HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 23 19991
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
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 23, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
Tom Brown
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. STATUS REPORT ON SALMON RECOVERY AND OTHER WATER
RESOURCE ISSUES (AB99 -017)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, gave an introduction and submitted
documentation (on file). During the work session a month ago, he reinforced the
three key elements of a recovery strategy that National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is requiring of them. There is an excerpt directly out of the state's recovery
plan.
The state's wild salmonid policy will be a discussion item in the future.
Hoag stated she had a copy that is a year or two old. Monsen stated it is the
same document. Nothing has been changed. It is a document that they will begin
to see referenced on an ongoing basis from now on.
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, discussed items II and III on
the Public Works agenda. The Conservation District (CD) is facilitating the County
in its responsibilities as lead entity under House Bill (HB) 2496. He would talk
about the organizational activities that have come to bear in the past couple of
months. The citizens committee is charged with the responsibility of taking the
project list for review and project ranking. It will be forwarded for possible funding
by the Salmon Enhancement Recovery Funding (SERF) Board. To date, they have
had three educational meetings with the citizens committee. They gave the
members background information on legislation and other information on what
salmon need. They had Eric Beamer make a presentation as to what the Skagit
Watershed Council has done regarding its habitat restoration and protection
strategy, to give the citizens committee some context within in which to gauge their
own activities that will be forthcoming.
Parallel to that, a group of agency people called the Technical Advisory Group
has specific knowledge about salmon recovery and the elements of limiting factors
in the watershed. They have been meeting twice per month to look at the available
information and provide guidance on the geographic information system (GIS)
cartographers regarding how to put this information in a format that is easily
understood by the community and would also help the ranking and review of the
projects. There is a list of GIS layers that are being developed. There is a timeline
and work frame from which they hope to accomplish the tasks. Everything is
coming together so the limiting factors report to be prepared by the Washington
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Conservation Commission would be completed on time, in June. Some of the
material would be available to aid the citizens committee in its ranking of projects.
Along that line, the SERF Board, created by more recent legislation, 5595,
has been working to undertake its statutory charge to take this block of money and
distribute it according to HB 2496, as tweaked by the recent legislation. They met
last Wednesday. Out of that meeting came some relevant information. Lead
funding is only to go through the lead entities. Whatcom County is one of the few
lead entities in the state that would be ranking, prioritizing, and submitting projects
to that body for funding. It is timely that the County was able to get the necessary
signatories and participate in this process. Individual landowners would be eligible,
which is significant since there are large landowners in the upper watershed. The
draft application is going to be available to the County by December 3. It would
provide some information about how they rank and prioritize projects. All this is to
come together by December 14. They will call all the lead entities in and give them
the firm guidelines. They learned that, after the county submits the project list,
they will call upon the lead entities to give a verbal defense of its process, which
has to be open and scientific based on the limiting factors information that is
available. There are other criteria. The lead entity also has to defend the ranking
of the individual projects on that process. That process will begin sometime after
January 31, which is the deadline for project applications for this next round of
funding.
He included the citation on the website for the SERF Board. There is a
wealth of information that is very timely.
Hoag questioned the meaning of the acronyms JTAC and NEAT. Boggs stated
that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) memorandum of agreement (MOA) set forth
an organization. NEAT is the Nooksack Endangered Species Action Team. It has
two levels. One level is the policy and decision - makers. Under that is the
management team that reviews and makes recommendations to the policy makers.
Supporting that group is a joint technical advisory group (]TAG). Its membership
includes representatives from all agencies that have some knowledge and expertise
or training to bear upon salmon recovery. Section II(B) of his memo lists the work
sessions they've planned, given the most recent announcement by the SERF Board
about the timelines for being able to have the project list ranked. Beginning on
December 3, the technical advisory group would be present to look at the recent
materials that the SERF Board provided, the work products they've accomplished
through the ESHB 2496 limiting factors analysis, and craft a draft ranking matrix
that could be given to the citizens committee. They would also provide feedback to
the community, the project proponents, as to what they would be looking at.
Hoag questioned the makeup of the NEAT. Boggs stated the organization
includes Pete Kremen from Whatcom County, Bob Kelley from the Nooksack Tribe,
and Merle Jefferson from the Lummi Nation. They bring, from their respective
tribes and agency, the policies that bring to bear. They are the top layer.
