partnership?, State (Lead entity or DOE grants), Federal funding through PCSRF?, NEW locally controlled WRIA funding solution

10. Other Monitoring Other recommended monitoring 1. habitat status and trends monitoring 2. project effectiveness monitoring 3. watershed monitoring Funding for this work has not been identified may come from local grants, local in-kind match, and State-Fed funding

11. Next steps?