HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources February 17 20041
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
February 17, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Courthouse Fifth Floor Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue,
Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025)
Brenner stated the Council was given a lot of information on several items for
its previous work session in January, but didn't have an opportunity to discuss it.
She asked that the information be scheduled on the agenda for the next work
session in March.
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application Update
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Engineer, stated the application
deadline is coming up. She submitted a draft map (on file). They are going to
focus energy on the Jones Creek alluvial fan. The Flood Control Zone District
Advisory Committee recommended moving forward with contacting the two highest
risk property owners, labeled B and D on the draft map. There is interest by
property owners on property B. A house mover has gone to the site. It might be
difficult to move the house. She is still working with those private property owners.
An appraisal is underway. They haven't contacted the owner of property D yet. If
they go for a buyout, they don't want to apply for all the grant funding that's out
there because it will lessen their chance of succeeding.
In 2000, they developed the land and easement acquisition and flood
mitigation assistance program. Clarification language for that program will come
forward. As they go through this process, they've learned what does and doesn't
work.
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy asked how the property owner of property B could move the house
anywhere on the same property. Cooper stated they are going to assess if there is
any area at the back of the lot. If not, they might look at a buyout salvage option.
2. SALMON RECOVERY
Presentation of the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, submitted his
power point presentation (on file). He read from the presentation. The National
Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency responsible for the bull trout listing.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Services (NOAA Fisheries) is the agency responsible for the salmon listing. The
communities in the Puget Sound region are developing local plans that will roll into
a larger shared strategy.
Bill Ruckelshaus, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Development Committee,
stated that under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), one of the normal
charges of the agencies is to prepare a recovery plan. In many cases, it's rare that
a federal agency develops the plan because it's hard to get local governments to
fall in line and do everything the plan suggestions. The issues involved in
developing a recovery plan are very local issues. The federal government either
isn't sufficiently apprised of the issues, or knows it's hard to impose a remote
federal plan.
When the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound was first envisioned, the idea was
to pull together all the governments together in a collaborative effort to develop a
plan. Give areas like the Nooksack watershed and other watersheds planning
targets to decide what steps they can commit to for their individual watersheds. All
the agencies that are working together to develop plans and the commitments from
the individual watersheds would roll into a recovery plan at the end of the process.
This is not the way the federal statutes envisioned it or the federal agencies have
proceeded, but they are willing to do this. Out of each watershed comes a chapter
for the plan that will allow NOAA Fisheries to declare it a plan in which they can
point to the commitments made by the people impacted by the plan as necessary
elements for success.
By June 2004, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound expects to have draft
chapters from each watershed that supports the recovery plan. There will be a
iterative process between the watersheds, federal fisheries, state, and tribal
interests. In June 2005, they will have a recovery plan that shows the end result.
It is necessary to have a plan that has a chance of success, but is also necessary to
keep federal funding coming.
He will go to Washington D.C. to ensure that funding for habitat restoration
in Washington State continues over the next year. He has talked to those members
of Congress who oversee that funding. They are asking for an end to this process.
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The recovery plan is how that will be done. Once in place, the chance to access
that necessary funding will be available. If they can't get such a plan, it will be
very hard to insure that the funding keeps coming from Congress. There are
regional efforts like this going on in other areas of the State. They are all trying to
develop a recovery plan that relies on commitments from the local level to achieve
recovery for the fish.
Jim Kramer, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, stated the letter they
circulated is one signed in the middle part of December from Mr. Ruckleshaus. In
the attachment, there are six questions they are asking watersheds in Puget Sound
to answer. The answers are the draft substance of what would go into a plan.
There are 14 watersheds in Puget Sound, including Nooksack. The questions are
the substance of what needs to go into the recovery plan. He described the
questions. The questions begin as technical, and become more and more about
policy. It's very important to make sure policy makers make decisions necessary
for a plan that is technically sound and has commitment for. By June 2005, they
want to deliver a recovery plan to the federal government that's supported by key
players in the Puget Sound region and commitment for implementation. These are
the steps to achieve the science that is necessary and policy decisions that are
necessary to make the commitments. They need the answers by June 2004. Then
they will work with governments to work on consensus of the final plan, the funding
strategy, implementation strategy, and define who is responsible for each activity
so they can achieve their objectives. The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound is
nonprofit organization solely to create this recovery plan. When done, the
organization is complete.
Thompson stated there's a lot happening at local and regional levels. He
continued to read his presentation.
