HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 10 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 November 10, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
7 Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Tom Brown None
11 Kathy Sutter
12
13 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
14
15 1. OVERVIEW PRESENTATION BY DISTRICT RANGER JON VANDERHEYDEN
16 REGARDING NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES BEING LOOKED AT BY THE
17 PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB98 -395)
18
19 Hoag stated that this item has been rescheduled to the November 24 Committee meeting.
20
21
22 2. REVIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE'S DRAFT SALMON STRATEGIES (AB98 -396)
23
24 Hoag stated that it is a two piece document, one had policies, regulations, and projects for
25 salmon recovery. The salmon recovery projects lists were separate and attached. A lot of her
26 questions are regarding the status of goals and policies.
27
28 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that the Council, the
29 administration, and the public were far - sighted regarding fish, salmon, and habitat in the
30 Comprehensive Plan. They pulled out 9 goals and 96 policies that directly and indirectly relate
31 to fish habitat and restoration. They were grouped by chapters. Almost every chapter has goals
32 and policies. They also identified the status of those. Most of the goals and policies are being
33 implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Only a few policies have not been
34 actively worked on.
35
36 Sutter wanted a list of those not implemented. Knapp stated that out of 96,
37 approximately half a dozen have not been implemented. Planning staff identified the status of
38 the goals and policies.
39
40 Hoag questioned whether all relate to salmon. Knapp stated that not all do relate directly,
41 but some do indirectly. They also took some policies out.
42
43 Hoag questioned the status of policy 2K -4. Knapp stated the first part of that is what
44 relates. Purchase is only 1/2 of that policy. They have not actively gone after purchase. Within
45 the two areas, the water plan and wetland mitigation banking are two areas that will be actively
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 1
1 dealt with. This is a 20 -year plan and they are 1' /z years into it. The purchase part is something
2 that they have yet to accomplish. There is potential with wetland mitigation banking.
3
4 Hoag stated that she didn't expect that they all be accomplished. She questioned which
5 ones have been done and haven't been done. She asked where the County is at with the purchase
6 of land along the Nooksack River for floodwater storage. Knapp stated that they have not gotten
7 to that yet. The planning effort and the means to do it is in the process.
8
9 Brown questioned whether there is contact with the U.S Forest service. A lot of the water
10 originates in their jurisdiction. He questioned whether there is interest in having them build a
11 storage facility. Knapp stated no, but it is a good idea.
12
13 Hoag questioned the status of policy 2M -5. Knapp stated that is an indirect policy. The
14 resource lands part has an indirect effect. She is hitting the items that they would agree don't
15 have a great deal of direct relationship.
16
17 Sutter stated that buffering and protecting streams has an effect.
18
19 Hoag stated it is not for buffering streams, but the resources land. Knapp responded that
20 it is focusing on ensuring that they increase the density in urban areas in order to keep the
21 resource lands protected and the buffer is protected.
22
23 Brenner stated that she agreed with policy to increase density in cities. Protecting
24 resource lands has nothing to do with the policies regarding salmonid recovery. Knapp stated
25 that the focus is growth in urban areas. He would not object to pulling this policy.
26
27 Knapp stated that he has notes on the status of each of the policies. Over 90% of them
28 are in process and do relate to the issues.
29
30 Hoag questioned whether policy 25 -6 was done. Knapp responded that it is within the
31 Lake Whatcom policies. He believed that it was designated as a resource protection area. That
32 is part of the direction that the watershed efforts have been focused on.
33
34 Hoag questioned whether policy 25 -7 was done. Knapp stated that it was done.
35
36 Hoag questioned whether policy 2V -1 was done. Knapp stated that he believed Ferndale
37 adopted a critical areas ordinance.
38
39 Brown questioned how they can require Ferndale to do that. Knapp stated that they
40 don't. They have done that.
41
42 Hoag questioned whether policy 2V -5 was done. Knapp stated that is in draft form. The
43 County is in the process of developing an interlocal with Ferndale.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 2
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
Hoag stated that she was unclear about goal 2DD on packet page 113. Knapp stated that
this is one that is an ongoing effort that the Council can participate in through the budget process.
