Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 24 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee November 24, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Vice -Chair Tom Brown in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Absent: Connie Hoag None Kathy Sutter COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. OVERVIEW PRESENTATION REGARDING NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES BEING LOOKED AT BY THE PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB98 -395) District Ranger Jon Vanderheyden stated that they are in the process of recruiting new members to the advisory committee. The Provincial Advisory Committee came out of the spotted owl controversy. The Forest Service was under a court injunction regarding management of the spotted owl. President Clinton held the Forest Conference in 1993 to look at all sides of the issues. Out of that came the effort called the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). There was then an environmental impact statement filed in February 1994. They have been operating under the environmental impact statement since that time. One of the attributes of that decision was to set up an advisory committee in each province. The record of decision is a document that contained an 80 -page decision and standards and guidelines that they are using in the management of the national forest. The decision created provinces from Northern California to Washington State. There are 12 provinces. Whatcom County is in the Western Washington Cascade Province, which covers all of the Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest and a small portion of the Hood Canal area. There is a provincial advisory committee (PAC) for each province, and a regional PAC that oversees all of the smaller committees. 36 The hierarchy includes an interagency steering committee that reviews 37 implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. There is also a Regional Interagency 38 Executive Committee, which is the heads of all the agencies involved, including the 39 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forests Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the 40 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is a regional ecosystem office that Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 1 I works for that group. They are the technical people that work out the issues that come up 2 as a result of the Northwest Forest Plan. There is a Research and Monitoring Committee 3 and, underneath that, a Provincial advisory Committees in each province. 4 5 This is a formally established advisory committee. The Federal Advisory 6 Committee Act limits how the can have public input. There must be Secretary approval 7 to appoint people on the committee. This PAC has to go through approval from the 8 Secretary of Agriculture. The group was re- chartered in the last few months. The 9 composition of the advisory committee consists of the lead agencies, three other federal 10 agencies, three state representatives, three county representatives, and three tribal 11 positions, two environmentalist representatives, two timber industry representatives, two 12 recreational /tourism representatives, and five open positions. 13 14 The PAC has been dealing with the management and restoration efforts 15 established in the province. This includes all activities related to the management of the 16 national forest and federal lands within the area of the province. Several agencies are 17 included, such as the Federal Provincial Advisory Committee. The task is how to best 18 make the Forest Plan work, for restoration efforts, recreation, forest management, and 19 other activities. They also look at how to best restore management of the natural 20 resources, how better to integrate and coordinate resource and land management activities 21 amongst federal and non - federal land. There is a large direction in the Forest Plan to 22 work more with federal and off - federal lands, particularly with the fisheries issues. Other 23 tasks include how to best design and carry out research monitoring and analysis so the 24 advisory committee has input on those types of things, and how best to promote 25 information exchange and increase public participation. 26 27 Specific things that the PAC has worked on include working toward a watershed 28 database and working interagency and with other groups that would be involved. There 29 has been a lot of attention on roads and accessing travel management. As the budgets 30 have decreased, the ability to maintain roads in the national forests has decreased. There 31 is a monitoring subcommittee that works to do collaboration in monitoring. Watershed 32 priorities are an issue. Restoration funds have been reviewed and prioritized. He has 33 spent time on plan reviews, particularly a Snoqualmie Pass plan, for an adaptive 34 management area. The Plum Creek habitat conservation plan has had some review. 35 There have also been field reviews for adaptive management areas. 