Recently, they've got going again to develop a preliminary draft plan. WDFW
provided a grant to get this grant going. He continued to read his presentation.
The preliminary draft doesn't have all the details. Treva Coe and others have
distilled the technical science for the plan. It's a huge amount of work they've
accomplished. While the planning has been going on, they've moved forward with
good actions to protect salmon. The Nooksack Recovery Team has completed 500
go 600 projects basin -wide. That work is ongoing. He continued to read the
presentation about recovery plan next steps.
A lot of good work has been going on by many people. One of the strengths
locally is the core of people who have been doing salmon recovery projects for ten
to 15 years. They're doing good things on the ground, guided by the best available
information. He read his presentation about some of the local accomplishments.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there was a guest speaker at the salmon conference
this fall who talked about the importance of doing a biological assessment of the
health. She asked if they are doing all the physical work before addressing the
actual quality of the water and stream health. Thompson stated that level of detail
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
is beyond what they're doing here. This is based on knowing limitations such as
high water temperatures and lack of access. They will flush out those details in the
salmonid recovery plan and the watershed management plan, where a whole
component addresses water quality.
David Davidson, City of Sumas, stated they've talked about the level of
commitment from the communities at the time this is forwarded in June. He asked
what constitutes commitment, and asked what Shared Strategy for Puget Sound is
hoping the County and the small cities will do to endorse this chapter. Thompson
stated their task in the next few months is to define more clearly the actions that
are needed to address the factors limiting salmon. They don't have a lot of detail at
this point. At that point, they will describe those actions. The County will have to
describe budgetary and operational changes. Before June, they'll have to seek
Council support of the plan that goes forward. It does not ask the Council to
commit money in the future. Approval will be for having local commitment and
understanding what needs to be done, who will do what, and what's it going to
take.
Kramer stated the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound is not asking for
commitment by this June, but to identify which commitments are necessary to
make implementation occur and to identify the conditions that are necessary for the
local governments to make those commitments. By June 2005, they're asking for
the strongest commitments they can have to send to the federal government.
From 2004 to 2005, identify the commitments that are necessary, which groups
would be responsible for actions, and the conditions under which those groups are
willing to make those commitments. Shared Strategy will work with the
governments and groups to figure out if they can create those necessary conditions
to make the commitments. In some cases, it would be great if ordinances were
passed and budgets are committed. That won't be the case in each instance. In
some cases, the commitment will be to go through a process that is necessary to
make a final commitment. Start this year by having a sense of the major
commitments and conditions for the commitments to happen. One condition for
commitment will be for continued funding from the federal government.
Roy stated there isn't much information in the presentation about estuaries
or near shore habitats. It's all about upland habitat. Thompson stated the estuary
and near shore areas are critical for the overall plan. It will be included in the
recovery plan.
Roy asked if the stakeholder group mentioned is made up of the agencies
working on this or the average citizen. Thompson stated two groups have been
advising the County in the development of a preliminary draft. One group is the
steering committee that is primarily technical folks. Another stakeholder group has
about 30 members that represent a broad cross section of the community.
Roy asked if the stakeholder group includes people who would be impacted
by the new policies or by a lack of salmon. She asked the criteria for being
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
included in the stakeholder group. Thompson stated they tried to get people who
are interested in salmon recovery for economical and cultural reasons, including
those who are impacted, such as the agricultural community and the Cherry Point
industrial community. They included folks who are interested and impacted. They
haven't asked the folks to speak formally as a caucus, just to bring their knowledge
to the table. The group includes commercial fishermen.
Randy Kinley, Lummi Nation, stated people need to understand this is a draft
recovery plan. They've done a good job, but more information needs to be
included.
Treva Coe, Nooksack Natural Resources, stated the recovery plan is a draft
that will undergo revisions in the future. It is a living document that will change
with long -term commitment.
The recovery plan is organized into sections including an introduction; goals
for salmonid recovery in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 and numerical
goals for Chinook and bull trout; technical background that reviews the state of
their knowledge of habitat and population; limiting factors, which presents explicit
statements for how activities affect salmonid populations; management strategies
for recovery; recovery actions by jurisdiction, and; implementation, education and
outreach, and monitoring.
In the introduction section, the purpose is to identify actions necessary to
recover salmonid populations and to outline implementation framework for actions
that are agreed upon.