It is something that they have already participated in.
Hoag stated that was her own note for her own reference.
Knapp stated that the capital facilities element that comes forward as part of the budget
process will have levels of service. That is the annual time to look at those levels of service.
Sutter questioned policy 2Y -4 and how the wellhead protection area of the City of Sumas
well field has an impact on salmon. Knapp stated that they are not yet dealing with that item.
Sutter questioned how this impacts salmon. Knapp stated that it impacts the run off. It
does get to streams. Buffers are important.
Sutter stated that they are just talking about the threat to the quality within their wellhead
protection area. She questioned whether their wellhead protection area has any overlap with
surface water in which there is a salmonid population.
Hoag stated that has to be determined.
Knapp stated that they have not dealt with that yet. It could have a marginal impact,
depending on what happens to the groundwater. Ground water can come up in springs. He
agreed that this item is questionable.
Brown questioned whether the flow from the drainage system in this area goes into the
Sumas River. The Sumas River has salmon spawning. Threat to groundwater quality can be a
threat.
Hoag suggested that since there is a concern with whether it applies, then they should
leave it in.
Brenner questioned policy 2DD -4 and what health hazards are discussed besides water
contamination.
Nelson stated that is in regards to septic systems around Lake Whatcom. They County
stated that it would not extend urban levels of service except for health problems.
Brenner stated that it would be clearer to state surface water contamination.
Hoag stated that they cannot change these items, they are existing in the Comprehensive
Plan. Knapp stated that the Health Department addresses this item.
Hoag questioned policy 2DD -5 and how that is being done. Knapp stated that as they
review it with individuals and their site conditions, they can be creative with how the lots are laid
out. That is discussed with people as they come in. Clustering is more capable of being creative.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 3
2 Nelson stated that the Technical Advisory Committee was set up to find a mechanism to
3 provide more protection with less cost or having alternative ideas utilized in development
4 standards.
5
6 Hoag questioned how they encourage the activity in policy 2JJ -5. Knapp stated that there
7 is no active effort. There is no way to encourage it. They can try to do that. Water District #13
8 has been receptive to doing that on their own. There is not a good mechanism to do that. That is
9 one policy that needs additional effort.
10
11 Hoag questioned policy 2PP -2. Knapp stated that the study has been funded. The utility
12 district has not been set up. The County is pursuing that option.
13
14 Hoag questioned whether goal 2TT has been done. Knapp stated that the Critical Areas
15 Ordinance (CAO) can help do this. They would have that happen as they review the CAO.
16 When development review occurs, review for open space corridors is part of what occurs in a
17 large development.
18
19 Sutter restated the goal. It is limited. It should be done cooperatively with the cities.
20
21 Hoag questioned policy 313-4. Knapp stated that was scratched out.
22
23 Hoag questioned policy 5Q -3. Knapp stated that they have not pursued that item.
24
25 Hoag questioned policy 6E -4. Knapp stated that is done on a regular basis as
26 development occurs.
27
28 Dawson stated that on policy 2PP -2, she favored doing that as opposed to increasing the
29 flood tax. They should form the utility district.
30
31 Hoag concurred. Knapp stated that is being done in other counties. Funding through
32 impervious surfaces is an excellent method.
33
34 Nelson questioned whether they were asking for a utility tax for stormwater management
35 that would be countywide. Knapp stated that it could be done in various ways.
36
37 Hoag stated that this policy refers to a drinking water watershed.
38
39 Hoag questioned policy 7F -4. Knapp stated it could be struck.
40
41 Brenner questioned whether they could use part of the policies instead of the entire
42 policy. Knapp stated that they could.
43
44 Hoag suggested bold printing the portion of the policies that deal with the fisheries.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 4
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
Hoag questioned what goal I IL would be. Knapp stated that they are CAO related.
Hoag stated that goal I IL should be cited.
Knapp stated they would add the status below each goal and policy.
Hoag received a letter from the Conservation District (CD) regarding the lead entity
designation effort.
