Meeting Summary Stillaguamish Watershed Council (SWC) Meetings/2019 Meetings/01- … · b) A longer presentation will be given next year (1/23/19). 8) 2019 SWC Meeting Frequency (Kit)

Meeting Summary Stillaguamish Watershed Council (SWC)

November 28th, 2018 Stillaguamish Tribe Natural Resource Conference Room

22712 6th Ave NE - Arlington, WA 98223 1:00 – 4:00 p.m.

SWC Members in Attendance Blake, Bill (co-chair) - Skagit Conservation District Curley, Ben - South Fork Stillaguamish River resident Freeburg, Tom - Evergreen Fly-fishing Club (EFFC) Hazelton, Chuck - Stillaguamish Flood Control District Hennick, Doug - Wild Fish Conservancy Lakey, Kirk - Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Nelson, Kurt - Tulalip Tribes Shelton, Dale - North Fork Stillaguamish River resident Staringer, Allen - Pilchuck Tree Farm Stevenson, Pat (co-chair) - Stillaguamish Tribe Stockdale, Erik - Snohomish Co. Surface Water Mgmt (SWM) Svrjcek, Ralph - Washington Dept. of Ecology Weston, Duane - Washington Farm Forestry Association

Other Participants Atkinson, Sandy - Evergreen Fly-fishing Club Bernhard, Bob - Snohomish County SWM Bright, Nick – Stillaguamish resident Christianson, Joe - Stillaguamish Flood Control District Crump, Kit - Snohomish County SWM Dittbrenner, Cindy - Snohomish Conservation District Gilman, Jeremy - US Forest Service Hamill, Jessica - Snohomish County SWM Kramer, Kurt - Evergreen Fly-fishing Club Lee, Kevin - Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Pierce, Bill - Soaring Swallow Farm Unknown, Kevin - Evergreen Fly-fishing Club

1) Opening (Bill)

a) Introductions Bill opened the meeting at 1:05 p.m. with introduction around the table.

b) Review agenda and meeting summary The agenda and previous meeting summary were approved.

2) Public Comment and Announcements (Bill Blake) a) Dale Shelton (North Fork Stillaguamish River resident): What is the protocol for resolving

water quality issues/complaints? i) Ralph Svrjcek (Dept. of Ecology): Water quality complaints can be called into the

Department of Ecology’s NW regional office at 425-649-7000 or an environmental incident report form can be submitted online.

ii) Bob Bernhard (SWM): Drainage issues can be called in to Snohomish County at 425-388-3464. Water quality issues can be called in to 425-388-6481 or a water-quality complaint investigation request can be submitted online.

iii) Bill Blake (Skagit Conservation District): Let’s put this on a future agenda. b) Doug Hennick (Wild Fish Conservancy): Sockeye in the Cedar River watershed have a

70% pre-spawn mortality rate. What’s causing this? Other species aren’t affected. WDFW Update for the Lake Washington Watershed

i) Kurt Kramer (Evergreen Fly Fishing): This has been going on since the early 2000’s, possibly affecting Chinook and Coho too.

c) Ralph Svrjcek: Terry Husseman grant applications are being accepted January 2nd through February 4th. Eligible projects are those that restore or enhance the natural environment and provide primary benefits to public resources and affiliated infrastructure. For more information, visit Department of Ecology’s website.

3) Evergreen Fly-fishing Club (EFFC) Letter to WDFW (Sandy Atkinson)

a) Letter to WDFW commissioners regarding the closure of the North Fork Stillaguamish River to fly-fishing in summer and fall (see attachment) i) Sandy Atkinson: WDFW has closed fly-fishing along the North Fork of the

Stillaguamish River during the summer and fall to protect spawning Chinook. The EFFC would like WDFW to reverse their decision, reasons include: (1) EFFC members are fishing for Cutthroat. Members aren’t targeting/catching

Chinook. (2) EFFC members call in poaching and can’t do so if not present to fish. (3) The North of Falcon process closed the North Fork to satisfy the protection of

“paper fish”. The protected fish will be caught in the marine environment and won’t have a chance to spawn.

ii) EFFC currently has approximately sixteen endorsements for the WDFW letter. EFFC is asking for SWC to endorse the letter as well.

iii) SWC held a conversation regarding the closure of the North Fork and EFFC’s letter to WDFW. (1) Doug Hennick: Do sportsmen startle Chinook off their redds? Kurt Kramer (EFFC):

Redds have moved from tail-out areas to more non-traditional places where there is cleaner gravels.

(2) Erik Stockdale (SWM): Have you spoken with the commission yet? Sandy Atkinson: Testimony and meetings have been attended by Evergreen Fly-fishing Club members.