The geographic scope is WRIA 1, including the Nooksack River watershed,
Sumas and Chilliwack rivers, independent coastal tributaries, and Samish Bay in
Skagit County.
Actions include recommendations for habitat, harvest, hatchery, and
hydropower that affect salmonid. The plan is consistent with the Shared Strategy
approach in emphasizing voluntary actions. The species focus is on all salmonid
species, with an emphasis on ESA listed species.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Coe continued to state that the recovery goal is healthy, self- sustaining
populations and to recover and de -list ESA species.
Chinook are part of the Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit (ESU),
including all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and
streams flowing into Puget Sound, including the tributaries. The two early,
otherwise known as spring, Chinook populations are the north and middle fork
stock and the south fork stock. They are native populations with unique genetics
and life histories. They are essential for ESU recovery.
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
There is also a late, or fall, Chinook that spawns in the main stem and its
tributaries. Fall Chinook is considered non - native. It is genetically
indistinguishable from the Kendall hatchery fall stock. That doesn't mean that a
native fall stock didn't exist historically. They're not sure if there is a remnant
native fall stock or if it's just hatchery- origin fish. It is technically part of the
listing, but not essential for recovery. Harvest on Chinook is allowed.
Chinook populations are unique enough that the Puget Sound Technical
Recovery Team (TRT) delineated the Nooksack watershed as one of five geographic
regions of diversity in the entire ESU. The TRT published the listing criteria for
what it takes to de -list Puget Sound Chinook. The criteria include a requirement
that two independent populations in the geographic region will be viable and
healthy before the ESU is lifted. Recovery of fall Chinook is not as clear. The TRT
stated that fall Chinook is part of the historic diversity of the watershed. They will
need to pay some attention to them.
Bull trout is also listed as threatened according to the ESA. The listing is
Puget Sound Bull Trout. Two of the eight core areas, the Nooksack River and
Chilliwack River watersheds, are local. The fish are cold -water spawners in the
upper watersheds. Also, the fish are anadromous, so they migrate out to sea,
forage, and over - winter.
Crawford asked if the bull trout end at Nooksack Falls. Coe stated
anadromous species do. Up stream of anadromous barriers are resident species,
including the Dolly Varden species.
NOAA Fisheries is looking to local watersheds to draft a recovery plan for
Chinook. The TRT will evaluate local chapters to determine if it is enough to
achieve the listing. Bull Trout is different. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has
convened a Puget Sound Recovery Unit Team to the draft bull trout recovery plan,
which will integrate with local plans.
The remainder of her presentation will be about Chinook. Chinook recovery
goals are defined in terms of population health. Characterizing the health of a
salmonid population is not as simple as coming up with numbers of fish. There are
other parameters involved, include abundance, generation productivity, genetic and
life history diversity, and spatial structure of the life stages.
They are using a tool called an ecosystem diagnosis and treatment (EDT)
model. Local data and expert opinion on local habitat populations and Chinook
characteristics are compiled and run through the EDT model based on scientific
literature for how habitat conditions affect Chinook. The model output produces
Nooksack population health.
Three scenarios have been run for the Nooksack River watershed, current
conditions, historic conditions, and properly functioning conditions (PFC +) in
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
freshwater and historic conditions in estuary. The term PFC+ was introduced by
NOAA Fisheries. They defined properly functioning conditions as a sustained
presence of natural habitat forming processes in a watershed that are necessary for
the long term survival of the species through the full range of environmental
variations. PFC refers to conditions that are not as pristine as historic conditions,
but are functional enough to sustain populations. Using the EDT model, they can
estimate functioning capacity, then get science -based recovery goals inherit in local
conditions.
Chinook recovery goals have been established. For the PFC+ standard, the
Nooksack River watershed would produce 9,900 south fork spawners. The historic
standards is 13,000 south fork spawners. Therefore, the recovery goal is a number
of spawners between those amounts. The north fork PFC+ standard is 14,000
spawners. The historic standard was 22,000 spawners. The goal is between the
two numbers, also.
To get there will require a coordinated approach that includes habitat,
hydrology, harvest, and hatchery. To achieve early Chinook recovery goals for
habitat, they need to restore properly functioning habitat conditions. Specific levels
of conditions are established by NOAA Fisheries and refined. There are parameters
for fish access, channel conditions, riparian, floodplain, water quantity and quality
and estuarine and near shore marine. Establish the PFC+ condition as the habitat
targets.
The general recommendations for actions are preliminary, to initiate a dialog.