36 37 They are in the process of re- chartering. A new charter has been approved. The 38 Provincial Interagency Executive Committee will conduct open recruitment. Six 39 positions for federal members will not be openly recruited. They will send out notices to Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 2 I potential candidates in areas outlined. That will take six weeks to get through the process 2 to make the selections. 3 4 Brown questioned the term length. Vanderheyden stated that the charter is for two 5 years. They try to fill positions for two years. They meet 3 -4 times per year. Sometimes 6 there are subcommittees formed that have additional meetings. 7 8 Brown questioned whether this would be a format to address concerns regarding 9 forest service management and water resource management in the context of the 10 Endangered Species Act (ESA). Vanderheyden stated that if there is an issue and 11 concern by the members, they will move in that direction. 12 13 Sutter questioned whether there is a desire by the group to be involved in other 14 efforts. Vanderheyden stated that there would be interest in the fisheries issues. It will 15 have to be an integrated approach. 16 17 Sutter suggested more extensive advertising of the committee. 18 19 Connie Hoag, Committee Chair, arrived and resumed duties of the chair. 20 21 Chris Hansen - Murray, Western Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory 22 Committee Coordinator, stated that there were public announcements, news releases, and 23 mailings for vacancies on the committee when the initial charter, from 1994 and 1995, 24 was established. In 1996, when the charter was re- established, they rolled over the 25 current committee members. They were lacking county representation. This time, they 26 will go through a broader recruitment process. They will send announcements to all six 27 counties in the province. They will be putting announcements to all six counties in the 28 province and all the organizations that represent other positions on the list. They try to 29 cover from Whatcom south through Pierce or Thurston Counties. 30 31 Sutter suggested that they send announcements to the Economic Development 32 Councils or Councils of Government. 33 34 Brown stated that he would be interested in being involved in this committee. He 35 requested a copy of the information that Hansen - Murray referenced for further review. 36 37 Brown questioned why they call themselves a province. Hansen - Murray stated 38 that the term province is based on a hydrologic term. In the Northwest Forest Plan, there 39 are hydrographic provinces, but boundaries were adjusted to take into consideration Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 3 I economic boundaries. It means an area larger than a river basin and smaller than 1/2a 2 state. 3 4 Sutter questioned whether there was any interface with Canada. Hansen - Murray 5 stated that they haven't. There are cross - boundary fisheries and environmental issues. 6 7 2. UPDATE FROM BOB EVERETT, STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH 8 WILDLIFE, REGARDING ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PLANNING AND 9 ORGANIZATION (AB98 -400) 10 11 Sutter commented that there are many boundaries for many different watershed 12 and salmon issues. 13 14 Bob Everett, State Department of Fish and Wildlife Regional Director, stated that 15 the regional boundaries are King County north, including Island and San Juan counties. 16 The legislature established the Governor's salmon team, which is made up of 17 representatives from the natural resources agencies, including the Department of Fish and 18 Wildlife. Salmon has been in trouble in the state of Washington for a number of years. 19 They are putting together budget material that will drive the State's efforts. The first 20 draft plan has been distributed. The first handout shows the salmon recovery regions. In 21 addition to the recovery regions, which are areas in the state that National Marine 22 Fisheries Services (NMFS) has identified, there are also ecologically significant units, 23 which are subsets of the regions. The units identify how recovery should take place. 24 Species that naturally interchange with one another are grouped together. The first region 25 is the Puget Sound region and includes Whatcom County. He heard that the official 26 listing from NMFS for chinook will be in March 1999. Bull Trout have also been 27 proposed as a threatened species. The decision will be made in summer or fall of 1999. 28 Elsewhere in Puget Sound, there is a concern with Hood Canal Chum. 29 30 Hoag questioned whether the chinook are to be listed as threatened or endangered. 31 Everett stated that endangered is a higher level of protection, the species is on the brink 32 of extinction. Threatened is a slightly lower listing. From an overall perspective, 33 threatened and endangered still require protection work by agencies. The listing in 34 March will be a threatened status. 