(3) Kit Crump (SWM): Suggestions were made to remove the addendum (4) Ralph Svrjcek: How many other waterbodies are closed in a similar matter?

Upper South Fork of the Nooksack River and the Skagit River was closed 2 years ago.

(5) Bill Pierce: Suggestion to include impacts to local communities with less traffic in summer and fall.

(6) Kurt Nelson (Tulalip Tribe): Mention how poaching was a problem in the Chinook recovery plan.

iv) Vote for endorsement: Doug Hennick motions, Dale Shelton seconds. Kurt Nelson, Pat Stevenson and Peter Forbes’ sit-in (Jeremy Gilman) abstain from voting. All who voted were in favor.

v) Bill Blake: Feedback from SWC members (Kurt Nelson and Pat Stevenson) due in a week.

4) Ag Resilience Plan Update (Cindy Dittbrenner)

(See attachment for presentation) a) Flood modeling (slide 10), http://maps.coastalresilience.org/washington/:

i) Riverine and coastal flooding predictions for 2050 and 2080 using: (1) Greenhouse gas scenarios (low or high) (2) Rain event (2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year)

b) Groundwater and saltwater intrusion modeling (slide 11): results will be presented in the future though the data is limited (expensive). Data collected from sites in slides 12 and 13.

c) Predicted future (2100) spring cultivation delay (slide 14) d) Subsidence and channel aggradation (slide 15): data not available yet but soon for the

Stilly (Cardno collecting data) e) Crop impacts modeling (slide 16): predicts daily temperatures (min, max and mean) and

changes in the length of the growing season, f) Ag Resilience Plan (slide 17): the Lower Stillaguamish has been identified as a focus area

by the Integration Team. Steering Committee will approach flood control districts and farmers in the future (for ~6 months of outreach). The Steering Committee will work with local farmers to scope projects based on modeling results of future environmental conditions.

g) Potential projects include landscape-scale (e.g., infrastructure and water needs) and on-farm recommendations (e.g., farm management practices, water storage and flood protection).

h) PCC Farmland Trust Protection Strategy: farmland conservation goal of 15,000 acres in 10 years. Conservation priorities are identified in slide 24. The Stillaguamish Valley’s priority for farmland conservation is rated as high and very high.

i) Questions/Comments: i) Bill Blake: The Integration Team needs to incorporate the Stillaguamish River

Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (2004) ii) Chuck Hazelton (Stillaguamish Flood Control District): Biggest threat to the flood

control district is development and its lack of regulation.

5) Gold Basin Update a) Upcoming Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) meeting on December 5th

i) Kit Crump: Kit, Pat Stevenson and Bill Blake will go to the SRFB in Olympia on 12/5. If SRFB still denies the funding the money is lost and can’t be used on other projects. There’s a 4 p.m. time slot for general comments. Funding decisions will be announced around 5 p.m. (Update since then: The SRFB has delayed their decision until March)

b) How SWC members can support this effort i) Doug Hennick would like to give a comment during the general comment period ii) Kirk Lakey: Could US Forest Service be present? It would have a strong impact.

6) SWC Membership a) Recommendations from co-chair meeting (see attachment)

i) Molly Fay (Mainstem resident) – Ben Curley motions, Ralph Svrjcek seconds, all were in favor

ii) Nick Bright (resident at-large) – Doug Hennick motions, Kurt Nelson seconds, all were in favor

iii) Other potential new member categories included: (1) marine resource committee (Potentially Paul Clampitt or another MRC member) (2) agriculture (e.g., dairies, nursery) (3) business (e.g., gravel, development, Master Builders) (4) State and Federal agencies (health district, DOH, WSDA, DNR, NOAA, USGS) (5) Tributary residents (e.g., Jim Creek, Deer Creek)

iv) Nick Bright suggested adding video call-in capabilities (e.g., WebEx) v) Chuck Hazelton mentioned he will talk with Eric Hanson to see if he’d like to stay on

the committee.

7) Stillaguamish River Estuary Restoration Benefits Assessment (WDFW) (see attachment) a) Introduction of WDFW team conducting research

i) WDFW seeks to understand and measure the ongoing economic benefits associated with restored estuaries. A consultant team will assess the restorative benefits zis a ba and Leque Island have on the City of Stanwood, southern Skagit Bay, northern Port Susan and nearby unincorporated Snohomish County. Benefits assessed include flood control, habitat and recreation.

b) A longer presentation will be given next year (1/23/19).

