WHATCOM COUNTY FISH PASSAGE BARRIER INVENTORY FINAL REPORT

WHATCOM COUNTY FISH PASSAGE BARRIER INVENTORY FINAL REPORT January, 2006 IAC Project Number: 01-1258 N Project Sponsor: Whatcom County Public Works 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite C Bellingham, WA 98226 Grant Funding By: Salmon Recovery Funding Board Natural Resource Building 1111 Washington Street Olympia WA 98504

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS.. iv 1 INTRODUCTION Why does Whatcom County want to inventory fish passage barriers?. 1 What is the scope of the inventory?.... 1 Who is leading this project?.... 1 How is this document organized?... 1 2 PROCEDURES How was the barrier inventory protocol developed?... 3 How did you decide where to start?... 3 How were private property owners involved in the process?.. 3 Generally speaking, how does the inventory procedure work?... 5 What did you do if you were denied assess to part of the stream?... 9 How was quality controlled for field data? 9 How was quality controlled for data management?..... 9 3 RESULTS What are the highlights of what was found?... 10 What are the limitations of this study? 10 Where can you get a copy of the report?. 11 How will the information be updated in the future?.. 11 4 REFERENCES... 12 ii

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Threatened Fish Species. 1 Exhibit 2 Inventory Area Map.... 2 Exhibit 3 Sub-basin priority map... 4 Exhibit 4 Example Barriers.... 5 Exhibit 5 Barrier Assessment Overview.... 6 Exhibit 6 Level A Assessment Flowchart... 7 Exhibit 7 Level B Assessment Flowchart... 8 Exhibit 8 Habitat Assessment Types.. 9 Exhibit 9 Summary of Inventory Results.... 10 Exhibit 10 Summary of Features sorted by PI.... 13 APPENDICIES A. Outreach examples B. South Fork Nooksack Sub-basin Report C. Middle Fork Nooksack Sub-basin Report D. North Fork Nooksack Sub-basin Report E. Deming Sub-basin Report F. Sumas Sub-basin Report G. Lynden North Sub-basin Report H. Tenmile Sub-basin Report I. Coastal Sub-basin Report J. Chuckanut Foothills Sub-basin Report K. Samish Sub-basin Report iii

ACRONYMS FPDSI GIS GPS NNR NSEA PI RMAP WDFW WSDNR WSDOT Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources Department Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Priority Index number Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Transportation iv

INTRODUCTION Why does Whatcom County want to inventory fish passage barriers? Sea-run fish populations throughout the pacific region are in trouble. Locally, federal and state agencies have already listed or are considering listing several fish stocks as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act (Exhibit 1). Although many problems contribute to this crisis, limited access to spawning gravels and rearing areas is an important factor. Exhibit 1: Fish species that are threatened with extinction in Whatcom County. SPECIES STATUS National Marine Fisheries Service: Puget Sound chinook Puget Sound steelhead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Puget Sound bull trout WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory South Fork Nooksack chinook North/Middle Fork Nooksack chinook Threatened Under review - Threatened Threatened Critical Critical Human barriers such as road culverts and dams block access to over 600 miles of stream habitat in Whatcom County and limit the ability of fish to reproduce and thrive. Removing these barriers is one of the easiest and most cost-effective means for improving fish habitat. However, fixing a barrier at the upstream end of a long line of barriers is ineffective. We need a strategic approach to maximize benefit. The purpose of this inventory is to locate barriers on both public and private land and assess the amount of fish habitat that each barrier blocks. In this way, we can have a comprehensive picture of the entire stream system, and target and fix high value barriers first. What area is covered by the inventory? Our work area includes all streams within the jurisdiction of Whatcom County that are accessible to sea-run fish (Exhibit 2). We did not include Federal lands managed by the U. S. Forest Service or National Park Service, or State lands managed by Washington Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR), or the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). These agencies already have barrier inventory and correction efforts underway. We also excluded areas owned by large-scale commercial forestry interests, which are governed by Forest Practice rules that require replacement of fish passage barriers. Finally, we focused out efforts on the higher priority streams, and did not include small, degraded streams with little known fish use. Who is leading this project? This project is sponsored by Whatcom County Public Works, and is funded through a grant from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The Bellingham office of Devine, Tarbell and Associates assessed barriers on private land using field crews and fisheries professionals from Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources Department (NNR) and the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA). County crews inventoried barriers on the County Road system. 1