35 36 Sutter questioned the criteria on which the proposed listing is based. Everett 37 stated it is done at the federal level. NMFS is the responsible agency for determining 38 salmon. The initial request for listing can come from multiple sources, such as the state, 39 environmental groups, or other sources. Regarding salmon, a number of groups 40 requested a status review to look at numbers of fish and other items. They tried to Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 4 I determine whether the species is a stock in one river system or part of a wider system. It 2 looks at returning fish, escapement goals, and some of the problems occurring in the 3 basins. 4 5 Sutter questioned the criteria to be met to lift the listing. Everett stated that would 6 come from the NMFS as part of the listing process. After the species becomes listed, 7 then the next step at the federal level is to identify recovery measures. He guessed that 8 criteria would include the total numbers of fish that need to be returning and habitat 9 security. NMFS hasn't been forthcoming with goals to be met. He hoped an effort 10 would include the State, the Tribes, and local governments to develop recovery plans. 11 12 Sutter asked if local plans could suggest the criteria to be met. In the statewide 13 salmon recovery strategy, the focus has been on habitat, not on other factors, such as 14 ocean conditions, hatcheries, and natural predators. 15 16 Everett stated that has come up and will be addressed in the next draft. The next 17 handout provides an outline of some elements in the plan. The goal is to restore healthy 18 salmon, steelhead, and trout populations by improving those habitats on which the fish 19 rely. The harvest and hatchery sides of the equation fall in the jurisdiction of tribes and 20 the Department of Fish and Wildlife, with the involvement of NMFS. Those entities 21 have been developing harvest and hatchery strategies that will meet requirements. Those 22 will be included in the plan. The other "H" is hydro, which is more of a concern in other 23 areas in the state. The principles have been built into the plan to develop a collaborative, 24 incentive base action that is more voluntary. Early and immediate actions will be put into 25 place. ESHB 2496 has provided for seed money for those early actions. There will be 26 performance measures to monitor progress, which is a key emphasized by NMFS. 27 Default actions need to be a part of the plan. If there is an area that isn't addressing the 28 issue, the State will have a default regulation. They will be enhancing enforcement of 29 existing laws. There have been inventories done on local rules and regulations. There is 30 a broad base of tools to work with. However, applications of the tools have not been 31 consistent, due to sporadic enforcement. That is an area of emphasis. Becoming 32 involved in planning at the local and state levels enable them to determine their own 33 future. Adequate funding to all levels of government should be provided. Costs will be 34 borne by private individuals also. The plan is outlined in the last half of the handout with 35 the map. NMFS will require that whatever is done has a science base. Harvest and 36 hatcheries need to be addressed. They have met as a State agency with the Lummi and 37 Nooksack Tribes to identify the historic conditions of the stocks, current conditions, and 38 a realistic future condition. No one suggests they return the populations back to levels of 39 100 years ago. It is not a practicality. The questioned is how one determines the realistic 40 future conditions. Habitat addresses the general areas listed on the handout. One of the Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 5 I biggest problems they are finding is that there are a lot of barriers to the fish getting into 2 the systems. Those are immediate action items that are being done. Implementation 3 includes enforcement and streamlining of permit guidelines. There is an education 4 outreach component, and they should developing priorities for new funding and a long- s term funding plan. The Federal government has identified $20 million for recovery in 6 Washington State. There has also been funds identified on the federal level that can be 7 matched to State dollars to develop habitat buffers around streams on agricultural fields. 8 9 Regarding the timeline, 1999 is the key year for the effort. The Governor is 10 developing his budget right now. His agency has included in their budget request a 11 significant request for funds and staff. That is one of the two top budget priorities. The 12 listing will be made official next March. The State plan and regional plans are expected 13 to be completed in the final form next summer. The last chart is a flow chart regarding 14 the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Plan. Whatcom County received funding 15 through ESHB 2514, which is intended for the government to begin the planning effort. 16 ESHB 2496 funds are also available. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 17 developed between the County and the Tribes. It was an important step in moving 18 forward. The lead entity needs to start organizing. It would be useful to invite the NMFS 19 representatives to brief the Council. 20 21 (Clerks Note: end of tape one, side A.) 22 23 Everett continued to state that NMFS could give their ideas on where local 24 governments need to be to receive relief under ESA. 25 26 Hoag stated that NMFS will be coming to the Natural Resources Committee at a 27 future meeting. 