8) 2019 SWC Meeting Frequency (Kit) a) Meet 9 times a year (January-June, September- November) b) Other options

9) Watershed Priorities and New Project Opportunities, Other Updates

a) Snohomish County Marine Resource Committee (derelict vessels, MyCoast app) b) Snohomish County Stewardship (outreach and education) c) Snohomish County Shellfish Protection

i) Lower Stillaguamish Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Phase 2 quarterly updates to SWC in 1/19. 4/19, 7/19, 10/19, 1/20 and 3/20

d) Monitoring and Adaptive Management (floodplain and riparian)

10) Review of Actions/Commitments (Kit) a) Kit will follow-up with Stilly and Tulalips about the endorsement of the Evergreen Fly-

fishing club letter to WDFW b) Kit will confirm with Chuck Hazelton if Eric Hanson wishes to remain on the SWC

11) Adjourn

SWC Membership

Membership Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

• Kit, Pat and Bill met on Wednesday, September 26th to discuss existing membership status and creating new membership categories

Existing Membership

• Reconfirming membership o We contacted Nate Nehring’s office and his staff person said that

Councilmember Nehring wanted to continue being a member of the SWC and that he would send one of his staff to attend meetings

• Pending New members o Mike Wolanek (City of Arlington) o Molly Fay o Nick Bright?

• Removed Members/Membership (will remove these from future agendas) o Eric Hanson, Mainstem Stillaguamish Citizen (keep this category) o Dave Ridgeway, former Clean Water District Advisory Board o City of Granite Falls (Vacant)

New Member Categories (For Discussion)

• At Large • Marine Resource Committee? • Agriculture • Business • Snohomish County Health District • State Agencies

o Dept of Health o Dept of Ag o Dept of Natural Resources?

• Federal Agencies o NOAA? o US Army Corps?

Cindy Dittbrenner

Presentation to:

Stillaguamish Watershed Council

November 28, 2018

Sustainable Lands Strategy

Agriculture Resilience Plan

What does agriculture need to be resilient into the

future?

Represent these needs at Sustainable Lands Strategy

Complete resilience projects

Protection Committee Resilient Farming

Committee

Outreach Committee Hydrology Technical

Committee

Organizational Approach

Steering Committee –

Farmers

Project Scoping Committee

Steering Committee Members

Brian Bookey, Cherry Lane Farms

Libby Reed, Orange Star Farms

Jeff Ellingsen, SCD Board and farmer

Nick Pate, Raising Cane Ranch

Dan Bartelheimer, Sno Valley Farm

Jeremy Visser, dairy farmer

Darren Carleton, Carleton Farms

Chelsea Johansen, Rainy Sunday Ranch

Spencer Fuentes, Hazel Blue Acres

Andrew Albert, Andrew’s Hay

Leah Werkhoven, Werkhoven Dairy

Feedback from ag community

Groundwater levels

Loss of farmland

Water availability Dike improvements

Changes in flooding

Flood protection Land subsidence

Sediment buildup in river

Photovoice Project

Why is agriculture important for our community?

What are the major impacts/threats to ag?

Impact Assessment

How will the following impact agriculture?

Flooding changes

Groundwater levels

Saltwater intrusion (sea level rise)

Land subsidence and channel aggradation

Weather/climate changes

Flood modeling – what are predicted flows?

UW Climate Impacts Group; Fathom; TNC

Funding: Stillaguamish River Capacity Fund, NOAA

http://maps.coastalresilience.org/washington/

Groundwater and saltwater intrusion modeling

Cardno

Funding: National Estuary Program

Farmland subsidence and channel aggradation

Funding: ESRP Learning Program

Crop impacts modeling

WSU – Center for Sustaining Ag and Natural Resources

Funding: Snohomish and King Conservation Districts

http://agclimatetools.cahnrs.wsu.edu/cbcct/

Project Implementation

December, 2018 Start March 2019 Winter 2018/19

Launch Ag Resilience Plan

Communi

-

cations

Regulato

ry

Efficiency

Ag

Resilience

Plan

projects

Resource

Lands

Protection

Reach

Scale

Plans

Communi-

cations

Regulatory

Efficiency

Snoho

Tech

Comm Resource

Lands

Protection

Stilly

TAG

Farm Fish Flood

representatives

Ag

Resilience

Plan

projects

Reach

Scale

Plans

Landscape-scale Projects

Infrastructure and Water needs

Photo: King Conservation District

Resilient farming

• Farm management practices (no till, cover cropping,

agroforestry)

• Water storage

• Flood protection

• Crop types

On-farm Recommendations

Photo: Bruce Gregory

Resilience Fact Sheets

Protection Strategy PCC Farmland Trust

Protection Strategy PCC Farmland Trust

15,000 acre 10 year goal!