In general, they need to protect existing ecological functions by acquiring
functioning habitats through a variety of means. Use tools of local jurisdictions.
Through planning and other processes, they will review, adapt, and implement the
best management practices (BMP's). Regulations alone won't get them to the goal.
Develop and implement non - regulatory strategies and incentives. Manage growth
wisely to reduce land use conversion, avoid development near salmonid habitats,
and minimize the effects of develop using low- impact development technologies.
Develop education and outreach to promote stewardship among landowners and
community.
Protecting the baseline is not enough to restore to PFC+ conditions.
Implement a habitat restoration strategy to guide and prioritize projects. Think in
terms of a hierarchy of actions. The best benefit for the money is to connect
isolated functional habitat, then restore habitat forming processes, then
rehabilitation /enhancement techniques to create and restore habitat conditions.
They also need interim measures. It will take time to develop and create habitat.
They need projects with more immediate benefit.
The most significant barrier to fish passage is the middle fork diversion dam.
Plans are in place to provide passage, funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding
(SRF) Board. They still need to secure funding for construction, and hope to
achieve passage by 2005. Another barrier is the Canyon Creek barrier, which is at
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
river mile .3. It was formed when a dike was constructed to protect properties
from debris flows. The channel was relocated and down -cuts into bedrock. There
is now a small falls that constitutes a total or partial barrier. Some Chinook can get
past it, but are delayed in their migration. There are other numerous barriers
throughout WRIA 1. Industrial forestland owners are subject to new forest and fish
rules and will correct a lot of the barriers. A barrier inventory is underway to
identify other fish passage barriers. Develop a plan for correcting those barriers.
To prevent further disconnection, ensure that new stream crossings conform to
standards. Develop plans to monitor and maintain passage at barriers. Education
and outreach and technical and funding assistance is critical to identify passage
barriers on private lands. They're going to have to secure long -term funding.
Take steps to protect the sediment regime. Reduce management- induced
sediment delivery to streams. New forest and fish rules are a great improvement
and should reduce mass wasting associated with management. In terms of other
land uses, such as agriculture and development, BMP's are in place to control
delivery sediment to streams, but they need to make improvements. Riparian
buffers are a big improvement they need to make. Another problem in developed
lands is erosion of unpaved road ditches, which is a chronic source of fine sediment
to streams. Finally, in- channel activity such as dredging and gravel mining can
suspend fine sediment.
Restore historic channel patterns through riparian restoration, pulling dikes
back, and adding wood to streams. In the south fork, there is a restoration effort
at the reach from Acme to Saxon. The problem in the north fork is channel
instability that causes red scour. Restoring the historic channel pattern will provide
places for spawning outside the main channel. There is lots of work to be done in
lowland tributaries. Restore historic levels of wood loading by placing wood in
streams and having highly designed log jams. Also, prevent removal of wood.
Bridges are cleaned. Route that wood downstream. For bank stabilization, the
River and Flood Division is moving to more fish friendly techniques that don't
require riprap. Avoid in- channel activities. Seek alternatives to dredging and
gravel mining.
Restore properly functioning floodplain conditions for Chinook by setting back
dikes, levees, and riprap, and relocate stream - adjacent roads. The timing is right
because the River and Flood Division is looking at setting channel meander limits.
This is an opportunity to be more strategic. There are flood hazard management
needs and salmonid recovery needs that can be coordinated. The south fork plans
are to remove or set back sections of riprap. They are trying to achieve multiple
channel patterns that create diverse habitat for all life stages. Also, protect and
restore existing floodplain channel habitats, such as the one in Marietta. In the
future, reduce development in the flood plain through buyouts or other means.
Regarding riparian conditions, protect existing areas, especially in the flood
plain. Vegetation in the floodplain is important where there are channel migration
processes that are still intact. Restore degraded riparian forests. It's easier in the
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
forested uplands. The new forest and fish rules include setback activities. They
should achieve target levels. It will require more active restoration in the lower
regions through Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and other
voluntary measures.
They are on the 303d list. Develop the total maximum daily load (TMDL). A
TMDL has been done for fecal levels in lowland systems. That effort has been
successful to reduce fecal levels. Expand the parameters of the TMDL. The
National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits will reduce
certain pollutants in streams and waterways. High temperatures are a concern.
Turbidity is also a concern in the south fork and lowland streams. Other concerns
are dissolved oxygen and toxic contaminants. Reduce the load of toxic
contaminants in fine sediments.