28 29 Everett stated that an important step is the cooperative agreement the County has 30 entered into with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide a fish biologist at 31 the County level. The County will be funding a State biologist who will be focusing all 32 attention and time on County efforts. This person would assist the County to line up 33 projects in a permit sequence to avoid future problems. The position would also provide 34 the technical staff that would do the work to pull together the groups, get the planning 35 underway, and write the plan. 36 37 Hoag asked about the Kendall Creek hatchery. They release 600,000 of spring 38 chinook per year. She questioned whether that number fluctuates dependent upon the 39 number of spawning fish that come in, or if a goal is set. Everett stated that there is an 40 egg -take goal based on a variety of things, such as what the hatchery can handle. It may Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 6 I fluctuate below that number. Kendall Creek has been successful in achieving the egg - 2 take every year. 3 4 Hoag questioned the outcome of the extra spawning fish and extra eggs. Everett 5 stated that generally happens every year. In the past, eggs have been shipped to another 6 hatchery, but that is not done any more due to concerns over disease and genetics issues. 7 Extra eggs are not used. 8 9 Sutter stated that is a potential revenue stream. Everett agreed. Surplus fish, 10 eggs, and carcasses, under State law, need to be sold and the cost recovered. There is an 11 opportunity to do that, although it is not a big moneymaker. Some local food banks can 12 use the fish, also. 13 14 Brown questioned whether there were sales of fish eggs to South American 15 countries that created some controversy. Everett stated that they still sell surplus 16 carcasses and eggs through a bid process. 17 18 Sutter questioned whether there is something about putting them back in the 19 stream as food fish. Everett stated that is a new process. Permits and water quality issues 20 make it a complicated issue. 21 22 Hoag questioned whether there is any way to expand the facilities or find some 23 means of using the eggs for increased production, because of the proposed listing. 24 Everett stated that the ESA listing is focused on the wild fish, not the hatchery fish. More 25 hatchery fish may hinder the wild fish. 26 27 Hoag asked about a program that replants smolt, which are determined to be 28 natural, to other areas that they want the fish to return to. Everett responded that would 29 be part of the supplementation program, which is another use of the hatcheries. The 30 supplementation program takes eggs from wild fish and releases them in areas where the 31 fish should return. The ultimate idea with the supplementation efforts is that the fish 32 raised and released in the hatchery would return and spawn naturally. 33 34 Hoag stated that they are trying to look at all areas to be addressed. Everett stated 35 that is an area where there is an opportunity to do more. 36 37 Nelson stated that in the past an individual volunteered to take care of fingerlings 38 from a hatchery to raise to a larger size for release. There was a tremendous amount of 39 fish returning to the creek. That would be a significant effort to utilize everyone's 40 support to get this accomplished. He questioned Everett whether it would be a Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 7 I worthwhile solution to restore stream runs and get communities involved. Everett stated 2 that it is a potential tool, but not a solution. They have to separate the wild fish from the 3 hatchery. There are a limited number of fish to work with. 4 5 Nelson asked about the state biologist funding and whether the biologist would 6 work just with Whatcom County. Everett stated that he would. There is an interlocal 7 agreement. The individual would be supervised by the county and would be facilitated in 8 the county's best interest. Funded by the State. Contract ends June 30, 1999. Contract 9 may be easily renewed. 10 11 Hoag stated that there has been mixed testimony regarding hatchery and wild fish. 12 She believed that specific spawning pairs with the desired types of genetics were used in 13 the Kendall Creek hatchery. She questioned why that would that be a bad thing to put 14 into other streams. Everett stated that the hatchery runs developed from a wild pair. 15 Because succeeding fish do not suffer the same pressure as wild fish, they develop 16 different genetics. Over time, a hatchery run becomes a different run. If there is a 17 supplementation of wild fish, they need to be careful about the fish being wild. 18 19 Sutter questioned whether the hatchery fish could revert to being "natural" or 20 "wild." Everett stated that it depends on the original stock and how far removed from the 21 original species. The reason the fish are becoming endangered or threatened is that there 22 is some kind of limit in the natural world that is restricting their breeding. That needs to 23 be corrected. If the habitat were as perfect as possible, one would start seeing the 24 numbers build naturally anyway. In many cases, a hatchery still provides fishing 25 opportunities. 