Exhibit 2. The Whatcom County Fish Barrier Inventory includes the streams that are accessible to sea-run fish within the area shown in white. The Washington Department of Natural Resources oversees fish barrier removal in the Commercial forestry areas (shown in light green) through Forest Practices regulations. 2

How is this document organized? This report summarizes the general approach, procedures and overall results of the project. Separate sub-basin reports describe the geography and results for each of the 10 inventoried subbasins, including cross-referenced maps, summary tables and pictures of barriers for each stream assessed in the sub-basin. Finally, a comprehensive summary table for all barriers in the County, listed by Priority Index number, is found at the end of the document. A CD containing an ArcView shape file and associated database is also included. PROCEDURES How did you decide where to start? We started by meeting with representatives from the Nooksack and Lummi Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to make a prioritized list of sub-basins based on priority fish species and habitat (Exhibit 3). Next, we gathered previously completed inventories in each basin and, to the extent possible, revised them to fit the state Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory (FPDSI) protocol. These previous inventories include: 1. Washington Department of Transportation assessment of state highways, 2. City of Bellingham barrier inventory, 3. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association barrier assessments, 4. Washington Department of Fish and wildlife barrier inventories, 5. Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group barrier inventory of the Samish Sub-basin. For each sub-basin, we met with tribal and state biologists, and local fisheries professionals to identify priority stream reaches. These priority reaches excluded areas with previously completed inventories, and focused on reaches where information was lacking (A priority reach summary is included in each sub-basin report). We then started in the highest priority sub-basin, the South Fork Nooksack, and proceeded down the priority list. How were private property owners involved in the process? From the beginning, we committed to acquiring permission from residents before inventorying streams on their property. We approached residents in a variety of ways. Initially, we mailed a flier describing the project, a permission slip, and a self-addressed stamped envelope (example flier in Appendix A). We encouraged residents to share their knowledge of the stream, interest in enhancement work, and any issues that our field crews needed to know when entering their property, and recorded their responses in a landowner database. Residents who did not respond by mail were called at least three times. If their phone numbers were unlisted, or if they did not return phone calls, we visited them at home. If the resident was not home, a second letter and permission slip was left for them on their doorstep. If all of these efforts yielded no response, or permission was denied, then field crews would skip that property, and that section of steam was not surveyed. 3

Exhibit 3. Sub-Basin Prioritization as Determined by the Nooksack Indian Tribe, Lummi Nation, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4

How does the inventory procedure work? All inventories funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board must use the most current version of the, Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. This project used the August 2000 version of the manual. Two levels of assessment are included in this report. First, Whatcom County Public Works staff conducted a road-based inventory that identified fish blocking culverts on known and possible fish bearing streams along the County road system. The second level of assessment was a stream-based inventory completed by Nooksack Tribe and Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association field crews on priority stream reaches identified in the reach prioritization effort described above. We located all human made stream features in priority stream reaches using Global Positioning System (GPS) and evaluated them for their ability to pass fish. Field evaluation and data collection followed the methodologies described in the Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual (WDFW 2000). Prior to conducting fieldwork, landowners adjacent to stream inventory sites provided written or verbal permission for field crews to access their property. We provided field maps to the inventory crews that showed which stream sections they had approval to enter. In some cases, where written consent from a landowner was not obtained, field crews were able to contact residents directly for verbal permission to complete field inventories. Field crews did not evaluate culverts or habitat conditions on land parcels in which property access was denied. Once we secured access permission, crews completed habitat surveys starting at the most downstream barrier. A downstream check from the identified barrier verified fish accessibility. Crews progressed upstream from the known barrier on the main stem of a stream network until all sea-run fish bearing waters and associated tributaries were surveyed. In areas where stream adjacent residents denied access, we utilized Geographic Information System (GIS) maps to determine linear habitat gain within the property that could not be assessed. When we encountered a potential fish passage barrier, we gathered the physical dimensions of the feature and determined what was causing the problem. For example, if the stream feature was a culvert, we measured the width, height, length and slope of the pipe, and the stream width. As shown in exhibit 4, if the pipe has a large outfall drop, fish can t jump through it. If the culvert slopes too steeply or is too small compared to the stream, the water flows too swiftly for fish to swim through it. In both cases, the culvert is considered a barrier. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 give an overview of the barrier assessment procedure, and the how we assessed the barrier status of culverts. Exhibit 4 Example Barriers. Left: Outfall drop. Right: Depth, Velocity, and outfall drop. 5

