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
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