HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession May 8 20011
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
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
May 8, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Bob Imhof
Absent:
Marlene Dawson
Connie Hoag
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, submitted information on a
Marine Resources Committee (MRC) summit. The goal is to flush out commonalties
of all the committees and agencies, with the hopes of teeing up Salmon Recovery
Funding (SRF) Board grants.
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
FCZDAC Prioritization of Flood Control Projects
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated the projects are prioritized as
high, medium, and low. New projects this year are low priority, except two of
them, which seem to benefit individuals. However, on a broader scale those
projects will have more impacts to the public. The committee is offering those two
projects as pilot projects to build large complexes of wood and rock on the land, so
there is no in- channel work. The projects are the Bennett Woodland Farms project
and the Bill Devine project. They are almost identical projects. It was only fair to
offer the option to them both. It is a new, experimental technique that can be
permitted.
Imhof questioned the status of the two projects done years ago on Highway
nine, the Riverberry and Van Dalen projects. Cooper stated they've done two
repairs at Riverberry. The gravel bars shift and redirect the flows between the
barbs. The water doesn't notice the barbs at that point. They have not had
continual monitoring. A recommendation is that in a wandering river, barbs aren't
the best approach.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Nelson asked if they have to do the entire surface to protect it. Cooper
stated the Saxon project is a continuous project with trees.
Crawford complimented the committee for prioritizing the Sandy Point
bulkheads as a low priority.
Flood Hazard Reduction Implementation Program
Cooper stated that in this year's request for projects, the City of Bellingham
submitted a project that didn't fit with the other projects. The advisory committee
started thinking about this new program, aimed at proactive things to prevent
future damage, rather than Band -Aid projects. The information provided is the
direction they are headed.
Nelson questioned who came up with the 50/50 percentage split of the costs.
Cooper stated the advisory committee came up with the formula. The formula is
usually 80/20 percent. They are trying to make funding available for more
projects, and spread the money around to more projects.
Nelson asked if the County does that for the diking and drainage districts.
Cooper stated repair work costs are typically split 80/20. This is a different
program.
Nelson stated the question is whether this type of work is different.
Crawford questioned whether the staff is suggesting that there may be an
incentive for the County to not do these proactive programs, let it flood, and then
let the County pick up 80 percent of the repair costs, rather than share costs 50/50
for a proactive program.
Imhof stated the 20 percent cost to repair damage would be more than the
cost of 50 percent to do proactive work.
Cooper stated some of these projects are different in scope.
Nelson stated they are talking about maintenance after an event. The
County would fund 80 percent of the cost, and then the city would be responsible
for 20 percent. This is for additional costs. Cooper stated it is for anything beyond
$100,000, not additional maintenance cost. Funding is dependant upon availability.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the repair program has been in
place for quite a while. The County hasn't formalized any other planning work that
needs to occur. The County wants to make sure money is set aside to implement
those projects in place, and for repair and maintenance for those things that are
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
meant to be there. Staff is questioning whether the 80/20 cost split is for
everything they do, or whether there are differences. The recommendation is that
everyone be on the same page so they all understand eligibility and future
responsibilities.
Nelson stated that if they make a tremendous investment, then they have
the choice of maintaining it or coming back to the 80/20 program if the investment
is wiped out. It would be more costly to do a restructure than to do something for
repair and maintenance. Monsen stated that the role of the countywide district
versus smaller districts and individuals is a challenge. For the County to step in,
the project needs a sponsor. Today, prioritization starts when someone has 20
percent. This attempt is to refine those scenarios.
Cooper stated the committee was not into funding the acquisition of
property. She didn't want to head down the wrong path.
Crawford stated this is the right path.
McShane questioned whether this is in comparison to smaller scale Sudden
Valley projects. Cooper stated Sudden Valley has been a repair and maintenance
project. If there isn't a good plan, one doesn't come into this program. If a bank is
eroding, one would apply for the repair and maintenance program.
Riparian Re- veaetation of Drainaae Districts
Cooper stated this has become a program to assist drainage districts in re-
vegetating drainage districts throughout the county. They have received and
implemented Centennial Grant funding. They are working with drainage districts at
their annual meetings to get them to do adequate re- vegetation. This program has
made it possible to restore those drainage districts, and at least get cover over the
stream.
Imhof asked how to clean out siltation in the creek. People are losing
property. Cooper stated it depends on the source of the sediment. Drainage clogs
because of reed canary grass. The hope is to get shade over the reed canary grass.