Regarding water quantity, protect and restore the hydrologic regime.
Coordinate with the watershed management project on low flows. Think about
peak flows in terms of forest road density. They are established in habitat targets.
Find ways to reach those thresholds. In lowlands, maintain impervious surfaces
below the ten or eleven percent threshold.
Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat is complicated. The Lummi Nation is
doing an effort to assess estuarine habitat. Protect and restore estuarine and
nearshore habitat and shoreline conditions. The State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) has conducted a shore zone inventory. The County Planning
Department has done a lot of work to inventory existing functions in the marine
environment. Shoreline armaments are a big problem. Armaments often change
the topography, changing a shallow shelf into a deep, steep sided rip rapped bank
that isn't conducive to juveniles. Forage fish, including pacific herring, are a very
important food base for salmonid and other species in marine environment. Work
to restore them. One method is to conduct beach nourishment. Water quality in
Bellingham Bay and Cherry Point is a concern. There is an opportunity to coordinate
with the Bellingham Bay Pilot Project, Marine Resources Committee and Waterfront
Futures group.
Strive for the PFC+ standard, especially in priority species habitats. They
have much to do, and much has been done. There is a lot of community support
for salmon recovery. Foster that community support by emphasizing voluntary and
incentive approaches. Technical work can be used to identify and prioritize
projects, but government and stakeholders must determine what they can do.
McShane asked if there has been any effort in the draft plan to assign an
economic value to the fish production, if they are able to accomplish recovery. Coe
stated there has not.
Bob Kelly Jr., Nooksack Tribe, stated that is difficult to do. They tried to
incorporate that type of element in the watershed planning effort.
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Kinley stated it's especially difficult to quantify something that is part of the
tribal culture. They can quantify it commercially and economically based on what
the hatcheries produce. It's not just about agriculture or fishing. It's a whole
economy and way of life.
McShane asked if there is an emphasis in the plan to talk about restoring
habitat forming processes versus rehabilitation and enhancement, which would cost
more. Coe stated it's more expensive over long term to do rehabilitation and
enhancement.
McShane stated forest road density in impervious surface areas was
mentioned. The DNR is working on sustainable harvest calculations. There is a
significant amount of DNR lands and County transfer lands within the river forks.
He asked if there has been discussion about including the percentage of forest and
hydrologic maturity. Coe stated habitat targets recognize the importance of it. She
doesn't think they are initiating those discussions.
Ned Currence, Nooksack Tribe, stated State lands sustainable yield is not on
a small geographic basis. They don't look specifically at hydrologic maturity on an
individual basis.
McShane asked if the Council should provide input because of impacts to the
county on harvest versus the amount of money is generated to the County junior
taxpaying districts. Kinley stated there is information on that subject.
(Clerk's Note End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner asked if they are not including hatchery fish in naturally occurring
spawning ground. Coe stated the listing includes listed species, which may include
species of hatchery origins. Natural origin fish are in the recovery goals, not
hatchery origins.
Brenner asked about types of interim measures they can do. Coe stated
restoring wood loading to streams for riparian restoration is necessary. That takes
time. In the meantime, place wood in streams that can function until trees grow.
Brenner stated Ms. Coe talked about not wanting dredging or gravel mining
in the rivers. However, she also talked about temperature concerns. She asked if
it's positive to do selective dredging to make the water deeper and cooler. Coe
stated the gravel mining problem is that it affects the river upstream and
downstream, such as channel down - cutting.
Thompson stated that ties back to the question of whether they restore the
natural processes to the extent practical, or do rehabilitation and enhancement.
Dredging actually delays the natural process. There may be a localized benefit of
dredging that is very site - specific. However, they have to think about how it affects
the larger picture.
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 10
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1
2 Kelly stated dredging is not a management practice used for salmon
3 recovery.
4
5 Coe stated they have to take time to restore recovery zones in the south
6 fork. In the meantime, place wood jams adjacent to cool water discharge areas.
7 At high flows, scouring around the wood jams will occur to create the cool pools,
8 with the cool water inflows.
9
10 Kelly stated they must recognize they're talking about all life stages. It's
11 nice to create a culvert that allows fish passage for adults. If it doesn't allow for
12 out migrants, they haven't done anything. When looking at all the types of
13 restoration activities, talk about all life stages.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Nelson stated they talked about long -term funding and financing. He asked
how that would be done as economic capabilities diminish for rural areas and cities.
