HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 10 19981
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
Natural Resources Committee
March 10, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Kathy Sutter
Staff Also Present:
Marlene Dawson, Council Member
Ward Nelson, Council Member
Jeff Griffin, Planning & Development Services
Regina Delahunt, Health & Human Services Department
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION
DISTRICT IN THE NOOKSACK WATERSHED (AB98 -046A)
Regina Delahunt, Health Department, explained changes in the legal description.
Jeff Griffin, Planning & Development Services, also explained changes in the legal
description.
Hoag stated one correction that was made had to do with the public process. On Council
packet page 122, under section 15.20.050, wording included public process.
There was discussion about revenue being spent on areas that may not need it and the
proposed boundaries of the protection district. Brown stated he was opposed to the boundaries
being extended to include the entire Nooksack River watershed.
Hoag moved to include the boundaries of the Everson Sewer District if they are putting
their municipal waste into the Nooksack River.
There was discussion about sewage treatment in the upper Nooksack area and the levels of
fecal coliform present. Delahunt stated the closure response strategy includes action items for
looking at the municipal wastewater discharge. The State Department of Health believes the impact
of municipal waste contamination is low compared to agriculture waste contamination.
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, March 10, 1998, Page I
2 Hoag questioned section 16.20.050 regarding wording to include public process. Does
3 this type of wording mandate public process? Committee concurred that the wording regarding
4 public process on Council packet page 122 may not be necessary.
5
6 Hoag then questioned the funding mechanism for the closure response strategy. Page 7
7 of the closure response strategy refers to unfunded items. One item included was the
8 Conservation District. $30,000 will be funded by a state grant. $60,000, which would provide
9 technical assistance to small and non - commercial farmers and landowners develop conservation
10 plans, is unfunded. George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, addressed the question and
11 discussed the District's funding. He stated that the Centennial Clean Water Fund may fund the
12 $60,000 through a grant.
13
14 Hoag asked for clarification on the purpose of a $230,000 request for conducting a farm
15 inspection program, referring farmers to the Conservation District, and enforcing compliance.
16 Boggs clarified that would be to hire an inspector for the County. Griffin further clarified that
17 the inspector would be full -time for two years at an estimated rate of $55 per hour.
18
19 Further discussion included costs associated for an inspector; the possibility of hiring a
20 County staff person to do inspections and enforcement; farming as a private industry; and funded
21 items vs. unfunded items.
22
23 Brown asked if a taxing district would be created. Hoag stated that the protection district
24 is being created to enable the County to collect taxes if it is necessary. She stated the
25 Administration believes it should be able to fund without raising any additional taxes. At this
26 point, taxing is not required.
27
28 Griffin stated that by expanding the boundaries, the options are left open to address
29 problems that may arise later on. It does not require anyone to focus on any area in particular
30 other than the area that it makes sense to focus on. Sutter questioned who determines which
31 areas need to be focused on. Griffin responded that the strategy details those issues.
32
33 Brown asserted that the focus should be on the area that is forcing the closure of Portage
34 Bay. Hoag stated that if the upper areas are not contributing, then the County does not have to
35 focus time and money to those areas. However, if it is later found that those areas are
36 contributing to the closure of Portage Bay, then the mechanism is in place for dealing with it.
37 Boggs stated that once the entire study is made available, there would be a clearer picture about
38 the causes for decline in water quality. There are dairies in the area discussed. Including those
39 areas with the dairies would make them more competitive fore federal funds. To get federal
40 assistance, one would have to go through a bidding process. Being located in a shellfish
41 protection district elevates their priority for funding. Sutter stated she would rather focus efforts
42 on areas that are already established as contributing to the problems, than continue testing in
43 areas that may or may not be contributing to the problem to a lesser degree.
Natural Resources Committee, March 10, 1998, Page 2
I Bob Andersen, citizen, commented on the enforcement officer that was discussed earlier.
2 He questioned why inspection and enforcement activities are not a DOE responsibility and how
3 these responsibilities would be transferred to the County through the critical areas ordinance. If
4 the County will take over the state's functions on enforcement, there should be an interlocal
5 agreement to transfer state funds to the County for those activities. Which aspects of the critical
6 areas ordinance specifically deals with fecal coliform?
7
8 Roland Harper, citizen, clarified that if a larger district is created, sub - districts could be
9 designated to raise revenue.
10
11 There was discussion of available data for the upper Nooksack watershed; fecal coliform
12 effects on salmon; the actual land uses of the areas along the south, north, and middle forks of
13 the river; and the inclusion of Marietta.
14
15 Sutter moved to reduce the district boundaries to not include the area on the map marked
16 as the middle fork of the Nooksack River and exclude the commercial forestry land, and rural
17 forestry lands.