They would need to do spot maintenance until shade grows over.
Nelson stated the question to be answered is whether they want to fund this
program if the County doesn't receive the grant. It doesn't make sense to start
these projects, and then not maintain them.
Imhof stated that beavers are also a problem. Cooper stated the County just
contracted with a beaver specialist to implement a variety of different applications,
such as fencing and repellant, so they don't have to be shot.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Imhof stated they are rodents. Cooper agreed. Leg hold traps are not
allowed, so they need to look at other methods.
Brenner questioned whether they need to consider that the economy is in
question. She asked if they need to consider what may happen with the budget,
especially if Intalco shuts down.
Nelson stated they've gone through the projects. They may have to curtail
further projects.
Imhof stated they only need to do maintenance for the first two or three
years, until the vegetation gets established. Then, they go on to the next project.
If the County doesn't get funding, they will have to build in the cost of the projects
they've already done.
McShane stated this helps the County get permitting for future projects. The
County did what it said it would do. If the County doesn't do what it says it will,
then the County would be a target for the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Cooper stated the County is trying to get the WDFW to trust the County to keep its
word.
Brenner asked if the County could acknowledge that they could be in a
sudden economic downturn.
Nelson stated they are always in that position.
Imhof stated there is a condition for funding projects only if funding becomes
available.
Brenner stated she was okay with that condition.
Nelson asked how many miles remain to be planted. Nine and a half miles
have been planted. Cooper stated there are about 100 miles of ditch in the
drainage system. A lot of ditches remain to be vegetated. They have been funding
through alternative corrections. As the County keeps people out of jail, it saves
$20 per day per person.
Nelson stated the jail staff is talking about increasing the cost of those
services. He asked the amount per hour the County is getting from the crews.
Cooper stated she averaged a crew at five people. Now, the County pays $250 per
day for a crew of five people and a leader. The crew works about six hours per
day, but they work hard. The County gets a lot of work out of them, more than
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) crew on an hourly basis. The per hour cost
is around $7 to $8 per hour.
Nelson asked about costs for training crew chiefs. Cooper stated that is
included.
Nelson stated they need to keep an eye on reimbursement costs.
Imhof stated the jail is still full. They are just moving the people they don't
have room for onto a work crew.
Nelson stated the crew workers are in jail at night. Cooper stated some do
and some don't go back to the jail at night.
Nelson moved to maintain current levels of re- vegetation of drainage ditches
as appropriate, seek out grant funding when opportunities arise to support efforts,
and keep in mind budgetary concerns.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
Cooper stated the Nisqually earthquake happened recently, and caused a lot
of damages. This program estimates the total amount of the damages, and
allocates 15 percent of that amount for hazard mitigation. Acquisition is the prime
focus. A large amount of money is available from this pot of money. The Federal
Emergency Management Association (FEMA) requested letters of intent from the
communities submitting project applications. She found out about it late, and just
submitted a letter of intent.
Nelson asked if they have to look at these every time there is a new grant.
Cooper stated this is a new grant. She has a limited amount of time to submit the
application, once she gets it. She questioned whether the County should focus on
land acquisition for Canyon Creek, Jones Creek, or Glacier Gallop Creek.
Nelson questioned what Ms. Cooper recommended. Cooper stated that, from
a standpoint of potential liability, she would recommend Canyon Creek.
Nelson stated they should focus on Canyon Creek.
Crawford moved to focus the hazard mitigation buyout program funding on
the Canyon Creek area.
Motion carried unanimously.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Cooper stated the next step is to send out a letter to Canyon Creek residents
and let them know of the long -term strategy, and whether the strategy is to stop
repairing the dike and implement a buyout program.
Imhof stated the letter should say that the County has the opportunity to get
grant funding to buy out properties in the area. Depending on how much money
comes in, the County has certain priorities. Ask if the residents are interested in
participating in the project.
Nelson stated the dike is the issue. The Council has not taken any action on
the dike. The County could help participate if the residents want to form a diking
district. Otherwise, the residents should be notified that there is no current method
to do maintenance on the dike. Cooper stated the residents are willing to
participate in the process.
Imhof asked if the County could afford to continue to maintain the dike.
Cooper stated the County has spent $1.3 million on the area already.
Nelson stated it goes back to prioritization. Everyone has to go through the
same process. Don't second -guess the process.