26 27 Brown stated that they used to be allowed to routinely maintain ditches, streams, 28 and habitat within public and private property. Now, those areas are not maintained and 29 lots of habitat has been lost because the permitting process no longer allows people to do 30 maintenance. He wanted to see that reviewed. Permits should be able to serve both 31 purposes. Everett stated that the biologist working at the County level should be able to 32 work with these types of problems. 33 34 Hoag stated that Swift Creek was dumping sediment into the Sumas River. 35 Fisheries allowed dredging to be done up to Swift Creek. After dredging, lots of fish 36 have been seen. They would like to dredge above Swift Creek, but now Fisheries won't 37 let them go in there. Everett stated that he was not familiar with that case. There are 38 usually other types of permits that are required. There is usually some kind of mitigation 39 that is not being addressed. 40 Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 8 I Hoag asked if Everett was in a position to look at the Sumas River problem and 2 the problem in general. Everett stated that his staff could look into that. 3 4 Jeff McGowen, Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist, stated that he never 5 received an application for dredging that section. Another issue is that it may seem that 6 the grass is impacting the fish, but the fish can get by the grass and it may provide 7 habitat. Feenstra has water quality problems, which is why there is grass in his area. 8 Fish die during dredging activities. 9 10 Hoag stated that they need to get rid of the build -up. 11 12 Brown stated that there used to be spawning fish in cleaned channels. Fish would 13 be lost during the process, but when one left from cleaning, other fish would then be able 14 to use the channel. The old- timers are not always wrong. 15 16 Nelson questioned whether John Harding submitted a permit for the problem area. 17 McGowen stated that the problem was the wetlands associated with the area. Wetlands 18 were above Hemmi road. 19 20 Nelson stated that there are only wetlands in the winter, when the creek 21 overflows. Sediment fills in the creek, then it overflows and creates a moist environment. 22 It is dry in the summer. Water overflows over the road and creates a hazard. 23 24 McGowen stated that right below the site, the creek went dry. The problem with 25 the permit was that there was no mitigation, and the issue of adjacent wetlands. 26 27 Nelson stated that stress has impacts on genetics. Regarding that, he questioned 28 how NMFS quantify fish habitat in the future, in regards to what the jurisdictions will do. 29 The objective is to increase wild stock, based on genetics. He questioned which genetic 30 coding would be used as the standard of "natural ", since it is continually changing. 31 Everett stated that the idea is not to manage the systems with hatcheries, but to allow and 32 provide habitat to wild spawning fish. Over time, evolution will naturally occur. 33 34 Nelson questioned why enough wild fish returned and mingled with hatchery fish 35 would be a problem in restoring the salmon run. Everett stated that there are problems 36 within the watersheds, where the fish are spawning. If the fundamental habitat issues are 37 not addressed, then they will not bring the fish back. 38 39 Hoag questioned why NMFS doesn't look at how many fish go out of the system 40 instead of how many fish are returning. That better shows the quality of the habitat. Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 9 I Everett stated that is something that his agency has requested as a monitoring measure. It 2 can be done. There is a good consensus among the scientific community that degradation 3 of the habitat is a problem in the Puget Sound. 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 Brown stated that there is also science, which shows that other factors besides habitat are the problem. Everett stated that if there is adequate habitat for the fish, it will get local governments off the hook regarding ESA. Hoag stated that it might be that the current habitat is enough to support plenty of fish. There has been no study of the limiting factors. They need to determine what exactly limits the number of fish that return. Predators and harvests need to be reviewed. Until it is determined that habitat is the real problem, she does not want to take land away from farmers or spend millions of dollars. She wanted to ensure that the harvest and hatchery issues are also being addressed. She was not in favor of getting rid of the hatcheries. Predators and harvests need to be looked at. Everett stated that the co- managers are handling the harvest and hatchery issues. They have to show that the harvest does not harm the fish. Hoag questioned whether anything is in the Department of Fish and Wildlife budget to look at predators. Everett stated that there is nothing in his budget to look