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, stated that they have a copy of the cover
letter sent to the Mayors and a draft resolution. Resolutions are for the cities to designate the
County as lead entity on ESHB 2496. It requires a joint resolution from the County, the Tribes,
and the cities. The Tribes have concurred. The resolution recites the reasons why the County
should be lead. It is a simple designation given with concurrence of all concerned. He estimated
that the County could be designated as lead entity by early next year. The process should be
done before funding is available. The State Department of Fish & Wildlife anticipate funding
out of the next session. They will ask for applications around March. He will work with Jeff
Monsen, Public Works Director, to prepare the grant application so that Whatcom County could
receive funds. He would optimistically like lead designation done by the end of the year.
Sutter questioned page 2 of the draft resolution and the project list area defined as WRIA
1. She questioned whether they are not proposing to address problems with other salmon -
bearing watersheds, such as Dakota, California, and Friday creeks.
Boggs stated that they are within WRIA 1.
Sutter stated that is confusing because people get WRIA 1 and Nooksack basin confused.
This adds to the confusion.
Boggs stated that the WRIA 1 is called the Nooksack River Watershed. They did not
designate all the various tributaries.
Claire Fogelsong, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA), clarified that
WRIA 1 is just called "the Nooksack."
Sutter stated that they would be dealing with the entire WRIA, not just the Nooksack
Basin. They need to clean up the language so there is no confusion.
Hoag stated it also has to be cleaned up in the resolution.
Fogelsong stated that Friday Creek would still not be included.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the intent of the flow chart in the policy
section of the project list on packet page 110 is to reinforce the notion that the policies,
regulations, and project activity must go in concert.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A)
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 5
2 Monsen continued to state that historical work regarding salmonid habitat restoration and
3 issues has not gone through a policy, prioritization screen. Those things occur as a part of the
4 ESHB 2496 process. That would be functioning at the State level mid -next year. They also have
5 to address locally which projects are focused on Spring Chinook versus salmonid species in
6 general versus other salmonid species. He hopes to have discussion with people regarding those
7 issues, and hope to do it at the first of 1999 or the first meeting in December. This creates a
8 placeholder to maximize opportunities for the future. They did a project list regarding federal
9 funding. He has information regarding that.
10
11 Hoag stated that she wanted funding focused immediately on endangered species,
12 because of limited resources and time. They should prioritize based on spring Chinook and bring
13 the discussion back to the December 8 committee meeting. Monsen stated that he would try.
14
15 Hoag questioned why water quality was not something that they are asking for. Monsen
16 stated that he was unsure. Some of the water quality issues would be addressed in some of the
17 elements of the various projects, however the focus of the list is not related to water quality in
18 the sense of the manure ordinance.
19
20 Hoag stated that high temperature is a water quality issue. She wondered why there was
21 not a reference to water quality. Monsen stated that some of the issues are inherent to the
22 elements of the other features. He didn't know if the State would identify that as a specific
23 element.
24
25 Hoag stated that the committee is working from Council packet page 106. Regarding
26 proposal P1, she was concerned about historical conditions and spending funds on determining
27 the historical conditions. They need to focus on now and the future. Monsen stated that a
28 document from the City of Bellingham details what is included in habitat assessments.
29
30 Fogelsong stated that historical conditions are used for knowing what the possibility for
31 restoration is. It is part of grant requirements that they have an idea of the historical conditions,
32 such as knowing what the plant communities used to be. The level of detail varies from different
33 projects.
34
35 Brown questioned how long and how much is needed to determine historical conditions.
36 Fogelsong stated that to establish the forest conditions and stream channel points, there are
37 different levels of intricacies. There is a historical conditions study being done currently by local
38 consultants through a Centennial Clean Water fund grant. The grant amount is for $10,000.
39
40 Sutter stated that the description doesn't mention using available data. She questioned
41 whether there was any thought to using available data.
42
43 Fogelsong stated that every project begins with a review. This format doesn't accept the
44 level of detail of that information. That detail is found on the grant.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 6
I Sutter stated that project sponsors are Whatcom County, Nooksack Recovery Team
2 (NRT), and NSEA. She questioned whether others are going to be involved as sponsors.