McShane stated the recommendation from the advisory committee was for
buyout. Forget the levee. Cooper stated the Council has not acted on that
recommendation.
Nelson asked if the County could maintain the levee if it does the buyout
program. Cooper stated the shoreline permit from the initial building of the dike
required a detailed report regarding the costs and processes for a buyout option,
within six months of issuance of the shoreline permit. The County has not done
that. The dike was intended to be temporary when it was built. If the 1989 event
happens again, the dike will fail.
Nelson questioned whether the County would be required to not do anything
with the levee if it gets the grant. Cooper stated it depends on how they write the
program. The County proposes what it wants to do. The County will score lower if
it continues to allow development there.
Imhof questioned how long it would be until the Mt. Baker Highway would
leave if the County abandons the dike. Cooper stated the state Department of
Transportation (DOT) is doing a North Fork quarter analysis. They are looking at
the river erosion zone. They are considering relocation of the highway in certain
areas. She's been attending those meetings, and she's told them about the Canyon
Creek issue. She took the DOT staff out there and showed them the dike. She
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
questioned whether the long -term management strategy is to repair the dike or
buyout properties.
Imhof stated put the County's money in the buyout program.
Nelson agreed, but there was a lot of public sentiment out there. Cooper
stated that if the County says it will not financially maintain the dike, it does not
preclude the residents from forming a diking district, assessing themselves, and
participating with the Army Corps of Engineers directly. Canyon Creek has the
earthquake link. The catastrophic potential is a slide from an earthquake.
Brenner asked if agreeing with the buyout means that the County agrees to
not do any maintenance on the dike. Cooper stated that is what she wants to hear.
At this point, the Corps pays 70 percent of the cost of the program. The options for
the residents would be to participate in a buyout program, form their own diking
district, and go to the Corps.
Imhof stated that, if the County participates with the Corps then the County
would split the residents' 30 percent cost at 80/20 percent.
Brenner stated it would cost the residents more to do it the other way.
Cooper questioned what the best long -term strategy is.
Nelson stated staff's recommendation is to do a buyout program.
Brenner stated the Council said it would agree to a voluntary buyout
program. Most residents can't afford to go with the Corps.
McShane stated that the residents would have to turn to the County for a
subsidy if they can't afford to go with the Corps.
Brenner stated the question is whether the County would subsidize the
residents. The County is not forced to subsidized.
McShane stated the County has subsidized the residents substantially.
Monsen stated the question to be answered is whether or not to pursue this
as a priority, relative to buyout funding. If the Council says that the preference is
buyout and not ongoing repair and maintenance, it doesn't mean there won't be a
viable project sponsor to maintain the dike. The County wants to send the
message that the answer to doing repair is not absolutely no, but the residents
should not count on it.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Brenner stated she could support that.
Cooper suggested the language would be that the Council is not committing
to any long -term maintenance of the dike.
Crawford questioned the process if DOT chooses to move the highway, and
whether they do property buyout through eminent domain. Cooper stated they
probably do.
Crawford stated some of those people at Glacier Springs could be bought out
through eminent domain eventually.
Monsen stated they are talking about state transportation financing that is
competing with the Guide Meridian project. The DOT can likely put good planning
in place, but they may wait for a disaster for the leverage to start the work.
Cooper stated she wanted to send out a letter, and start a list of who would
be interested in buyout.
Crawford stated there was an option to do minimal maintenance. When the
big flood hits, then he would be ready to abandon the dike. When the minor events
occur, since the County has already invested money and the contractor said they
need to maintain the dike, then the County needs to maintain the dike minimally to
keep it viable for as long as possible, without spending multi millions. He asked if
there was a problem with fish. Cooper stated the engineer felt that the dike would
hold up fine in a normal event.
Crawford stated the engineer said the barbs need to be replaced because
they were washed away.
Nelson stated the community needs to take action if it wants to maintain the
levee. Otherwise, the residents would feel that the levee is adequate, and the
County would pursue a buyout program.
Brenner stated she would rather see the County commit to minimal
maintenance.
Crawford stated the minimal amount is $90,000.
Monsen stated the neighborhood has asked the County to assume 100
percent responsibility. He assumes that now it is an 80/20 percent cost split.
Cooper stated the residents could still work with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated she would like to do a different funding structure.
Nelson stated that gets into a trap where the Council has to look at every
project.
Brenner stated the County didn't do the maintenance that was required on
the dike.