Funding

NOAA $100,000

ESRP (County return funds) $37,000

Stilly Capacity Fund $26,500

National Estuary Program $200,000

ESRP Learning $200,000

TOTAL $563,500

Cindy Dittbrenner

Natural Resources Program Manager

Snohomish Conservation District

[email protected]

snohomishcd.org/ag-resilience

Funders:

NOAA

Stillaguamish Lead

Entity

Floodplains by

Design

ESRP Learning

Program

EPA National Estuary

Program

King CD

September 5, 2018 WDFW Commissioners: The Evergreen Fly Fishing Club (EFFC), and the organizations listed below, are sending this letter out of grave concern for the recent North of Falcon decision to close the NF Stillaguamish this Summer and Fall. This is the second consecutive year for such a fishing closure. We are very concerned that this situation will become the “new normal.” Once a river is closed for multiple years, it becomes more and more difficult to get it re-opened for fishing in future years. We are as committed as you are to the restoration of endangered fish runs, such as the native Stillaguamish Chinook. What we find exasperating is that this closure does nothing to protect the Chinook run. Fly fisherman on the Stilly, using small barbless flies, are targeting steelhead in the Summer and cutthroat trout in the Fall. These are valued, high quality fisheries. Steelhead and cutthroat typically hold in different parts of the river than salmon. Numerous studies and the best available science have shown that when a fish species (e.g. Chinook) is not targeted, the incidental catch is negligible. Fly fisherman in the EFFC, having multiple decades of experience fishing the NF Stilly in the Summer and Fall, report never having hooked a single Chinook. The EFFC considers the NF Stillaguamish River as one of our “home waters” and has a long advocacy history for the river and its wild salmonids. That advocacy extends beyond just fishing; including annual river cleanup of trash, taking part in the Festival of the River, placing signage informing anglers of the regulations, and taking part in a variety of other forums centered around the Stillaguamish basin. We all know the real culprit for declining salmon runs is habitat degradation. Until serious steps are taken to improve Stillaguamish River habitat, there will not be a significant increase in the river's Chinook run. Period. In a recent Marysville Globe article (Habitat Key for Salmon, Orcas), Lorraine Loomis, Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, points out: “we have cut salmon harvest 80-90% over the past 4 decades, but that hasn't solved the problem.” Clearly, this is a dire situation for the Chinook run in the Stilly. But, let's don't make the situation even worse by unnecessarily eliminating an unrelated fishing opportunity. Of all user groups, it is fisherman who really appreciate the importance of protecting fish runs. If you continue with this ineffective river closure policy, you will alienate an important user group and lose its support. Furthermore, we maintain that closing the river to fishing will actually make the situation worse for Chinook. Fishermen are your “eyes and ears” on the river and will readily report any poaching. We all carry cell phones these days. If law-abiding fisherman are not on the river, only poachers are out there. With recent Stilly Chinook escapement below 500 fish, poaching even a few kings will be devastating. In summary, we truly feel that this river closure policy does absolutely nothing to protect the Stilly Chinook run. The closure alienates fisherman, and could further jeopardize the survival of the run. We strongly encourage you to re-evaluate this misguided policy. While this letter is critical of your current policy, we assure you that we would like to be of help addressing this issue. How can we work together to achieve the common goal of returning to historical gamefish seasons? Sincerely, Conservation Committee The Evergreen Fly Fishing Club List of supporting organizations (TBD)

Addendum: Additional Supporting Information: As part of the NOF process, the various in-river recreational fisheries including the game fish fisheries impact on the ESA listed Chinook are input into the model. Given the uncertainty around the game fish impacts, the co-managers have consistently agreed to impacts that we argue are too liberal; i.e. the impacts are over-estimated. We are fine with that approach as it places the burden on the fishers rather than the fish. However that approach is a dramatically different than most other fisheries (marine recreational and tribal) that are likely to affect the listed Chinook. In those other fisheries the co-managers have consistently made efforts to determine those model impacts are as accurate as possible. At the end of the day, closing game fish seasons on the Stillaguamish is not saving impacts but merely transferring those potential impacts to other fisheries thus saving no additional fish. In fact, closing this game fish season actually results in increased impacts on the total Chinook, since the "paper fish" portion of impacts associated with this game fish season are transferred to fisheries where the impacts are measured in "real fish". This whole issue smacks of politics rather than biology. These actions appear to be little to no benefit to the resource and, at the same time, not only reduces recreational opportunities (and the other value associated with that fishing) as well, but also reduces the interaction of an advocacy group with the river and its fish. The co-managers recently paid significant lip service to all working together for the benefit of the resource. Obviously based on these closures, the co-managers do not believe that recreational freshwater fishers are part of the community to be tapped for broadly supported recovery efforts. End of Addendum