4 Monsen stated that with a project of this type, anyone that has interest in habitat
5 assessment would be involved. Someone would have to be the main sponsor. Procedurally, they
6 may have someone making applications and their name on the grant. Funding may come from
7 somewhere else.
9 Regarding project proposal R1, Hoag questioned whether they are planting fall Chinook.
10 Ted Thygesen, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, stated that was correct.
12 Fogelsong stated that the location is off Racine Street, further up the river.
13
14 Hoag stated that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated there is no problem
15 with fall Chinook. They are not native and not endangered. They are hatchery - produced fish.
16 She questioned why that restoration is a top priority.
17
18 Fogelsong stated that the assumption that there is an indication at the State level that
19 recovery plans take other species into account. This is meant to "placehold" the projects before
20 the legislature. When they prioritized these, they tried to represent everyone's interest.
21
22 Sutter questioned how much water it would take to re -water the channel. Fogelsong
23 stated that water for this year has been low.
24
25 Brown questioned whether there is any groundwater availability. Fogelsong stated that
26 hasn't been explored. This project is in the final stages of the first phase, which is to purchase
27 the property through another grant. The City of Bellingham will hold it.
28
29 Hoag stated that the County should list its priorities, the City of Bellingham should list
30 their priorities, and then work it out. Fogelsong stated that has been done.
31
32 Hoag stated that she wanted to see the County Council's priorities. She recommended
33 that this be a lower priority. She so moved.
34
35 Fogelsong agreed with Hoag with regard to the County's priories. The City won't be
36 dealing with any endangered species streams. They were required to do the same thing. The
37 example that was given included all the jurisdictions within the WRIA.
38
39 Hoag stated that the City has no endangered species to respond to, and the County does.
40 Fogelsong stated that they are responding in a manner indicated by the State, which is to say that
41 all salmonid species are being looked at. They need to get recovery plans together that target
42 Spring Chinook, but consider everything else.
43
44 Hoag stated that re- watering the channel was not a high priority.
45
46 Sutter suggested that they need to have an objective statement.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 7
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
Fogelsong stated that one of the objectives of the list was to respond to a requirement that
it be done in the 1999 -2000 biennium.
Brown stated that he would like a column added to the format that shows the purpose of
the project and for which species it is designed.
Hoag stated that she would like to see the list re- prioritized, then forward again to the
State. Monsen stated that he has been trying to schedule that type of a meeting so that they can
go through one more administrative round and move into the policy arena. They can position
themselves to do exactly that.
Hoag asked them to bring it back on December 8, with a clear objective.
Hoag questioned PR and whether this has anything to do with Spring Chinook.
Fogelsong stated that it does not.
Hoag stated that it then should not be priority one under protection. Fogelsong agreed.
Hoag questioned whether they are planting fall Chinook in Whatcom Creek. Thygesen
stated that they are being planted at the mouth of the river. It is designed for heavy commercial
fishing. They are planted for harvest.
Hoag questioned whether Whatcom Creek has the potential to serve as a spawning
ground for Spring Chinook. Ted... stated that there is a natural barrier from preventing them to
get up very far.
Sutter questioned what "DID" stood for. Hoag responded that it stood for Drainage
Improvement District.
Hoag requested more detail on P4. Fogelsong stated that he was not familiar with it. Part
of it was put forward by the Lummi Tribe.
Hoag questioned what "micro satellite DNR stock discrimination" is. Fogelsong stated
that he didn't know.
Hoag questioned whether R4 relates to salmon. Fogelsong asked the committee to drop
the City of Bellingham projects out of this.
Hoag questioned whether any of the City of Bellingham's projects have anything to do
with salmon. Fogelsong stated that none of them have anything to do with endangered Spring
Chinook. Several of them have Coho runs.
Hoag questioned whether it would be better to move other species that may be impacted,
but are not endangered under the protection title rather than restoration. Fogelsong stated that is
not how the request was formed.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 8
2 Hoag asked the difference between protection and restoration. Fogelsong stated that
3 protection is projects such as land acquisition and stream cops.