Barrier Assessment Overview Prioritize Sub-basins Identify Priority Stream Reaches Obtain Landowner Permission No or Unknown Skip Parcel and Record as Data Gap Yes Conduct Level A Barrier Assessment Not a Barrier STOP Unknown Conduct Level B Barrier Not a Barrier Barrier Assessment STOP Barrier Conduct Habitat Assessment Prioritize the Barrier for Correction Exhibit 5 6

Barrier Analysis Level A No Is There Natural Streambed Material Throughout the Culvert? Yes Yes Is the Outfall Drop > 0.24 meters (0.8 ft.)? Is the Culvert Width at Least 75% of the Streambed Toe Width? Yes Barrier Passable No Is the Culvert Slope Greater than or Equal to 1.0 %? No Yes Barrier No Level B Analysis Required Exhibit 6 7

Barrier Analysis Level B Is there a grade break in the culvert, or is the culvert tidally influenced, or is the downstream control inaccessible? Any Yes Barrier Status Unknown No to All Calculate High Fish Passage Design Flow Calculate Depth and Velocity using Manning s Equation Depth > 0.24 m (0.8 ft), AND Velocity < 1.22m/sec (4 ft/sec)? Yes Passable Culvert No * Backwatered means that the water surface of the downstream pool extends into the culvert. Backwatered* to Upstream End of Culvert? No Barrier Culvert Yes Upstream End: Barrier Culvert No Depth > 0.24 m (0.8 ft); Velocity < 1.22m/sec Yes Passable Culvert (4 ft/sec)? Exhibit 7 8

For each fish passage barrier encountered on the way up stream, we recorded the length and character of the channel upstream of the barrier to see how much fish habitat was blocked. To do this, the crew walked the stream, measuring pool and riffle dimensions, depths, stream gradient; and recording stream features like gravel size, large logs, streamside shade, temperature, etc. From this information combined with maps showing what fish species would use the stream, (SSHAIP, 2003), and how much a repair would cost, we calculated a relative priority number, or Priority Index (PI) for each barrier following the procedure in the WDFW manual. With the PI number, we have an objective rating that we can use to compare the relative value of a particular barrier with all other barriers in the County. In this way we can repair the most important barriers first. What did you do if you were denied assess to part of the stream? The FPDSI protocol includes several levels of habitat assessment effort to allow some flexibility in dealing with awkward circumstances. These assessments range from a simple Threshold Determination to a full physical survey (Exhibit 8). Exhibit 8. Habitat Assessment Types Survey Type Code Description Threshold Determination TD Field verify 200 m of usable habitat upstream Lineal Map Estimate LME Map estimate of lineal gain with no field verification Expanded Threshold Determination ETD Sample first 200 m; extrapolate to rest of stream. Un-expanded Threshold Determination UETD Sampled first 200 m., but no extrapolation yet. Reduced Sample Full Survey RSFS Same as FS except reduced sample frequency Full Physical Survey FS, PS Highest intensity survey, ~20% sample level Problems with property access forced us to modify the full physical survey procedure is some areas. For example, in areas where stream adjacent landowners denied access to a portion of a survey reach, GIS mapping was used to determine stream length within the inaccessible parcel. By assuming that the same habitat characteristics found upstream and downstream of the inaccessible stream section are present within the inaccessible stream section, we estimated the quantity of habitat available for the reach. This procedure, a Reduced Sample Full Survey, helped generate relatively accurate habitat assessments, but could have missed potential barriers within the inaccessible stream section. How was quality controlled for the field data? Only people trained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted field assessments. The field supervisor spent the first month in the field, rotating among field crews to ensure correct and consistent implementation of inventory protocols. Thereafter, the field supervisor monitored crews weekly to provide continued guidance and ensure accuracy and consistency among the crews. Survey crews were able to contact the field supervisor via cell phone at any time. 9