Crawford stated that the residents have been waiting for the Council to do
something, which it hasn't done.
Imhof stated all other diking districts have been proactive. This community
hasn't organized or requested any help from the department to organize into an
organization that would qualify for the funds. The residents haven't done anything.
Nelson agreed.
Cooper stated that if the County offers the residents a FEMA buyout, it
doesn't preclude them from asking the County to help them form a diking district.
That is something the residents can do. The County should give an idea of its long-
term management strategy.
Crawford stated the Council needs to ask what the community has done in
the past year.
Nelson stated the Council would need to have a public process.
Cooper stated they are going to have to have a public hearing or public
meeting. She would contact the residents, let them know of the discussion, and
see who is interested. She would let the residents know what the options are.
The Council concurred.
McShane stated there are other areas that are coming down the pike. The
councilmembers should look at the maps, and give that some thought. Cooper
stated the advisory committee is still working on those other areas.
2. SALMON RECOVERY
URS Final Report
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Roll stated the final report is in.
Crawford asked what problems, from an endangered species standpoint,
someone would encounter if he or she was to propose a hydroelectric project above
Nooksack Falls. The maps show there are no fish above the falls.
John Thompson, Endangered Species Act Resources Planner, stated a dam
would be extremely challenging to permit given the political climate, even without
the Endangered Species Act. There was a proposal to reestablish the Nooksack
Falls power plant. One advantage of that site is that it does not block fish access.
A run of the river is a smaller diversion dam, and water is piped down the hill and
through the turbines. Those can be permitted if above the reach. There is still a
possibility for those hydros.
McShane stated the dam idea was studied in the past and is impractical from
a geological standpoint. The rock would not hold water, because it is full of
fractures. If there isn't a dam on a river today, it's because it wasn't practical.
Thompson stated there could be a lack of data on the presence of fish above
that site.
Nelson stated there is a series of recommendations. He would like to take
the recommendations out of this context, and bring them forward to look at.
Monsen stated they can deal with these things generally and how they come
back as a policy matter, or wait until those policies come up, and use this report as
a reference.
Nelson stated some policies might need to be implemented and be in place.
Monsen stated an example is the stormwater management chapter. The
County is still waiting for the state Department of Ecology (DOE) to finish a Western
Washington technical manual. There is nothing the County can do now.
Nelson stated they could reflect on each piece as they come forward. He
asked if this report would be referenced when proposals come forward.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this report
would be referenced.
Nelson stated it would behoove the Council to hold on to the report. They
would discuss how it impacts other processes in the County.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 10
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
Monsen stated he asked the consultant to present the report in a way to deal
with an issue, rather than an answer not based in reality.
Brenner stated it would be a reference document for the future.
McShane asked about wetland variances and exemptions on page 5 -3 of the
report, and questioned how many applications have been submitted. Hart stated
he didn't know but could find out. As a matter of the budget, it would be handy to
see the permit flow and get all those statistics.
Nelson stated the Council could go through the report, section by section, in
the Natural Resources Committee.
McShane asked how best to proceed. This is the first step to understanding
what the County may need to do and how to create a good process. The
councilmembers may need to look at a section at a time. Hart stated that is a good
idea.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the County has state
obligations to update its wetland and shoreline ordinances.
Nelson stated the Council needs to focus on public perception. Coordinate
together; deliver the same message regarding what is required by law, and; look at
how to apply those requirements so the public is not unduly burdened in complying
with the law. Those are three important elements as they go through this process.
McShane stated the councilmembers need to have a good grasp on this
issue. They will be the conduit for complaints and articulate what the County is
exactly doing.
The Council concurred on looking at this section by section in the Natural
Resources Committee. People could be invited to participate in the discussions.
Brenner suggested having a chart with three options as they go through
issues with staff: what the County must do, what the County is recommended to
do, and other options.
Nelson stated the fiscal impacts and options need to be included.
Goodwin suggested that the Council prioritize the wetland critical areas
section to work on first. It is section five.
McShane asked if there are any thoughts on the channel migration zone
(CMZ) project. Thompson stated part of that is being worked on through the
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
University of Washington and the Nooksack Tribe to do a historical channel
assessment. It is not quite the same as the CMZ project. They are looking at the
oldest maps and survey notes to reconstruct what the channel and the riparian
vegetation looked like. That work is supposed to be ready in a few months. That
assessment will serve as a good base for the meander limits. They can use the
information to develop management tools.