4
5 Sutter stated that protection also has more to do with acquiring things that don't need
6 restoration and are already good.
8 Fogelsong stated that it is also having a staff position that assesses development
9 regulations, implementation, and enforcement.
10
11 Steve Seymour, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, stated that currently Spring
12 Chinook would be on the ESA listing. Coho and Steelhead are being considered for listing.
13 Chances are they probably won't be, at this time. Bull Trout is one they are unsure of. There
14 may be a State listing on the Sea Run Cutthroat, which pretty much uses the same habitat as
15 Coho. Sea Run Cutthroat is a trout species that spawns in the lowland systems and may become
16 a huge driver for protection and restoration efforts down the road. The immediate concern is
17 spring Chinook. He agreed with the Council on the project list.
18
19 Hoag stated that it shouldn't take long to reprioritize the list.
20
21 Fogelsong stated that, given the original intention, prioritization is fairly easy. The
22 intention was to put forward priority projects in the three categories that could be accomplished
23 by the jurisdictions.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether the projects had to be completed in the biennium or only
26 started. Fogelsong stated that they had to be completed.
27
28 Monsen stated that the message that they have received has been to focus on early action
29 activities while some of the policies and planning are completed. They have clearly heard that
30 they need to be completed in this block of time. They want to ensure that whatever happens in
31 the next couple of years, that any federal or State money allocated is spent and not sitting in an
32 account.
33
34 Monsen stated that there still needs to be study do determine where to place the
35 investments. The federal and State interests want to see activity on the ground.
36
37 Hoag questioned item P5, invasive plant species in the riparian corridor, and the effect it
38 would have on salmon. Fogelsong stated that those species are detrimental to re- establishing the
39 riparian corridor. They need to eradicate the seed source. Other species of plants won't grow
40 with reed canary grass and Japanese knotweed.
41
42 Hoag questioned why there was not an R5 item listed. Fogelsong stated it was only
43 because of a mis- numbering of the items.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 9
I Hoag stated that monitoring and maintenance under R6 is excellent. She questioned the
2 location where it is happening or is intended to happen. Fogelsong stated that it would be select
3 sites. $125,000 would support a crew of 2 people for two years.
4
5 Hoag questioned whether there are any habitat adoption programs. Fogelsong stated that
6 NSEA has a program to pair stream stewards with sites. The Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
7 (NWEA) has a program to find stewards for project sites. NSEA goes to the schools. NWEA
8 goes to churches.
10 Sutter questioned whether the work is to be done on all stream reaches, and where they
11 talk about doing restoration such as new plantings. She specifically spoke of the Red River.
12 Fogelsong stated that the Red River would be further up the list after re- prioritization. The
13 Nooksack Estuary Plan takes in Shell Creek, the Red River, and the whole package. It is not on
14 the prioritized list because it will not be completed in this biennium.
15
16 Monsen stated that there have been discussions with the Corps of Engineers regarding
17 flood hazard money and funding to 50 %.
18
19 Hoag stated that one of the things listed under the items not prioritized was to continue
20 the riparian restoration of the Nooksack Basin in degraded areas. That ought to be a high
21 priority.
22
23 Hoag questioned project R7, blocking culverts. She questioned whether all involve
24 spring Chinook. Fogelsong stated that they are not all involving them. He was unsure if any of
25 them were.
26
27 (Clerk's Note: End of tape l,side B)
28
29 Monsen stated that one of the requests from the State was to look at culvert blockages as
30 a very specific set -aside relative to salmon recovery. From a County road standpoint, there are
31 not a lot of County culverts that are directly related to spring Chinook. If they can access grant
32 funds to do culvert replacements relevant to salmonid species at same time they need new
33 culverts, then they will try to access the funds.
34
35 Brown stated that State Route (SR) 542 culverts would be funded by the State
36 transportation dollar.
37
38 Sutter stated that the prioritizing list states that the culverts will get replaced, whether
39 there is State funding for roads or not.