Underneath that is the management team, which is the ESA Coordinator for the
County, the Conservation District, a Lummi biologist, a Nooksack Tribal member,
and County Public Works Director. Underneath that, the Technical Advisory Group
includes biologists from both tribes, the County's new ESA Coordinator Steve
Seymour, state Department of Fish and Wildlife, the state Department of Ecology,
the U.S. Forest Service, and others.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Hoag stated she was familiar with ]TAG, but not NEAT.
Sutter questioned the membership of the citizens committee. Boggs stated it
includes 20 people from the community.
Hoag stated she was not familiar with the NEAT group. Boggs stated that
under the statutory framework provided by ESHB 2496, the technical advisory
group looks at the science and limiting factors to prepare the matrix for the citizens
committee, which brings the community dimension toward the ranking and
prioritization.
Hoag asked about the NEAT group. Monsen stated that earlier this year he
described various organizational structures for the watershed planning, salmon
recovery, and shellfish districts. He described this process, but may not have used
the term NEAT. Structurally, it is almost identical to how the watershed set up is
organized. When Mr. Boggs refers to the policy- makers, it is the administrative
decision - makers they are talking about. Pete Kremen brings the County's voice to
the table. The Council's monthly work sessions will be how they communicate the
issues that need to be brought to the table for decisions. The only activities of the
NEAT organization were the request for federal money earlier this year and some
discussion about the draft Chinook recovery plan done by the Lummi Nation and
the state of Washington. As the citizen's committee begins its work, the joint
technical advisory committee would begin its technical review of some of the
activities. It would be the first time that they engage the decision - making
structure.
Hoag asked for a flow chart description of NEAT. Monsen stated the
equivalency of the Planning Unit in the salmon recovery effort would be the citizen
committee. The ]TAG is a technical committee. NEAT represents the staff team
and the administrative decision - makers. The biggest difference is the number of
the parties at the table are reduced. The City of Bellingham is there as an ex officio
member, and the PUD is not there. When the meetings occur, many of the same
people are in the room as in the watershed meetings.
Hoag asked how the Council fits into that. Monsen stated they would begin
scheduling regular work sessions with the Council. The administration will have
discussion with the Council to make sure the County's voice at any of those tables
is in alignment. He would try to schedule a work session soon to discuss the
project selection process.
Boggs continued to state they have scheduled meetings into January with the
Technical Advisory Committee so they can be prepared in January. There will be a
Council work session to provide input so the project list can be ranked and so they
can compete successfully against other project proponents elsewhere in the state.
The last item was that the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP) program (brochure on file) is ready to be implemented. When the program
was announced, it looked at the salmon and steelhead stock inventory done in
1992. The only critical species was Spring Chinook. The application of this
program was limited to the north fork of the Nooksack River. They have identified
areas where Chinook are spawning. They will expand the CREP program to all
agriculture and rural zoning designated areas within the watersheds where the
Chinook have been observed spawning. They are proposing to expand into the
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
upper tributaries. One of the critical elements to move this forward was to get the
co- managers to sign this map. This happened the previous evening. They hope
the program will be offered in December. They have a dozen farmer's interested so
fa r.
Hoag asked if it was contingent upon the approval of the map. Boggs stated
that was correct. The first step was the co- managers agreement, which was done
the previous evening. The next step will be approval at the state level by the USDA
Farm Conservancy.
Sutter asked if there is a limit of how much money a single county can get.
Boggs stated there is not. There is about $250 million in the program at present.
It is on a first come, first serve basis until that money is gone.
Sutter questioned where the suggestions for salmon recovery projects come
from. Boggs stated historically the people in the field, such as NSEA, Trillium, or
the tribes make those proposals.
Sutter questioned whether anyone could apply. Boggs stated individual
landowners could apply.
Dawson asked if the CREP program is funded with state money. Boggs
stated $200 million is from the federal government and $50 million is from the
state government. There is a proposal to provide a signing bonus of one year's
rent up front and cover 100 percent of the cost of installing a fence, the plantings,
and stock watering.
Dawson asked about Skagit County's use of conservation futures funds.
Boggs stated they have a trust in place to preserve agriculture by purchasing
development rights. Because they have a very active agriculture preservation
foundation, they were able to capture $500,000 at the federal level to assist in that
process. They have an assessment that is being leveraged to provide bonding for
funds to buy development rights and protect prime agriculture.
Hoag stated that is something she would like Whatcom County to begin
doing. They are using conservation funds to mostly purchase parks and open
space. It was originally created to also purchase agricultural land.