Cooper stated the CMZ delineation was further out on the priority list from
the advisory committee.
WRIA 1 Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy
Thompson stated he would give a presentation and go over the
habitat /watershed recovery strategy they are using in the Nooksack basin and
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1. The URS report has valuable
information. One value is an overarching view of County operations. It is a tool to
help the County plan ahead.
WRIA 1 is the fourth largest basin in Puget Sound. The Nooksack has 826
square miles at the mouth. Over 400 miles of river and stream habitat are
accessible to anadromous salmonids, which spawn in fresh water. The juveniles
either stay in the system for a year or two or head out to sea, before returning to
spawn. There are trans - boundary issues. Bertrand Creek starts in Canada and
flows to the south.
Headwaters
Headwaters are located in federal forests and managed as late successional
reserves, which means that the old growth left is being managed for old growth
characteristics, and not harvested. What is left will be grown to old growth
characteristics. Glacial water storage provides stable summer flows. The river is
unregulated. There is not a large dam on it. Unregulated flood flows provide
habitat - forming processes.
North Fork
There are 23 miles of accessible river from Deming to Nooksack Falls. Two -
thirds of the basin is in federal ownership. It supports unique ESA stocks of
chinook salmon and bull trout. The habitat character includes glacial flows. There
are steep gradient tributaries. There has been accelerated mass wasting from land
management and logging. They have lost large woody debris (LWD) in the
channels. There is increasing rural development. That is a link to the County's
land use policies and flood program.
Corrective actions include a lot of forest road storm proofing to evaluate road
drainage, abandon the road, or add extra culverts or larger culverts. It also
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 12
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
includes protection and acquisition of critical habitat and riparian planting. The
Land Trust has been active in the North Fork in acquiring pieces that are critical to
habitat. There has been a number of riparian planning projects to re- establish the
woody debris.
Middle Fork
There are 7.2 miles of accessible habitat, up to the City of Bellingham's
diversion. The upper part of the basin is in state and federal ownership and
supports unique ESA stocks of chinook and bull trout. DNR is dealing with spotted
owls and marbled murelets. The Bellingham diversion blocks about 15 miles of
historical habitat. There are glacial summer flows and little tributary spawning. It
is a steep watershed. The habitat available now is a short distance. A few years
ago, it ran along the flood plain, and provided a half -mile to a mile of habitat.
There has been accelerated mass wasting from land uses and historic large woody
debris loss. Corrective action includes restoring passage over the diversion, road
storm proofing, and LWD projects.
Nelson stated that much income comes from recreation on the river in the
Foothills area. He asked if there is a plan to sustain that economy on those rivers.
Thompson stated it has been discussed, but there is no formal evaluation. There
has been a lot of speculation about how disruptive a family of innertubers is.
They've talked about doing an experiment to use a submersible video to identify
where the fish are holding, and see if tubers would disturb the fish.
South Fork
There are 31 miles of river accessible to native chinook and that support
unique ESA stocks of chinook and bull trout. The habitat character is warm, and
there are low summer flows. Big issues are high temperatures and low flows.
There are fewer pools. Corrective actions include road storm proofing, major land
acquisitions, and riparian and LWD projects. There is a strong potential for
innovative flood hazard reduction projects. The sub -zone in that area is interested
in trying something different, which presents an opportunity.
Main Stem
There are 36 miles of accessible river, low gradient tributaries, and the river
provides transportation, rearing habitat, and chinook spawning. There is a fair
amount of spawning in the lower Nooksack. Historically, the spring chinook come
in earlier and move to the upper part of the basin, and the fall chinook occupy the
lower parts of the basin. Habitat character includes the extensive system of dikes
and levees that disconnect the flood plain, the loss of channel forming structure,
and poor riparian buffers. Corrective actions include WRIA basin -wide planning,
major riparian restoration efforts on the tributaries and the drainage system, and
flood hazard reduction planning that recognizes physical processes.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
Brenner asked if pollution plays a part in the main stem of the river.
Thompson stated water quality in general is a factor. It depends on the location.
Tidal Reach and Estuary
The estuary is very important for the anadromous fish, because it is a
nursery grounds. As they come out of the fresh water and move into the salt
water, their bodies have to adjust. They can move up and down with the tidal
influence to find the salinity that they like, as they adjust Historically, they've
disconnected the floodplain from the river through the levee system. Associated
with that, they've lost some of the habitat forming structures and complexity, such
as logjams. They've also had the loss of the Lummi Bay tributary. There are two
acquisitions being worked on right now. One property is a repetitive loss
acquisition. The other property is the old Bellingham Frozen Foods site. WDFW
would like to acquire that site.