40
41 Monsen stated that requirements are that culverts are replaced, regardless of vicinity.
42
43 Hoag stated that if it is not dealing with endangered species, then it should not be on the
44 list of prioritized items.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 10
I Sutter questioned what requires the County to do the culvert. Monsen stated that the
2 County needs to approach any fish barrier. Fogelsong stated that the Washington Administrative
3 Code (WAC) issues that requirement.
4
5 Hoag questioned item PR2, the stream steward. She questioned why the County stream
6 cop is not as high a priority. Also, the County just approved two new regulations under the
7 manure ordinance. They could rename one position for stream enforcement for additional
8 funding. Monsen stated that this item was part of an older list and could be combined.
10 Hoag stated that she would like to see the County apply for funding through ESA instead
11 of the County. A lot of the effort is to protect the streams for fish.
12
13 Hoag stated that item R9 is excellent and questioned why it is not a higher priority.
14 Fogelsong stated that should be number one.
15
16 Sutter questioned whether they are anticipating looking at other sites for storage for off -
17 channel storage.
18
19 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that they are
20 looking at wetland mitigation banking, which has potential for funding for acquisition. There is
21 a draft that makes the language broader to allow for that potential.
22
23 Sutter stated that every acre of water that can be stored from floods is good.
24
25 Hoag stated that there are plans for estuary ponds along lakes and creeks. Monsen stated
26 that the only project is the estuary along the Nooksack.
27
28 Hoag stated that that it could prove an inexpensive habitat and allow younger fish to stay
29 in the system longer. Fogelsong stated that the only viable proposal is in the Nooksack/Lummi
30 River estuaries. Monsen stated that it is more of a mitigation element for other activities.
31
32 Fogelsong stated that it would only be viable as part of master plan for the estuary.
33
34 Brown questioned whether R9 is the only project that Fish and Wildlife are involved in.
35 They supported a project near Maple Falls.
36
37 Hoag stated that PR3 should be a higher priority. She was concerned with the outright
38 purchase because then issues such as control, maintenance, and others would be the
39 responsibility of the County. She suggested that they could lease instead of purchase.
40
41 Fogelsong stated that specific sites are attached to the request.
42
43 Sutter stated that, in the un- prioritized section, the hydraulic continuity study is listed
44 twice. The second one should be habitat acquisition. It is almost identical to the one that is
45 prioritized, except that it adds language that should be under the prioritized list. Fogelsong stated
46 it should be "wetland acquisition."
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 11
2 Sutter stated that she would like the language under the second Hydraulic Continuity
3 Study to be added under the first.
4
5 Hoag questioned whether it was separate funding. Fogelsong stated that it is.
6
7 Hoag questioned whether salmon are involved in R10. Thygesen stated that salmon are
8 involved; Spring Chinook in the middle fork below the barrier. There is a question as to whether
9 salmon has ever been above the barrier. The State does not want a ladder down the barrier.
10 Diversion goes into Lake Whatcom. That is a negative impact on the fish in the Lake. They are
11 the only Sockeye known not to have a virus problem. Governor Lowry stated that they would
12 not allow them to have a ladder.
13
14 Fogelsong stated that part of the reason it is included is because the State position isn't
15 being represented fully. State agencies have different positions on the issue.
16
17 Sutter questioned how much benefit there would be on Spring Chinook. Fogelsong stated
18 he did not know.
19
20 Thygesen stated that sockeye in a river system have a disease called IHN. It is a virus. A
21 ladder would allow these fish to go up with the spring Chinook.
22
23 Sutter stated that if it is left in, then Bellingham should be named as a sponsor because it
24 is their water that is being benefited. They should proceed with caution. It should be removed
25 from the list.
26
27 Hoag stated it should not be a priority.
28
29 Hoag stated that R11 should be a higher priority. Fogelsong stated that it barely made it
30 on the list. If re- prioritized, it would be higher on the list.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether Lynden/Christian schools were releasing Coho on Fishtrap
33 Creek. Thygesen stated that they don't. Fall Chinook have been going up. There are no Spring
34 Chinook.
35
36 Hoag asked how long the Spring Chinook eggs are laid. Thygesen stated approximately
37 120 days, depending on the temperature.