Dawson stated they might be using flood fund money to buy out some of the
development rights.
Hoag stated Skagit has been buying development rights to buffer land
between agricultural and developed areas.
Hoag stated extending the CREP program to the lower part of the river is a
mixed blessing. She supported the program, but asked if they would end up with
stricter control of uses, because salmon were found spawning in that area. Boggs
stated NMFS wants a healthy ecosystem. All the tributaries feed into the main
stem where Spring Chinook migrate. They also rear in that area. In the mind of
NMFS, they want it all. Regardless of whether there is spawning Chinook, the water
quality coming into the main stem affects the health and success of the Spring
Chinook in its recovery. They are being scrutinized and held to tailor their activities
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
so they don't affect a take. Just because they have this map, the program is
independent of NMFS. NMFS expectations are WRIA -wide.
Hoag stated they typically put a higher standard on areas where the salmon
are spawning. She questioned whether anyone knew any more about the fish that
were spawning in that area. Boggs stated they would be doing DNA analysis on
those fish. They do have good baseline information for the respective stocks. It is
suspect that those fish are not Spring Chinook because of the timing of the activity.
If they are not, there was discussion about whether ESA reaches to something that
was artificially produced.
Steve Seymour, Whatcom County Fish Biologist, stated they believe the fish
are strays from the Green River hatcheries. They will be able to determine the
stocks from the DNA. Regarding CREP, they know it will be a burden for the public.
This would be a huge tool to offset some of that weight. If they cannot expand the
boundaries and use CREP to restore riparian areas, then they will be missing out on
the action. Chinook use these areas, but they may not be native Chinook. There is
probably still a disconnection between CREP and NMFS.
Hoag asked if the salmon have to be endangered to be eligible for the CREP.
Seymour stated it has to be Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory ( SASSI)- listed
stocks. Those were the native Chinook. They also have Coho that are in a
situation locally in which they are weak. Unfortunately, SASSI didn't capture that
in 1992. The dilemma was how to expand the CREP to do this work in the basin.
Their best opportunity was to document Chinook spawning and let someone else
determine whether they were eligible.
Hoag stated she supported the CREP. She was concerned about the strings
that might be attached to any fish found. Seymour stated NMFS is going to attach
a lot of strings to all the lowland tributaries for protection of native Chinook. They
need to grab all the tools they can.
Hoag asked about the final report due date from the Joint Technical Advisory
Group's limiting factors. Boggs stated it would be the final report done by June
2000. It would be presented to the legislature. The task of the Conservation
Commission has been to draft reports for each of the basins.
Hoag questioned whether there is a process to review the draft work. That
limiting factor becomes a part of everything that is done after that. The funding
has to be based on best available science and the limiting factors. She questioned
the process for reviewing the draft. Boggs stated they've garnered the local
expertise. Their participation has been predicated by their ability to review it. It is
not biased or prejudiced. It will go through the ]TAG.
Monsen stated that as they go through the project selection process, and
knowing that the work on the limiting factors will not be done, they need interim
limiting factors for current purposes. In mid - December, there will be proposed
limiting factors that can be used in that process and will be released to the citizen
committee and the Council. It will be early January before everyone decides how to
select and rank projects based on the interim limiting factors.
Hoag questioned whether there is a process for a person to propose and
submit projects. Boggs stated that is a major element that has to be addressed.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
This has to be an open process. They have to provide notice of the opportunity. At
the same time, they are waiting for the SERF board to make up its mind about who
can apply. They are keeping a list of people who are interested.
Hoag questioned whether the commercial fishermen are being notified of the
opportunity to propose projects. Boggs stated there is a commercial fisherman on
the citizen committee, whose task it is to get the word out.
Sutter questioned how specific and detailed the limiting factors would be.
Boggs stated they are very general. It will not put them in handcuffs as to where
they are supposed to go. They are general observations.
Dawson questioned whether the limiting factors are the four "H's ". Seymour
stated they are not. They are only dealing with habitat. The co- managers deal
with harvest, hatcheries, and hydro. The limiting factors for habitat could be
sediment, riparian area, spawning habitat, large woody debris, water quality and
flows, and land use. The factors are fairly general. They will provide guidelines
about where projects will go. They are still going to rely on people who have
specific knowledge about the projects that would provide the best bang for their
buck. They will look at the Lummi's road sediment and landslide inventory
information to determine where a logical project would be. They look at where off -
channel habitat can be reconnected to the river, where they might restore riparian
areas in the low lands, and where there may be old growth timber available for
acquisition that is within a migration zone of the river. All the projects would be
within the limiting factors they set up.