(Clerks' Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Thompson stated this is an area where there are a lot of opportunities.
Nelson questioned whether there is adequate habitat in that estuary for
salmonids. Thompson stated analysis is being done to look at the old sloughs and
recreate some of that tidally influenced slough habitat.
Brenner asked if they are talking about taking some of the dikes out to
reestablish habitat functions. Thompson stated that before they take out any
levees, they would have to do the evaluation.
Thompson continued to state that the Lummi Tribe and others are looking at
options for reestablishing a connection to the old slough habitat.
Fish Stocks
The north fork stock and the south fork stock comprise two of the five
genetically distinct units (GDU's) in the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit
(ESU). Within Puget Sound, which is considered a package for chinook, there are
five different groups of chinook salmon. Two are here in the Nooksack. The north
fork stock are genetically very different from the south fork stock. Both of those
stocks are very genetically different from anything else in the Puget Sound. Even
though their numbers aren't great, they are considered very important for recovery
of the ESU. There is also native char, which includes dolly varden and bull trout,
and are also listed as threatened. They spawn primarily in the headwaters of the
three forks, however they can be anywhere in the basin. They tend to focus on
chinook, but the County also has to deal with bull trout when working on County
roads and culvert replacement.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, 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
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
They do have a native riverine population of sockeye salmon. Sockeye are
known to spawn near a lake, and the juveniles spend a year in the lake before
going to sea. A segment of the population will rear in the river. They are native,
and are not strays from the Frasier or Baker rivers.
They also have pink salmon, chum salmon, and cutthroat trout.
Brenner asked if any of the species are endangered. Thompson stated they
are not. Some stocks are threatened, being looked at, or are not covered under
ESA.
Monsen stated bull trout are listed as endangered in areas of Eastern
Washington
Citizen Involvement
The Nooksack Recovery Team includes a lot of people from other groups.
There is a broad cross - section of people. The Nooksack Salmon Enhancement
Association is the regional enhancement group. Conservation organizations such as
the Land Trust are focused on preserving the habitat that works. There are
planning committees. For technical support, 24 people are working full -time.
There is also County, tribal, and city support for the basin planning and salmon
recovery efforts.
Brenner asked what the tribes are doing. Thompson stated the Lummi
Nation and Nooksack Tribe both have restoration programs and are pursuing grant
funds. Much of the Lummi's funding is from competitive grants. Both tribes are
critical players.
Brenner stated she didn't want to duplicate the efforts of the tribes.
Thompson stated the Nooksack Recovery Team (NRT) includes everyone involved,
and one of its functions is to coordinate everyone. When grant applications are
proposed, the NRT works to have complementary grant applications. They also
divvy up different portions of projects to different groups. The NRT has compiled a
database. The assessment is a small piece of the pie. They are doing a lot of good
things with a small amount of study by targeting their resources and putting their
money into use on the ground.
Priority Species
The priority species are the south fork Chinook, north fork Chinook, and bull
trout. They are followed by wild spawning coho and the fall chum and pink stocks.
Principles of Watershed Restoration
They have prioritized the critical habitat to priority species. If chinook
rearing is a problem, then they don't go out and do a smallmouth bass project.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 15
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
They provide for the life history stage specific refugia and connecting habitats,
which means that the identify was working well, and they protect it. The protection
can be through acquisition of property, regulatory protection, and voluntary
protection. They focus on disruptions to the habitat forming processes. The
identify was causing the problem, so they are not constantly treating symptoms.
Treat symptoms of degradation only as interim measures. Employ a critical
pathway methodology, and then maintain, monitor, and manage adaptively.
Sequencing
In theory, the critical pathway method used is a linear approach. In reality,
they are working on multiple paths at the same time. They know more in some
areas and less in other areas. They are trying to do two or three steps at once to
keep things moving along. Through the NRT, local groups fill complementary
niches.
Project Integration
The County has had land acquisition projects in which it works with the Land
Trust to acquire land. Much of the right bank is in public ownership. That creates
opportunities from a recreational standpoint as well as for habitat management.
There are also negotiations for acquisition on the left bank. Meanwhile, the area is
being replanted with trees. The Nooksack Tribe has been doing fisheries
assessment.