Coe stated they haven't started to explore that issue. As they quantify actions,
they will identify needed funding.
Nelson stated NOAA Fisheries described the commitment needed and will
provide more clarity on incentives for recovery actions. He asked if they will know
what incentives will be allowed, and if they will receive assistance. Thompson
stated that during implementation, they will figure out where they get the greatest
benefit per dollar spent. It's an incremental thing. Culvert replacement is an
example. The inventory will detail the priority. County road crews can budget their
projects according to priority. Or, if they get outside help from the State or federal
government, they might be able to do more, quicker. Incrementally, they will
evaluate the resources that are readily available and then identify what additional
resources it will take.
Kramer stated it makes sense to
rather than a local funding plan. The S
shared funding strategy. They will look
find a way of getting money that's acce
Shared Strategy will provide the County
develop a regional and state funding plan,
hared Strategy commitment is to develop a
at a variety of things over the next year to
ptable to make a commitment for recovery.
a funding plan.
37 Nelson asked how they prevent from becoming a world hatchery if they
38 achieve the higher population levels. Coe stated a goal is to restore to harvestable
39 levels. That's the capacity for the watershed. That capacity will also provide
40 opportunity for harvesting.
41
42 Nelson stated they will never get close to historic levels because of ocean
43 fishing practices and the demand for the fish product. He doesn't know how to
44 evaluate that in conjunction with the recovery process. Coe stated they have to
45 recognize the need to integrate harvesting in the plan.
46
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated that even historic fish population levels can't support the
current population.
McShane stated there are some things they have no control over.
Crawford stated they could assign various things that caused historical levels
to decline. Not all of the land use activity will be mitigated. There will be a social
cost that is too great to remove all the dikes, for example. There must have been
certain things that had a larger effect on the decline of salmon. Keep a perspective
of the cause and effect and what the mediation is and the cost of the mediation.
Coe stated an the recovery plan has an idea of properly functioning conditions.
Once they get a handle on activities the community is comfortable with, they need
to be able to quantify the effects for recovery. There are tools to use to evaluate
scenarios.
In terms of harvest, the harvest management industry does a much better
job of quantifying their harvesting effects on the Chinook. Habitat is much more
complex to quantify.
Currence stated harvest rates are down a lot. With healthy habitat
conditions, they will get good productivity of the population, which can produce a
lot of individuals per spawning pair. They should be able to support harvest levels.
What they get with the two populations now is marginal productivity. They are not
doing well. There is not a lot of that low productivity that is attributable to harvest.
Regarding the strategic flood management plan in association with flood
control needs, it is not in conflict with flood control. It is beneficial. By setting back
dikes, they will increase storage capacity. It will reduce long -term needs for flood
control. They won't get there in the short -term. There will be long -term benefits
for fish and flood control.
Roy stated she is concerned about the issue that the bull trout recovery plan
is done by another agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She asked if anyone
else is concerned. They're talking about the same environment and areas for
recovery. Coe stated an advantage is that the recovery unit team had a hand in
drafting the local section of the plan.
Roy asked if they're linked enough and there will be enough communication
to avoid conflicts in requirements and regulations. Regarding the harvesting issue,
there was a time when harvesting was unlimited and unregulated. It wasn't until
the Bolt decision that they started regulating the salmon catch. The argument of
having more harvesting going on now is weak. There was an incredible amount of
harvesting going on in the 50's and 60's.
Fleetwood stated WRIA 1 is one component. He asked how the other areas
in the region are doing. Kramer stated there are 14 watersheds working to develop
responses to the questions he's asked. All are committed to deliver answers to
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 12
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 those questions by June 30. There will be various levels of detail to those answers.
2 In comparison, Mason County has done very qualitative work so far, which is in
3 contrast to what he sees here, which is very quantitative and a sophisticated draft
4 plan and actions. There is a wide range of activity at this point. Skagit County has
5 quite a bit of controversy between agriculture and tribal communities. They don't
6 have a group like the Whatcom County efforts, but there are individual efforts
7 working on parts of the draft recovery plan. Shared Strategy is trying to create
8 some cohesion in Skagit County and to find a solution for the two interests.