Sutter questioned where flooding and its impacts would fit. Seymour stated
low land flooding is because they've disconnected much of the flood plain. It is all
within dikes and levees, so the velocity is greater. Wood doesn't stay in the
channel anymore. That could be a limiting factor. During a flood event, if they
increase the cross section, the velocity isn't as great and large wood could stay in
the channel.
Sutter stated that someone might come forward with a project and want to
do a project similar to the Riverberry /Van Dalen project. She questioned where
something like that might go regarding the limiting factors. Seymour stated the
project might not be eligible if it is perceived as disrupting the natural process. If a
bank is eroding and the landowner perceives it as a problem, they might perceive it
as a benefit because the river is taking wood that is in the system. Those are the
tough issues the County has to deal with. The County may have to have a long-
term farm plan. Those projects will not rank very high in this process.
Sutter stated that type of work would be important, and it might fall through
the cracks. Flooding is a limiting factor to fish survival. Boggs stated that once
they have the limiting factors, they go with critical pathways. For instance, it
doesn't make sense to work on an area that is above a culvert that is impassible for
the fish to get through.
Sutter stated she was concerned that they not consider flooding a limiting
factor. Boggs stated re- establishing adjacent to the streams are very important.
The critical pathways determine where they do it first.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Sutter questioned whether they would be considered at all, not necessarily
fi rst.
Hoag stated riparian is listed, but erosion is not. They are going at cross -
purposes with some of this stuff. It may be easier to anchor woody debris and
allow the old trees to stay and keep the shade, rather than trying to plant new
trees. Erosion needs to be addressed in the limiting factors.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Brown came in at 10:15 a.m.)
Hoag stated that where they found the salmon spawning was where gravel
has been removed, according to what she read about. She's heard that areas
where gravel had previously been removed is a softer bed of gravel that the fish
like for spawning, but gravel removal is discouraged through the riverbed.
Seymour stated he didn't have an opinion on that. It is conceivable that the fish
have spawned where gravel was removed in the past, but that is not to say they
wouldn't have spawned there naturally anyway. They were found all throughout
the basin. The limiting factors are about restoring natural process, which is all
about science. They could probably submit flood control projects, but they probably
won't be ranked very high because this is going through a science screen that is
outside of the County. They are going to look for projects that deal with restoring
natural processes. They might think about anchoring wood in the system. The
Lummi's are doing a large engineered logjam on the south fork of the Nooksack
River. That emulates a natural process and is to speed recovery of a system.
There has been some thought about the old piling wing dams that are down along
the lower river, which seem to be functioning as habitat. That is where people fish.
He could see a project that does more of that kind of stuff. One could argue that
sediment is not good for the fish. A project of that nature would not rank high on a
statewide basis.
Hoag stated it is important that the limiting factors include things like that in
case they want to rank an erosion project. Seymour stated sediment is part of a
limiting factor. Most of the time they are dealing with sediment sources. Most of
the stuff is going to be derived from the forest.
Brown disagreed. He lives where the forest roads are. Many people target
forest roads for producing sediments. There is much more erosion happening
naturally.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brown continued to state that the scientists skirt this issue, which is
misleading to the public. Seymour stated he did not disagree. With all the river
and flood projects, they have to put a lot of habitat structures up there. They need
to do things differently. An eroding bank doesn't do anyone any good. They will be
looking for the long -term fix. They may discuss replanting riparian buffers that are
wide enough to stabilize the bank with roots and trees.
Brown stated the roots don't stabilize the bank. Ritter Road is an example of
that. That is not a stabilization project. That project is allowing the river to
meander where it wants to go.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Hoag stated Seymour keeps referring to outside science and natural
processes. If they were working with virgin land, it would be different. That is not
what they are dealing with. Science also needs to take into account what happens
if they don't protect the areas that are just soil. They have a bad impact on the fish
and surrounding land uses. A natural river is not reality and will not get them
where they need to go. It is fine for areas where there are natural uses around the
river. There will be a lot of support for projects to mitigate some of what has been
done around the river. The Council supports fish - friendly projects. They are
interested in recovery and making the river as habitable to the fish as possible.