at predators. Marine mammals are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS has recognized the predator issue. They have a Pacific Fisheries Management Council that identified a funding plan to deliver funds to West Coast states to deal with that. Monies being funneled through NMFS and will be shared between California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. The Washington State share is $250,000 the first year and will develop studies on the predation impact. Sutter questioned the source of the "best available science." Everett stated that the State will be providing a science panel. There will be an authority that will pass judgement on the different studies and sciences. Sutter stated that a concern was that a rigid use of best available science would limit creative strategies. They should have the latitude to use whatever works. It should be flexible. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 10 I Brown stated that Canadian tribes had problems with a more southerly based fish 2 that are being eaten. No matter what they did, they couldn't produce enough fish to 3 satisfy the mackerel. It was a waste of time unless the conditions changed. 4 Oceanographic conditions change every so many years. The County is asking that the 5 big picture be looked at. 6 7 Everett stated the comments regarding looking at all aspects of the problem have 8 come through in the first draft of the plan. The plan will try to reflect all aspects. 9 10 Dawson read an article about Oregon commissioning two fisheries consultants to 11 research and prioritize the factors that affect fish. Studies show that the habitat is a small 12 percentage of the problem. Larger issues are hatcheries and other areas that aren't being 13 addressed. 14 15 Hoag asked about the bull trout listing. Everett stated that the concern is more in 16 other areas of the region. NMFS may decide not to list the bull trout. Everett stated that 17 they could take the salmon recovery plan and use it as a basis for other species that may 18 be listed. 19 20 Elizabeth Britt, former legislative assistant to Representative Gene Goldsmith, 21 stated that in 1996 there were 8 cases regarding farmers who attempted to obtain 22 permitting to dredge their ditches adjacent to various creeks in the Sumas /Lynden/Ten 23 Mile Creek areas. Three farmers submitted applications three years in a row. Those 24 applications were never approved because of the amount of the sediment that would be 25 disturbed from the dredging. The ditches were fish habitat. She asked the Department of 26 Fish and Wildlife to find a compromise. 27 28 McGowen stated that one issue is that reed canary grass is an exotic grass. There 29 needs to be a decent riparian cover on streams. Ditches are actually straightened streams. 30 They require mitigation for activities. One desire is to restore native riparian cover back 31 on the streams. They are looking for a good faith effort by the drainage commissions to 32 come forward with some sort of mitigation. 33 34 Hoag questioned whether someone would have to plant riparian cover before he 35 allowed him or her to dredge their ditch. McGowen stated that their law requires that 36 there is no net loss. 37 38 Hoag clarified that there is no net loss if the fish are able to use the stream once it 39 is dredged. McGowen stated that if a ditch is wide open, one can see more fish but they 40 may not produce more fish. Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 11 1 2 Hoag stated that she would like to see scientific documentation that dredging 3 streams kills fish over the long -term. McGowen stated that he has documentation that 4 dredging kills fish. They are stressed out and will be open to predation and environmental 5 factors. In the next two years, they won't come back. 6 7 Hoag stated that is a temporary condition. If conditions in the stream are 8 improved, that difference would be made up over time. Landowners should not be 9 required to restore riparian habitat unless it could be proved that it is necessary. 10 11 McGowen stated that they want to improve the overall watershed. The most 12 important thing is to put riparian cover back on the streams. He has issued permits to 13 plans that include mitigation. 14 15 Hoag questioned why a landowner is required to install riparian habitat when they 16 have not historically been required to do that. McGowen responded that riparian habitat 17 is just one option. There are also culvert issues. One of the issues with canary grass is 18 that it doesn't grow well under shade. 19 20 Brown stated that the issue at Kendall Creek is that the trees are dying because of 21 lack of maintenance. Wetlands keep expanding, but they weren't wetlands until the areas 22 were not cleaned. A lot of the places have been historically dry. 23 24 McGowen stated that he asked for research of the area. There are ponds upstream 25 that, if dredged, the water table would be lowered and it would affect the fish habitat. 26 27 Brown stated that historic wetland boundaries must be established and 28 maintained. 