18
19 Brown suggested removing all the forks of the river from the boundaries to the
20 confluence with the main stem of the river. The line should be moved as designated by
21 committee Chair.
22
23 Motion carried 2 — 1 with Hoag opposed.
24
25 Discussion followed regarding a public hearing.
26
27 OTHER BUSINESS
28
29 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY STEVE SEYMOUR REGARDING SALMON
30 ENHANCEMENT (AB98 -115)
31
32 Steve Seymour, Department of Fish & Wildlife gave a presentation about salmon
33 enhancement in the County. He discussed his background with the Department of Fish and
34 Wildlife, the Lummi Indian Tribe, and in northern California running salmon resources. He is
35 not meeting with committee in an official capacity. The W.A.T.E.R.S. program on hydraulic
36 salmon egg - planting was prepared 3 - 4 years ago, and the latest draft was submitted for funding.
37 There was discussion between the Department of Ecology and the Nooksack Tribe. In his
38 opinion, the hydraulic egg planter could be a useful tool. However, there are technical aspects
39 that may not allow the goal to be reached. First of all, the process was developed in Alaska to
40 restore sockeye runs. The tests done in Whatcom County did not have a lot of follow -up, which
41 is necessary to determine if the machine is effective. The type of habitat and gravel is different
42 than the environment in Alaska. Also, Western Washington University interns would be
43 available to do this type of work for technical support. The Nooksack Salmon Enhancement
Natural Resources Committee, March 10, 1998, Page 3
I Association may be willing to fund technical support.
2
3 Regarding the capture of brood stocks, it is unrealistic to block the entire span of the
4 middle, south, and north forks of the river, especially in the wintertime. There are other
5 opportunities to capture fish, such as fish wheels or working with the tribal fisherman. Fish
6 trapped in the main stems of the three forks may not all be wild fish. The egg take goal of 20
7 million may be difficult to reach. Coho adults number 15,000 to 20,000 that return to the
8 hatchery. A few, 500 to 2000, adults return every year. One would have to go through a lot of
9 adults to come up with the few adult Coho. Chum and pink salmon runs are healthy, although
10 questioned taking the designated number of eggs.
11
12 Brown asked about the number of fish the river could support. Chum and pink salmon
13 fry go to sea fairly quickly. Coho fish reside in the habitat for one year before they go to sea.
14 The habitat then becomes a rearing habitat and the river would not support a large number of
15 Coho.
16
17 Dawson stated Council initially supported the W.A.T.E.R.S. program with the idea of
18 sending it to the Council of Governments (COG). She recommended to Seymour that he get in
19 touch with Jim Miller, Executive Director of COG, and discuss these issues. She also discussed
20 gravel extraction benefits for fish spawning.
21
22 Seymour stated that gravel extraction would not be beneficial to creating a habitat. It
23 would be treating the symptom, not the problem. There was discussion about the glacial
24 outwash that impacts the river in the undeveloped areas, and impacts of raw sewage from
25 Victoria on fish that go through the gateway to our waters.
26
27 Hoag asked for clarification of how fish wheels are used.
28
29 Seymour continued his presentation to discuss Otilith marking. The problem with this is
30 that eggs cannot be marked, only late fry eggs. The project speaks about eggs at that stage of
31 development in the gravel. Also, natural redds may not be distinguishable. This would disrupt
32 the fish that are naturally spawning. Another point is that eggs accelerated in the hatchery with
33 warmer water temperatures would hatch and emerge before naturally spawned fish. Hatchery
34 conditions need to mimic natural water temperatures. The water quality aspect of the program is
35 valid. The egg - planting tool needs to be evaluated more.
36
37 Hoag questioned the issue of water temperatures in the hatcheries increasing the
38 competition with the naturally spawned fish. She suggested delaying the process so the naturally
39 planted eggs would mature first. Also, if this project were scaled back and more monitoring
40 were done per Seymour's recommendations, would this be a better project? Seymour replied
41 that this could be a good tool. The project needs to be evaluated more thoroughly. The benefits
42 of the project are that it may help introduce salmon to habitats that have lost adults. Also,
43 regarding chum salmon, it could plant fish in a degraded habitat and develop a run that would
Natural Resources Committee, March 10, 1998, 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
come back and clean gravel after time. Fish can clean gravel during spawning. Chum is a
healthy stock. Additional chum provide nutrients from dead carcasses, they have the ability to
clean gravel areas, and provide food for the fry. Pink salmon is a two year fish; they return
every two years. The pink run can be cyclical. Chum salmon is a four year fish, so returning
fish can be three, four, or five year old. The run tends to be more stable.
There was discussion regarding hatchery fish vs. wild stock fish.
Hoag stated that she would forward this information to COG. Seymour said he would be
happy to share his opinion with COG.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
NaDean Hanson, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, March 10, 1998, Page 5