They need to look at what inaction does in terms of the river, surrounding uses,
and fish habitat. They need to be more aggressive about presenting that to the
scientists who are looking at that. If removing a gravel bar will help the river not
scour the bank, they need to be willing to look at it whether or not it is politically
palatable. If it is going to get them where they need to go to protect the land uses,
then they need to do it. There is an emphasis on one of those at the detriment of
the other three.
Dawson agreed. There are illnesses happening in the river and forestry.
They need to take a proactive approach in addition to preventative efforts.
Seymour stated he didn't disagree. The challenge is how to implement short -term
fixes and have the long -term vision. It all goes back to the property buyout
program they are trying to develop for flood protection and habitat value. The
CREP is a key element. Reestablishing buffers will take 150 years. All they can do
is put the gears in motion and not destroy any future opportunities. No one is
going to stand in the way of protection in some form of that riverbank.
Sutter stated tree replanting is a short -term project for a long -term goal.
The long -term goal is to have the big trees on the riverbank. The short -term goal
is to protect the trees on the riverbank until they are big enough to stand on their
own. Seymour stated they need to have the short -term fix. Even rock isn't
permanent.
Hoag stated people are standing in the way of the short -term fixes. People
have been trying to stabilize the banks. It is not being accepted. Seymour stated
they are lacking the long -term plan.
Brown stated there are areas where the river is narrow enough and stable
enough that the trees along the river do some good. In the majority of the river,
they could have trees 300 feet tall that won't provide anything because the river
moves back and forth. The trees aren't even going to touch the water because the
river moves so much.
Seymour stated the limiting factors are to identify those things that limit the
recovery of salmon.
Hoag stated the committee requested Seymour to take their opinion to the
state and get it addressed and not focus on natural systems only. Promote
imitating natural systems where they need to. Regarding the buyout, $800,000
was requested that was denied. Monsen stated he requested that it not be
included. When they submitted the budget in August, there was a chance to create
a policy and implement a budget before the budget was adopted. Because they
didn't get that done, they needed to pull it back.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Hoag stated she read that federal funding was dropped for conservation
programs with the farmer's. She questioned what funding that was. Boggs stated
he didn't have any information on that.
Hoag stated she heard there was a lot of money for the Conservation District
that was eliminated prior to going to the President. It sounded like it would be
vetoed.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, spoke about item IV on the agenda,
and introduced the new ESA Coordinator John Thompson. The conversation held a
few minutes ago supports the need for the position that has been created under the
Comprehensive Water Resources Plan. The candidate that they acquired is one of
the foremost authorities on ESA issues in the county. He came from the Lummi
Nation, where he worked as the Water Resources Manager and dealt with these
issues for some time. He has a Bachelor's degree from Montana State University
and a Master's degree from Western Washington University. He was drawn to this
candidate because of Mr. Thompson's technical expertise and ability to manage and
implement projects well. There are ESA needs in the farming issue and due to
recent legislation.
John Thompson, Whatcom County ESA Coordinator, gave his background.
His expertise was used to evaluate land use effects on stream morphology and
habitat when he worked with the Lummi Nation. He is a geologist by training. A lot
of the issues are ones that are critical to the ESA process to the County. There will
be three functions of this position. One function is to help the County internally
coordinate the ESA response. The second function is to coordinate the County's
activities externally. The third function is to consult or advise on projects.
One of the projects, which tries to address the concerns raised in the last few
minutes, is the engineered logjam to restore historic logjams in the south fork of
the Nooksack River. The area they are working in is a forestry- dominated area.
They selected the site for three reasons. One reason is it a site that has historically
supported spawning, which has tapered off. The second reason is that it is all
forestland with one cooperative landowner. That is risk management. The third
reason is that it is a chance to try the technology to control bank erosion and also
provide fish habitat. They are hoping the designed logjams will provide functional
habitat and bank protection.
There are three objectives of this project. One objective is to restore holding
habitat for the Chinook. The pools have filled due to the sediment inputs. The
channel has widened, so they've lost shading. They want to provide cover for pools
deep enough to provide cooler temperatures. The second objective is to reconnect
the river flow to old off - channel spawning areas. The third objective is to try and
cut off the sediment production from a very large cut bank. It puts in about 90,000
yards per year.