9
10 Ruckelshaus stated what's happening is very healthy. There is a laundry list
11 of things that could be done. They're not going to be done overnight. It will take a
12 tremendous amount of work to prioritize what should be done first and where the
13 money will come from. Think about it in the context of ESA. The federal
14 government said why something needs to be done. Thirty years ago, Congress said
15 it's not okay for a species to become extinct. Absent any amendment to the law,
16 that's the law. Once a species is listed, the governments can't do this work
17 themselves. The real question for this level of local government is defining how
18 they can do recovery, the timeframe, and the funding source. That's what this plan
19 is meant to answer. A crucial part has to be done by the people living in the
20 watersheds. If the local plan is accepted by the federal government and the result
21 is the inevitable lawsuits, then local, state, and federal governments will all stand
22 together in court. The control over how they improve the place where they live will
23 be local. Otherwise the court comes in. That's not a good solution. Progress starts
24 to happen when people begin to ask how they can help to make things better.
25
26 Kinley stated the Lummi Nation is the largest fishing tribe in the U.S. He
27 appreciates the County and the smaller cities stepping forward to accept the
28 challenge. Come into it with an open and objective mind to look at it from the
29 tribes' perspectives. The perspective is the cost that was made to get where they
30 are today. Understanding this stuff is overwhelming. The Council is going to have
31 to rely on some good people. He hoped to work collectively to develop a plan.
32 There are also regulatory things they can do right now. The Lummi Nation saw this
33 happening 25 years ago, stopped their fishery, and tried to get other people
34 involved. It comes down to politics. WDFW could not stand the pressure. Luckily,
35 governors decided that extinction is not an option. Now, they're feeling the
36 consequences.
37
38 Look at how they want Whatcom County to look in future generations.
39 Bellingham Bay used to have the largest commercial fishery in Washington State.
40 When identifying remedies, don't look just at hatcheries. If people manage the
41 environment better, they won't want hatcheries. Until they get to that position,
42 they will need the hatcheries. The tribes are willing to make the hard decisions.
43 Elected officials should realize there are hard decisions to make. They have already
44 tackled the hatchery and harvest components. To participate in the processes right
45 now, they are putting harvest plans together. The hatcheries are already being
46 scrutinized. The tribal plans are going to NOAA in August. They're hoping for
47 approval. He hoped they don't get bogged down by how much it will cost or what
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
the law will make them do. Have the philosophy of defining what they want for
future generations. There's not enough money in Fort Knox to do this. The Lummi
Tribe is in it for the long -haul.
Kelly stated the Nooksack Tribe recognize that they have to get something
on the table and start a process to formulate what they have today. They know
they have to get something on the table to work from. The Shared Strategy
approach, which is voluntary. There is no hammer to make people do things.
There is a good environment in the county to embrace this voluntary approach.
Get the people around the table who can actually implement the plan. The
Nooksack Tribe will say at every step what they need to do to get to the range
between current and historic conditions. He wants to get to the PFC+ standard as
closely as they can. The tribes and County staff have expertise to build an agency,
come up with a plan, and provide expertise to implement the plan. This is all a
voluntary approach. He hopes the political leadership will grow and carry the plan
to the State legislature. Define what they are willing to do first, then come up with
a cost, and ask the legislature to help pay for it. Change laws that impede a
voluntary approach. The Nooksack Tribe will help the County decide what it wants
to do. The tribes have already defined that. This is not as big as they think it is.
They are talking about the things they have control over. All the little pieces will
get them to the PFC+ level.
Kinley stated the complexity is technical. They have to put the plan into
laymen's terms for the constituents. The question is how they get a quasi - neutral
technical person who can understand this stuff. They already have the best
expertise for biology. They will have to put the information out there that isn't
tainted by personal interest.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, thanked Mr. Kramer and Mr. Ruckleshaus for
attending. He is proud of efforts they've accomplished so far. He is proud that the
tribes, County, and other entities have worked in unison. There are not many
communities that can claim they've done that. Working together is the single most
important factor in getting where they need to be. Continue working together until
they achieve the goals and objectives. He also thanked the staff, especially the
Water Resources Division staff, who have worked on a limited budget and with
limited resources.
Roll stated the draft is going to the stakeholder group and community. He
will bring those comments back to the Council. A CD of the draft is available.
The annual meeting of the Agriculture Preservation Committee is today at
Homestead. It is a good example of mingling the agriculture, salmon, and WRIA
watershed management project needs. The meeting will focus on good works
happening at Bertrand and in the Ten Mile watersheds.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
He encouraged councilmembers to attend. Two gubernatorial candidates will
also attend.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:26 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on March 9 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 2/17/2004, Page 15