Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forage Fish Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MRC reviews surf‑smelt monitoring, debates Elwha sampling and flags toxin-driven closures
Summary
The MRC’s forage‑fish lead reported surf‑smelt sampling results showing Client/Klein Spit as a hotspot, members debated keeping Elwha River restoration sites versus adding Coast Guard sites, and staff noted recent Alexandrium phytoplankton counts that prompted temporary shellfish closures.
Tim, the committee’s forage‑fish lead, presented four years of surf‑smelt sampling from local sites and urged the MRC to reconsider sampling design in light of variable beach morphology and apparent site differences. The presentation showed Klein/Client Spit as a consistent hotspot for eggs and smaller counts at Elwha River sampling sites; Tim asked whether Elwha sites should remain in the contract with the Northwest Straits Commission or whether targeted sampling near the Coast Guard property could better capture local spawning activity.
Members discussed field logistics and state coordination. Several members noted that the Elwha mouth shifts substantially month to month since dam removal, complicating repeatable sampling; others said WDFW and the Northwest Straits Commission determine site lists and capacity to process samples, so any changes must be coordinated. Tim proposed additional daylight sampling at Coast Guard property to test a hypothesis that Eddys Hook or adjacent coastguard‑managed beaches are the true spawning locations for eggs recovered near the Elwha mouth.
Project updates during the meeting highlighted public‑health concerns: a committee member cited a recent local news report and early phytoplankton monitoring showing elevated Alexandrium counts that led to temporary closures of shellfish beds. Staff clarified that phytoplankton counts are an early warning and that shellfish‑meat toxin testing (biotoxin sampling) triggers official bed closures; monitoring is ongoing and will determine when beaches can safely reopen.
Participants also raised a practical management issue: vehicle traffic and boat‑launch behavior at Klein/Client Spit are damaging nearshore substrate used by spawning forage fish and shellfish. Members suggested outreach signage, targeted commissioner briefings, or a letter from the MRC to county maintenance to reduce driving on spawning areas; the committee asked staff to include this item on a future agenda.
Why it matters: surf‑smelt sampling is a sensitive nearshore indicator and informs both restoration and planning for projects like harbor cleanup; toxin monitoring has immediate public‑health implications for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesters. The committee’s choices about which sites to prioritize will affect sample value and the ability to detect population trends.
Next steps and follow-up: the MRC will add the sampling‑design discussion to a future agenda, coordinate proposed site changes with WDFW and the Northwest Straits Commission, and consider outreach or signage to reduce vehicle impacts at high‑value spawning beaches. Staff will report back with a proposed sampling modification and any logistics required for added Coast Guard property access.