38
39 Hoag asked if they could plant Spring Chinook.
40
41 Sutter stated that this item would not fall under prioritization.
42
43 Brown questioned whether fall plantings were to enhance commercial fisheries. Four -
44 year -old fish are returning.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 12
I Hoag asked the planting location of the Kendall Creek hatchery of Spring Chinook.
2 Thygesen stated that it is planted at the hatchery and at three sites above Glacier.
4 Hoag questioned whether they could produce more numbers or is it limited by the
5 number of spawners. Thygesen d stated that historically, that is not where they have been.
7 Brown questioned whether they were historically in the upper reaches of Kendall Creek.
8 Thygesen stated that he didn't know.
10 Hoag questioned how to determine whether Spring Chinook was a part of Fishtrap Creek.
11 Thygesen stated that he did not have the historical knowledge to answer that.
12
13 Brown questioned whether he envisioned a sea run of Cutthroat up to Kendall. Thygesen
14 stated yes.
15
16 Sutter asked about the in- stream flow analysis. This will probably be an element of the
17 ESHB 2514 project. She questioned how they are tying it in together. Monsen stated that this is
18 a broad range of programs to be used. It could be used in both programs. They will end up in
19 the area with the most chance of cost - sharing. The County does not know if it would more likely
20 be funded under ESHB 2496, ESHB 2514, or another program. They are submitting them under
21 both programs. Because of the Army Corps of Engineer's involvement in the Lummi estuary,
22 there would be an opportunity to fund through them.
23
24 Sutter stated that the in- stream flow analysis is very important. She suggested moving
25 this item as a high priority. Monsen stated that they need to find out how firm the financial
26 criteria is through the biennium. They are trying to minimize time to begin the effort and
27 maximize the amount of outside resources to be used to accomplish the effort.
28
29 Hoag stated that she would like to see monitoring of smolt and incoming spawners. She
30 questioned whether it would be appropriate to list those as projects for State funding. It is
31 important for the local plan.
32
33 A representative from the State stated that the smolt trap section under P4 is the large
34 rotating drum trap that the Lummi Tribe has operated for the last 3 or 4 years. They look at
35 almost every species that leaves the river. It is near Ferndale. That is on -going and they are
36 beginning to get good information from that. There is also interest on NSEA's part to do smolt
37 trapping in lowland streams. They need to establish a baseline so that, as riparian areas recover,
38 they can see whether or not there is any benefit. The State has eliminated its fry- planting
39 program for hatchery coho in the basin. Now, the fish that will come out of the system are those
40 that are from "wild" production.
41
42 Hoag asked about returning spawners. The representative from the State stated that the
43 State and NSEA do spawning ground surveys. There is a smaller effort on Coho and Steelhead.
44 It would be nice to expand upon the effort.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 13
I Hoag questioned whether it is a comprehensive effort. He stated it is more of a snapshot
2 of what is currently happening. When a smolt is picked up, it will be clipped to determine its
3 origin. They will begin to start to understand the baseline production. As they begin to
4 implement producers, hopefully they can measure things. Fisheries has an index that goes back
5 20 -30 years. There are some index areas on the Nooksack.
7 Hoag questioned whether they know how many spawners are returning. The State
8 representative stated that they know for Spring Chinook, but not for other species. State funding
9 has been cut back. They need additional funding to cover the Nooksack.
10
11 Hoag asked about predator studies. There is a lot of concern about the effect of predators
12 on the species. The State needs to study predators, or else the County should request funding for
13 that.
14
15 Sutter stated that the in- stream flow analysis needs to be on as many lists as it could be
16 placed on. The stream cop should also be in the priorities.
17
18 Hoag questioned the hydraulic continuity study price. Fogelsong stated that consultants
19 determined the number. It is a huge project. It is not higher on the list because of the two -year
20 deadline.
21
22 Sutter asked if anyone is looking for money for these projects. Monsen stated that a few
23 people are trying to find opportunities. ESA is generating a lot of interest towards funding that
24 will create offshoot, specialized water related programs, if not directly related to ESA.