How was quality controlled for data management? Field supervisors collected the field data at the end of each day. The supervisor inspected all field forms for missing values and, with the crew s help, made corrections as needed prior to data entry. After data entry, database files were forwarded to the project manager for additional Quality Control review. The project manager double-checked all of the field inventory data entry values for errors and inconsistencies. The field supervisor and Quality Control personnel resolved any discrepancies before calculating priority index values and creating GIS shape files. WDFW staff reviewed all data that have passed Quality Control procedures before being added to the statewide FPDSI database. RESULTS What are the highlights of what was found? After two years of fieldwork analyzing over 500 miles of stream channel, we have documented 1,037 in-channel features; 478 of which are either full or partial barriers to fish passage. Of these barriers, we surveyed 278 for blocked fish habitat and calculated PI values to prioritized them for repair or replacement. For the barriers analyzed for habitat gain, 227 miles of under-utilized habitat is available including 133,607 square meters of spawning gravel and 516,816 square meters of pool and glide habitat that is under-utilized for rearing habitat (Exhibit 9). Exhibit 10 is a comprehensive listing of barriers in Whatcom County, sorted by Priority Index (PI). Exhibit 9. Summary of Inventory Results. This study Total * Sites Assessed 1037 1673 Barriers Identified 478 837 Habitat Surveys 278 545 Stream Length inventoried (mi) 529 1,290 Linear Gain (mi) 227 650 Blocked Spawning Habitat (m²) 133,607 389,789 Blocked Rearing Habitat (m²) 516,816 1,793,494 * Totals include results from all inventories completed to date in Whatcom County. One intangible result of an inventory effort like this is the hundreds of contacts made with community members, and the opportunity for us to build trust and educate each other about the history of our landscape and the potential habitat that could be available with a few simple drainage corrections. These valuable exchanges will help us target where to focus future restoration efforts. What are the limitations of this study? As mentioned earlier, we were unable to obtain permission to access all private properties. Some residents denied access outright, and others didn t respond to our inquiries. As a result, additional natural and artificial barriers are likely on these unassessed stream reaches. 10

In order to avoid duplicating other agency s efforts, we limited our geographic coverage to the range of sea- run fish within Whatcom County jurisdiction. This limited scope excluded barriers affecting resident fish populations and barriers located within State and Federal management areas. However, the State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Transportation, and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have parallel barrier assessment efforts underway that will largely fill these data gaps. Where can you get a copy of the report? You can get a compilation of this report and accompanying maps and ArcView shapefiles on the Whatcom County web site at http://whatcomsalmon.wsu.edu. The Bellingham and Whatcom County public libraries have hard copies of the report as well. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the state-wide repository for fish passage barrier information. Please contact Brian Benson at 360-902-2570 for the most current update to the Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory (FPDSI) database. How will the information be updated in the future? The Whatcom County Fish Passage Barrier report is a snapshot in time of an ongoing process to identify and remove fish passage barriers in Whatcom County. As county residents repair barriers, they must get a permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW will update the FPDSI database as corrections and additions to the existing inventory are verified by state habitat biologists. 11

REFERENCES Currents, N., 2005, Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources Department, Personal Communication. Fox, S.F. and Greenberg, J., 1994, Hydrologic and Fisheries Resources of the Nooksack Basin, in Whatcom County Environmental Resources Report Series, task #4, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, 40 p., 2 App., 14 Maps. Goldin, A., 1992, Soil Survey of Whatcom County Area, Washington, USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Washington Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University, 481 p., 55 Maps. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission WRIA 1 Salmonid Distribution Map. GIS Shapefile compiled by Tyson Waldo. April 2003. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, August 2000, Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual, WDFW Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and Restoration (SSHEAR) Section., 81 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004, WDFW Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory (FPDSI) Database, Instruction Manual, 21 p. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, 1995 (updated 2005), Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 243 p., 5 App., 37 Maps. Williams, R.W., Laramie, R.M., and Ames, J.J., 1975, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume I: Puget Sound, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 12