Brown questioned whether that was a natural occurrence. Thompson stated
it is hard to say. There have been sediment inputs that were land use related and
have caused the channel to widen. It is also a natural process. Those terraces
erode naturally. By putting in the logjams, they will create in- channel habitat and
spread the flow out so they don't scour out the reds or export the wood
downstream. This technique may be applicable for areas further down the river.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brown questioned the amount of thought that was put into the project result
versus the cost of the project. That should be part of the evaluation. The US
Forest Service has done work in Canyon Creek. They are hauling timber in to
create natural log conditions. It seems ironic that, when working in natural forest
conditions, they can't use local trees. Everyone that sees this happening criticizes
the expense. These should be the things someone should look at. He was
concerned because, if Mr. Thompson is going to be coordinating the ESA response,
he places a lot of emphasis on the natural processes. Historically, people consider
the natural elements of the Nooksack River to be devastating to lifestyles and
property owners. He was worried that the balance will go back too far toward the
natural. If the Nooksack River goes back to its natural state, it will wander
everywhere. Thompson stated the cost benefit is an essential aspect of the plans.
An example of that was the discussion about sediment sources focusing on
forestlands instead of the lower watershed. They need to look at all sediment
sources. Regarding forestland, they know that not only water washing off the
surface of the road creates sediment, but plugged and failing culverts are also a
problem. Analysis has to take into account the limiting factors and determine the
most cost - effective way to do it and the opportunities. Those opportunities need to
be part of a long -term plan that addresses the lower basin issues.
Regarding the natural functions, that is the target that they keep in mind.
There are going to be places like the south fork engineered logjam site where there
is hope for getting 80 percent of the natural functions back. An area such as Ritter
Road is not going to get as much natural function back. It is a sliding scale to get
the most function that they can within the constraints of the system. It will not be
about letting the river run wild where it wants.
Sutter questioned whether the cost - benefit analysis would be a factor in
evaluating proposed projects. Monsen stated it is a factor, but not a limiting factor.
They would evaluate whether or not a project is practical. They would promote
projects that get the most bang for the buck because that is what the SERF Board
looks at. It would be a critical element, but not the first item considered.
Sutter stated that once they have all the projects that qualify, the cost -
benefit analysis could be a ranking criterion. Monsen stated that the state is
promoting doing some work everywhere with the amount of money that is
available, rather than one great project that will take all the money. Those types of
projects could be broken up into different pieces. There could be different
leveraging opportunities.
Thompson stated that is what the Nooksack Recovery Team has tried to do in
the past. There are independent projects going forward, but they are working as a
team. There is give- and -take on how to prioritize those projects and how much to
ask for.
Hoag questioned whether Mr. Thompson is still working for the Lummi
Nation. Thompson stated he resigned from the Lummi Nation job. He works for
the Council. He would work with the Lummi Nation as a County employee on joint
projects.
Dawson questioned how Mr. Thompson would promote the Van Dalen project
in terms of effective fish habitat. Thompson stated it is far better than a straight
riprap bank, as far as providing diversity along the bank and the opportunity to
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
protect the bank, get the vegetation to grow back, and provide some in- stream
cover for fish. The last time he was at the Van Dalen site, the main flow shifted
away and it was a backwater being fed from groundwater. As long as that stays
connected to the river, there is some nice rearing habitat for juvenile fish. When
the river moves back in, there is still the bank protection function.
Sutter stated the technical advisory committee is looking at the limiting
factors and they are being put on GIS layers. They talked for several years about
putting all past and future projects on a system so they can see where the projects
connect. Thompson stated that has already been done. The Nooksack Recovery
Team has done that.
Boggs stated he could provide the map. They will be updating the map on a
regular basis.
Sutter stated it is another factor that should be used to prioritize projects. A
project should enhance other projects that have already been done.
Thompson stated that has been a criteria for federal Fish and Wildlife
funding. They would like to get a critical mass of work done in an area so things
start working, before moving on to other areas.
Sutter stated that if they had something like that, it would facilitate the
mitigation efforts in the County.
Roll stated the GIS is a tool by which they can plan in the future and also
track existing work that has been done. He is very interested in this particular
area. The challenge is to create the GIS so it is globally addressing these processes
and projects. It is a vital tool. The County would be working on this in the future.
Sutter stated it needs to be WRIA -wide.
Hoag stated she wanted the ESA Coordinator to work with the various
stakeholders that are involved. There seems to be a particular need, in terms of
ESA, to coordinate with the WRIA caucuses and to sit down with the farmers to talk
with them about what they need to do and what they think they can do to get cool,
clear water coming off the streams. Other topics to be discussed are the problems
the farmers would face with the particular proposals and how those problems could
be solved. She wanted Mr. Thompson to engage in the process specific to ESA.