Imhof asked the return rate. Thompson stated he didn't have that
information. It varies a lot from year to year. It takes 10 or 12 years to establish a
trend.
Imhof stated it is a four -year cycle.
Step 1 - Early Action Projects
An early action project is the basin /sub -basin analyses to identify key
sources of degradation, including road /landslide inventories of systematic road
treatments and habitat inventories to identify gross changes and biological effects.
They are able to identify road systems that need to be fixed, and assign resources
to them first. There is a concern that issues will create the need to study
everything to death, and it will take a long time to get anywhere. Therefore, they
are trying to get enough defensible information to target resources in a responsible
manner while they develop more refined information. Another project is to employ
restoration principles contained in the salmon recovery strategy.
Step 2 - Projects and Data Needs
They are looking at basin scale assessments. The first one is the historic
channel condition and riparian function. There are also assessments on rearing
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 16
1 habitat, spawning and incubation in the North Fork, in- stream flow, and juvenile
2 use of estuary and near shore marine areas.
3
4 Watershed scale planning includes WRIA 1 salmon recovery planning and the
5 Watershed Management Planning Project.
6
7 Step 3 - Integrate Principles and Sequencing_
8 The third step is to develop strategies to integrate principles and sequencing
9 into a package. They are following two parallel paths. One path is land acquisition.
10 The second path is habitat restoration to identify the reaches that really need work.
11 Treat the sources and target critical habitat limitations.
12
13 Project Ranking Elements
14 They have to be able to rank projects, and look at the benefits to the priority
15 species, whether the project is consistent with sequencing and with the principles of
16 restoration, the time scale to benefits, the likelihood of success, and whether it is
17 cost effective and coordinated with other efforts.
18
19 North Fork Recovery
20 This is one of the first projects that have been funded in the last year
21 through the SRF Board. The Whatcom Land Trust is the grant recipient. It protects
22 433 acres of riverfront on the North Fork. It also includes tributary habitat. There
23 are homes in the area, which were not included in the acquisition. There wasn't a
24 good way to keep the land from being developed, which was part of the impetus for
25 the Land Trust to apply to acquire this property.
26
27 Wells Creek Road Sediment Control
28 An example of identifying the cause of a problem and treating the problem is
29 the Wells Creek Road sediment control. There is a comprehensive inventory of the
30 landslides and forest roads from Deming to upstream. It is a project of the Forest
31 Service and Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA). The idea was to
32 do a systematic analysis to treat most of the roads on the south side of the valley.
33
34 Assessments
35 Concurrent with early action strategy, they need to move forward with
36 comprehensive basin -scale assessments. Within the assessment strategy, there
37 are three objectives: establish historical processes and conditions, understand
38 human impacts and limiting factors, and develop sub -basin watershed restoration
39 plans.
40
41 Basin -Scale Assessments
42 They are trying to fill data gaps and refine the restoration strategy. It is
43 important to integrate with other basin -scale efforts, including the Washington
44 Conservation Commission (WCC) limiting factors report, historic channel /floodplain
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 17
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
reconstruction, riparian function assessment, estuarine assessment, landslide and
road inventories, culvert inventories, and WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project
Phase III.
Acme -Saxon Reach Projects, Importance of the Reach
An example of where they've tried to integrate projects is in the Acme -Saxon
reach. This reach is important because it is in public ownership, which presents
opportunities. It is in the transition area from a higher gradient and confined valley
to unconfined lower gradient reaches. Upstream areas are protected by the Forest
and Fish Agreement. Spawning use has dropped from the mid- 1980's. There has
been watershed assessments conducted in contributing watersheds. The flood sub -
zone is interested in comprehensive approaches using innovative techniques.
Crawford asked the reason why the spawning use has dropped. Thompson
stated it is probably a combination of reasons. Part of it is the degradation of the
habitat. For instance, the river used to flow through a large logjam complex. In
the 1990 floods, the jam breached. They lost the pool habitat. In the 1995 flood,
another jam was breached by an adjacent landowner because the landowner was
losing his field at a rapid rate.
McShane stated that land owner was not the only one in that valley who
breached logjams.