29 30 Hoag suggested that it would be more reasonable to establish a goal as a 31 department to install a certain amount of riparian habitat for cleaning the ditches. Also, 32 the Kendall Creek hatchery was no longer putting fall chinook in the Nooksack River 33 because it is not a native species. Instead, they are releasing them in other creeks. She 34 questioned whether the Lummi Nation was still producing fall chinook and releasing 35 them into the Nooksack River. 36 37 McGowen stated that he believed that they are not. 38 39 Hoag stated that the decisions that the Department of Fish and Wildlife makes 40 have an impact on local governments and commercial fisheries. They don't seem to have Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 12 I any input in the decisions. She asked for more information regarding the discussions 2 with the tribes and the cities regarding the endangered species. These types of issues, 3 such as harvest and hatcheries, affect the County. 4 5 Everett stated that the Tribe and State have been meeting for a long time talking 6 about harvest and hatcheries. In recent years, there have been three levels or groups that 7 are involved. There is a technical group that discusses harvest issues. Another technical 8 group discusses hatcheries, and then the Tribe and State have a policy element that 9 includes Merle Jefferson from the Lummi Tribe that take the recommendations and 10 findings from the technical groups and develop policies for harvest and hatcheries. There 11 are opportunities for public involvement along the way. The process is called the North 12 of Falcon Process where tribes and others come together to discuss the issues that have 13 been sorted out at the technical process. The Process involves all of the fisheries that are 14 north of Point Falcon on the Oregon Coast. There is a South of Falcon Process. The 15 Planning meetings involve all of the tribes in the Puget Sound on the coast. State 16 agencies and other interest groups are also involved. They try to come to agreement to 17 season length and other issues. That information then goes to the Fish and Wildlife 18 Commission for the seasons that are set for the non - Indian fishers. For the tribes, it goes 19 to the Tribal Councils. Those discussions have been the basis for the ESA talks with the 20 tribes. The County spearheaded an effort to bring together tribes, state agencies, and 21 local jurisdictions. This was on the heels of the memorandum of understanding (MOU). 22 There were proposals that were drawn up on a decision - making matrix to get the local 23 plan completed. Those involved included Jeff Monsen and Barry Hill of Whatcom 24 County, Lummi and Nooksack Tribes, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 25 Conservation Commission. 26 27 Sutter questioned whether this was the group that meets under the memorandum 28 of agreement (MOA) that was signed regarding ESHB 2496. Everett stated that they 29 were. They haven't met in the last couple of months. They need to begin meeting again. 30 31 Hoag questioned whether the draft salmon paper dated November 1998 was a 32 product of that group. Everett stated that those documents come from the Governor's 33 salmon team. One of the documents is an executive summary of the plan. The other 34 document discusses regional and sub -basin planning, and the kinds of things that need to 35 be incorporated in the plan. 36 37 Hoag questioned whether the County has copies of proposals that had been drawn 38 up. Everett stated that they have identified a decision - making process. There isn't 39 anything beyond a working draft that the committee members have. 40 Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 13 I Hoag questioned the membership of the three groups that make up the two 2 technical groups and the oversight group. Everett stated that is a process with the co- 3 managers. There is a co- manager group that includes the representatives from the two 4 tribes in the Nooksack Basin and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. 5 6 Hoag questioned the membership of the technical team that deals with hatcheries. 7 Everett stated that the Department of Fish and Wildlife representative Cathy Hopper, 8 Hatchery Operations Manager. On the fish management, or harvest, side is Chuck 9 Philips. They both work out of the Mill Creek Office. Two tribal representatives are also 10 on each of the technical groups. In reality, there may be other people involved, 11 depending on the subject. The technical teams are collecting the technical information 12 and providing recommendations, which go to the policy group. The policy group 13 includes Merle Jefferson from the Lummi Tribe, Chuck Philips of the Department of Fish 14 and Wildlife, and possibly Bob Kelley of the Nooksack Tribe. They will try to reach 15 consensus on various issues brought forward by the technical group. 16 17 Hoag stated that these groups determine Washington State hatchery and harvest 18 policies, and yet the tribes dominate each committee. She questioned why the 19 commercial fisheries were not represented. Everett stated that these are the co- manager 20 meetings. It is a consensus process. If one of the principals doesn't agree, there is a type 21 of veto process. Once the decision is made, it moves into the North of Falcon Process. 