They are involved in the WRIA process, but it does not focus only on ESA. There is
a need for the ESA Coordinator to work specifically with those groups on ESA
proposals. They are often left out of the process.
Roll stated the concern was to meet the needs of the various caucus groups.
They are actively going out and meeting with the caucuses to discuss these
particular items. ESA will be integrated into it. They also need the same ESA
influence at the staffing level. They want to make sure there is continuity between
creation of habitat, the ESA issues, and the issues regarding water quantity. He is
meeting with the caucuses. There needs to be a dialogue that teases out the issues
so they get the best minds meeting to create the change in the caucus atmosphere.
He hoped to get through all the caucuses in the next three to four months.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Hoag stated that as they respond to ESA, they respond from ground up.
People who deal with issues and impacts on a daily basis should be able to
comment. There are a lot of things that the caucuses know will work. The County
should not just respond from the federal government. She encouraged staff to
meet with the caucuses and talk with them specifically about ESA, the things that
are being envisioned to respond to ESA, and how they can be a part of the process.
Monsen stated he would discuss the Chinook Recovery Plan last. Regarding
the Agricultural /Fish negotiations, there still will be a meeting on December 9 in
Spokane. He is planning to go to make sure they get the direct information back
into the community. At the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), they
discussed how the counties get to the table. It appears that it is clear that the
Eastern Washington counties do not want to engage at all. They don't want to get
tied into the water right battle regarding irrigation. Western Washington counties
want to engage, but are reluctant to send elected officials to the table until they
understand the purpose better. They directed staff to engage on the front end. He
didn't know what WSAC staff that meant.
He distributed the latest version of the table of contents from the latest
Chinook Recovery Plan. His intention was to come back for a few minutes at the
work session on December 7 to describe what this means and his recommendations
on how to proceed to deal with the Council's involvement and the community's
involvement in putting together a recovery plan. A focus of a work session in early
January is to discuss the elements and how the County proceeds in the short -term
and long -term with completion of the plan and establishing the goals and criteria.
In the table of contents are listed the chapters on harvest and hatchery. They are
nearly complete. The County is requested to move into the habitat element and
then collectively contribute to enforcement, monitoring, and public access /comment
procedures. He will attend a meeting shortly to discuss developing the strategy, so
he can provide recommendations on how to proceed next. He will also look to the
Council to determine the level of engagement by the community -at- large.
A key element is that there are draft limiting factors that will be part of the
plan. Ultimately, they will finalize this part of the plan. They have to design a way
to have interim limiting factors to rank projects now. Sometime in the spring, they
will adopt the final limiting factors for future rounds.
On December 7, there is a Committee of the Whole work session that will
provide more information, but they will not have an opportunity for expanded
discussion. One thing that has come up in the general work session is that they
have tried presenting to the Committee of the Whole on Council- meeting days. It is
a difficult arena for discussion. He proposed scheduling work sessions on non -
Council meeting days.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brown questioned how an interested person could get information on the
specific costs of these programs. Monsen stated that for now he is the best source
for information. They are trying to design a reporting mechanism that provides a
summary of the intent of the project, its cost, its expected outcomes, and how it is
scheduled.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, 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
Sutter stated the Nooksack Recovery assigned a number to a project. Tied
to that number is all that information about the project. Monsen stated the level of
detail he can provide is exclusive to County- sponsored activities.
Brown asked if there is a way to find out if the County is doing the work, if
the funds aren't coming from the County. Monsen stated that if the funds come
through the County, there would be a level of detail.
Sutter stated there is money that comes into the county that doesn't go
through the County government. Those projects also need to be tracked because
they are a part of everything that is going on. If someone is doing the work, the
County needs to know so it doesn't repeat the work.
Monsen stated the County needs to look at the chapters that are written now
to make sure of the intended content.
Brown questioned whether there is an existing draft of the plan. Monsen
stated there is. It is preliminary. It would be a problem to make copies of it. He
didn't know what some of the paragraphs say because the County didn't draft it.
Hoag questioned who drafted the land use information. Monsen stated the
primary draft came from the Lummi Nation. It is now a work -in- progress by the
co- managers. It is now being released to bring in the land and habitat elements.
That is the primary purpose for the work session in January.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/99, Page 13