Acme -Saxon Integrated Proposals
Thompson stated the Acme -Saxon area is an area where they are trying to
integrate an adaptive strategy as they go. Lummi Natural Resources is gathering
more detailed reach - specific information to use to evaluate problems and possible
solutions for habitat problems. There are four parts to that. One part is the in-
stream pathway that looks at the potential for in- stream projects. Another part is
the riparian pathway that looks at the opportunities to do riparian enhancement
and reestablish riparian zones. It is a long -term strategy. The third part is the
flood plain habitat pathway that looks at the off - channel habitats and the
opportunity to reconnect them. The last part is the channel -flood plain interaction.
If one is going to do structures in the channel for fish habitat, it will have an effect
on the flood route. They need to evaluate what that effect will be.
Larson Bridge Log Jam
Another example of a project that meets an interim need is the Larson Bridge
logjam that Lummi Natural Resources is doing in about a month.
Imhof asked if the bridge belongs to the Forest Service. Thompson stated it
belongs to Crown Pacific.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 18
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
Thompson continued to state that there is bluff erosion depositing sediment
into the river. There is landslide debris. The objective of this project is to go into a
reach that has historically had more wood than it does now, and manually construct
logjams. This is experimental. This site was selected because there are no houses
around, and there are five to seven miles to filter out the big chunks if something
fails. There are three objectives: reduce sediment input from the slide, reestablish
in- channel complex cover as holding habitat for fish, and help maintain and meter
the flow. The river is still using the overflow channel. Enhance the off - channel
habitat. In an undisturbed reach, there would be logjams, and the river would shift
back and forth over time. When the river shifts, it shifts from an old channel to a
new channel, and wood is present to create new pools and habitat.
Nelson asked if the intent is to control the river or provide more habitats.
Thompson stated the intent is to give the river the tools it needs to function
naturally.
McShane stated there was excessive logging up to the river in the past.
There is a lack of wood there during meandering, so this is interim until they can
get the wood to grow back. Thompson stated that is correct. It will be 50 years
before they are functional.
Crawford asked if there are specific identifiable activities on the Acme -Saxon
reach, such as bridge construction, that has caused degradation of the habitat.
Thompson stated the last landslide is an example of the result of cumulative
effects, including eroding history, historic logging, loss of riparian wood, and the
roads that have failed. They can't tie it back to one single cause.
Crawford asked how monitoring of existing habitat is going, so they make
sure they don't do anything else to this river. Thompson stated they need to
evaluate why the river looks the way it does now. It is important to monitor the
logjams in the long -term. Monitoring and evaluation is adaptive management.
Imhof stated there is a correlation between a sustainable yield forest
management that is done now, and a clear cut that was done in the past.
Thompson stated the question gets at how they approach the problems and
whether areas are approached site by site, or in sections.
Post Point Shore Restoration
The final project is the Post Point shore restoration. This is proposed by the
City of Bellingham during the last funding go- around. It wasn't funded. The idea
was to do some enhancement of the Post Point area. On the shoreline of Whatcom
County, there is a need to deal with estuarine and near -shore environment.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 19
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
McShane asked what priority the County gives the native Nooksack stocks
versus other stocks. Thompson stated the priority is to focus on the native
chinook.
Monsen stated the County is also getting a confusing regulatory message
that, although a fish may not have been native, it might be a protected species
because it is spawning now. From a project - permitting standpoint, that point has
significance.
Thompson stated there is also the issue of the main stem, which significantly
affects the County because it is likely that the origin of the fall chinook is of Green
River origin. There is also the potential for a remnant population of fall chinook
that has naturalized to the system. The salmon are listed, but he doesn't know
whether they are considered essential for recovery.
Monsen stated they are not distinguished from a regulatory standpoint.
Benefits to Fish
WRIA 1 projects are designed to:
• Benefit native salmonid species, including two endangered species.
• Protect critical, functioning salmon habitats, including spawning, rearing
and holding habitats.
• Provide for natural landscape scale habitat forming processes by
conserving and restoring significant areas of habitat.
• Fill key data gaps critical to defining limiting factors and refining WRIA 1
salon recovery strategy.
Regional Importance
It is important to keep in mind that there are multiple programs that
contribute to local and regional recovery goals.
Links to County Programs
Essential government roles include the regulatory stuff and the
infrastructure. They also have planning and implementation, which is a mix of
required and optional elements. Restoration is the fun stuff. The County is working
primarily in an administrative and coordination role. County projects can improve
restoration objectives.
Monsen stated it is the County's role to work as a regulatory entity and land
manager. Much of what the County is working on is discretionary. Federal services
are required to recover the species, but the County wants to recover the species.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 29 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 5/8/2001, Page 21