APPENDIX A: Outreach examples

Whatcom County Culvert Inventory Life Cycle of Salmon Adult salmon lay their eggs in gravel in stream or rivers with cool water. The eggs hatch and the young fry and juveniles seek shelter in pools and wetlands for rearing for up to a year. Cover such as wood jams is also important. Juvenile salmon migrate down the river and rear in estuaries and along shorelines. After a period of days to several months, the fish move into the ocean to mature for two to six years. Adult fish return back to their home stream to spawn. Pacific salmon usually die after spawning because they devote all their energy in swimming up stream and protecting their nests. If these streams are blocked due to impassable culverts and barriers, the fish are unable to spawn. Blocked habitat contributes to the decline of salmon populations. Introduction Adult salmon migrate from the ocean to spawn in streams and rivers throughout Whatcom County, but some of the vital spawning and rearing habitat is not accessible due to stream barriers. The majority of these barriers are culverts. It is estimated that culverts in Washington State block over 4,500 river miles of historical salmon habitat. Culverts can also prevent downstream movement of gravel and woody debris that is needed for maintaining quality salmon habitat. Repairing these culverts to allow salmon passage is the simplest and most cost effective method of restoring salmon habitat to enhance the natural production of salmon. Whatcom County Public Works has received a grant from the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board to inventory all culverts and drainage structures in Whatcom County in order to identify opportunities for improving fish access to spawning and rearing habitat. Objective The objective of this inventory is to accurately map fish barriers and assess fish habitat upstream of these barriers so that repair efforts can be prioritized. Prioritization will be based on how much fish habitat will be gained, which salmon species use the stream, and cost efficiency. Since most priority stream reaches flow through private property, Whatcom County Public Works relies heavily on private landowner cooperation. Without landowner permission to assess critical stream sections, important barriers may be missed. And missed barriers are lost opportunities to direct grant money toward effective habitat restoration. Whatcom County Public Works greatly appreciates landowner assistance with salmon habitat recovery. Please do not hesitate to contact Chuck at 225-2196 with any concerns or questions you have regarding this project.

Culverts Culverts are pipes or arches made of concrete or metal that lie beneath roads, and allow water to flow from one side to the other. Many culverts block fish passage completely or limit the number and type of fish able to pass through them. Four common problems at culverts that create fish passage barriers: Partial Barrier Blocks smaller and weaker fish of a population and limits the genetic diversity that is essential for a robust population. Excessive drop at culvert outlet when the culvert outlet is above the stream, fish cannot jump into the culvert and swim upstream (see complete barrier at left). High water velocity within culvert when the water velocity is too fast for fish, they cannot swim through the culvert. Inadequate depth within culvert if the water depth is too shallow, fish cannot swim through the culvert. Debris accumulation at the culvert inlet if a culvert is not maintained, it may become clogged, which can prevent fish from swimming through the culvert. Temporal Barrier Blocks migration some of the time and can result in loss of production at critical migration times. Contacts Landowners Will Receive From Us: 1. This information sheet and Complete Barrier Blocks the a letter to obtain written use of the upper watershed, often the permission most productive for access, spawning and habitat site specific in the watershed. information that landowners would like our field crew to know. Project Team Whatcom County Public Works Department Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc. Nooksack Indian Tribe Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Funded by: Salmon Recovery Funding Board Whatcom County 2. A phone call within two weeks and a house visit within 30 days if we do not receive a permission slip mailed back. 3. A phone call reminder, if requested, prior to the survey team working in the area. Links for Further Information www.ecoisp.com/species12.asp www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/sshiap/fishbarr.htm www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/default.htm www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/sosreport/2000/ introduction.htm Questions or Concerns? Please Contact Chuck Sauvageau Devine Tarbell and Associates Telephone: 360-255-2196 Fax: 360-671-1152 Charles.Sauvageau@DevineTarbell.com