22 Under the Boldt decision, the management occurs with the co- managers. 23 24 Hoag stated that in dealing with consensus, there must be a balance of players at 25 the table so there is not an unbalanced group and all sides are represented. She 26 questioned who sets this up. Everett responded that the management framework is set as 27 a result of the Boldt case. 28 29 Hoag questioned whether the technical team used to have more members. Everett 30 stated that the committees can invite anyone that they want to participate in the 31 discussion of the issues. The co- managers make the decisions. 32 33 Hoag questioned who appoints members to the committees. Everett stated that 34 the co- managers make that determination. Under the Boldt decision, the idea was that the 35 State would represent non - Indian fishing interests, such as commercial and sport fishing, 36 and the tribe would represent tribal interests. If consensus isn't achieved on a 37 management issue, and there is severe disagreement, then Boldt allows for the Fisheries 38 Advisory Board, which is a scientific panel that makes the call. It is a dispute resolution 39 mechanism that is established through the court. It usually has professors from the 40 University of Washington who are involved. Neutral third parties that are not affiliated Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 14 1 with the tribes or State agencies are involved. They can objectively hear both sides of the 2 case. All partners in the co- managers relationship have learned to get along. 3 4 Hoag suggested a possibility that the reason the number of issues that had to go to 5 dispute resolution dropped was because opposition was removed from the table. Everett 6 stated that regardless of who was at the table, the only decision - makers were the co- 1 managers. 8 9 Hoag questioned the North of Falcon Process. Everett stated that it begins in 10 February and goes through March. A person can contact the Department of Fish and 11 Wildlife for more information. All the tribes affected by the Boldt case attend. There are 12 a lot of State people that also attend. 13 14 Hoag questioned specific management. There was some discussion about 15 whether or not all the released hatchery fish would be fin- clipped and whether or not the 16 tribes would also fin -clip the fish. She questioned whether that was resolved. Everett 17 stated that it was not resolved. It is the State's intention to have all their releases marked 18 in the next production cycle, in 1 1/2 to 2 years. They are getting the machines in place, so 19 they can mark all fish in the next production cycle. The tribes are not quite there yet. 20 They are behind a few years. The policy is generally going the same way. The Tribes 21 concern is that it swamps another data - collection effort. By marking everything, they'll 22 lose that dated set. The State has tried to provide a wand to check and see if there is a tag 23 on a fish that is caught. 24 25 (Clerks Note: End of tape two, side A.) 26 27 Hoag questioned whether there is the same policy for steelhead. Everett stated 28 that there is. The goal for mass marking is selective fishing. They hope to have all the 29 State fish marked within 2 years. The tribes will be a couple of years behind the state. 30 31 Hoag asked how soon they would initiate the policy of keeping only clipped fish. 32 Everett stated that wouldn't show up in regulations for several years. 33 34 Hoag questioned the hooking mortality. Everett stated that has been an issue with 35 catch and release. It is hard to measure the mortality rate, but studies show it may be as 36 high as 10 %, but that is balanced by the fact that without this system, they would all die. 37 There is good education and people learn how to handle the fish properly. 38 Natural Resources Committee, 11/24/98, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Sutter asked if commercial fishers look at each fish for tags. Everett stated that in commercial fishing, the fish are dead by the time they get on the boat. Commercial fisheries will have to be managed differently. Sutter asked about percentage of wild steelhead caught commercially. They can anticipate the same numbers with salmon. Everett stated that it would be hard to compare because only the tribes do commercial steelhead fishing. Generally it is a gill -net type of fishery. Hoag asked about fisheries that allow a certain amount of by- catch, and then close the season, and whether Everett anticipated that with spring chinook. Everett stated that he does anticipate a by- catch. Hoag questioned whether the by -catch would separate the wild fish from hatchery fish. Everett stated that it would. The timeline is part of the harvest planning process, through the plan, as early as the 2000 season cycle. The plan will be done this summer or fall, so it would be implemented the cycle right after that. Hoag requested more information on the North of Falcon Process. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 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, 11/24/98, Page 16