25
26 Hoag asked if the Conservation District was looking for funding.
27
28 Boggs stated that they look for funding from every source. They've had success there.
29 When the request for information was sent out, it was done without consulting others on the
30 team. This shows disorganization at the State level, requiring impossible deadlines that require
31 meaningful projects. It is problematic for everyone. This is nothing more than a placeholder.
32 He is looking forward to ESHB 2496. They've stated that they will fund through the process,
33 limiting factors, and regional committee. He sees that mechanism as getting discussion with all
34 stakeholders. The local jurisdictions would be going through the exercise repeatedly. They need
35 to get a process online. That is the real effort, to get the process going.
36
37 Hoag stated that this is an opportunity for funding. Priorities should be expressed and
38 funding should go to the priorities. The process is long -term, but it would be mid -July before
39 those things are outlined.
40
41 Boggs stated that this is nothing more than a placeholder to get the legislature to block
42 funds. Those funds will have to have specific review and scrutiny.
43
44 Hoag stated even if the list is not something that is the final outcome of ESHB 2496, they
45 would like to see priorities addressed in the order they feel will most quickly address the issue if
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 14
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
funding becomes available. She questioned whether the Conservation District is funding in-
stream flows.
Boggs stated they are not.
Sutter questioned the opportunities to bring up concerns that the two -year timeline is
unrealistic. Boggs stated that the person that created the criterion has no authority to spend
money or honor it. He has sent out the request to the cities and counties to come up with the list.
His purpose is not for funding or to ensure that any of the projects are addressed.
Hoag stated that if they have to go through the exercise anyway, then they may as well
get them in the order that they would like to see done.
Boggs stated that when they get to doing those things, there are a lot limiting factors that
the jurisdictions don't have the benefit of the information that is coming out with regard to the
Tribes, management planning on the regional technical coordinator. This request is being given
more emphasis than is due.
Hoag asked about the Porter Creek re- channelization. Fogelsong stated that it is on the
middle fork of the Nooksack. The Creek blew a hole into the right bank of the river and re-
channelized it into the Nooksack. It used to parallel the Nooksack. Habitat was lost when it
blew out. The old channel is still there. It still has riparian area associated with it. The money
to re- establish the creek is well worth the amount of habitat that would be regained.
Hoag asked if it involves Spring Chinook. Fogelsong stated that it does.
Hoag asked if there are any problems with neighbors on re- establishing the channel.
Fogelsong stated that there are no immediate neighbors.
Hoag asked about diversion relocation. Boggs stated that the concept is what they can
perceive as a potential limiting factor toward salmonid recovery in the County's agricultural
area. One thought was to avoid taking surface water and change the emphasis to withdraw
groundwater and utilize more nitrates, which would create more favorable results.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 2, side A)
Boggs continued to state that there is no specific project for that. It was a concept that
was developed and talked about.
Hoag questioned whether the funding that is tied to that would be for studies or activities.
Boggs stated that it is something to explore. Wells would need to be installed, instead of
drawing water from the surface. There are costs associated with that.
Hoag questioned the various funds and their sources. Boggs stated the concept with the
DID plan implementation is to recognize that they control a lot of the lowlands. They are a
district unto themselves. They have easements and a desire to improve the drainage. Attendant
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 15
I to those drainage plans and the requests for hydraulic permits is the opportunity to put in buffers
2 and side channel development so the smolt can have areas of protection in times of high water.
3 These are concepts to bring forward with the DID to get people back up from the streams and
4 provide a habitat for smolt to grow. He did not expect the funds to come from anywhere at this
5 point. There is no pot that has been identified. They are meritorious in that they would advance
6 the recovery of salmonids within the community.
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
Dawson questioned whether he envisioned landowners volunteering for this program to
make it effective. Boggs replied that, in his experience with landowners, few can afford to get
back from the stream and absorb the loss in production. Volunteering without incentives or
regulations would be very difficult.
Monsen stated that they should begin to see more interactions in this process. One of the
items that they need to address is ensuring that all the activities are done.
F1 lam" 1M
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 11/10/98, Page 16