Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources April 6 20041 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee April 6, 2004 Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE SALMON RECOVERY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LUMMI NATION, NOOKSACK TRIBE, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, WHATCOM COUNTY, AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE, LYNDEN, NOOKSACK, AND SUMAS (AB2004- 115A) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated the Bellingham City Council did not take action on this item during its meeting last night, because it is considering amendments. He asked that the committee hold this in committee for two weeks. Caskey- Schreiber moved to hold in committee for two weeks. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB2004 -025A) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he will discuss three things. First is how the Planning Unit will review the draft plan. Second is a discussion of section three of the draft Watershed Management Plan, which is proposed actions for moving forward. Third is a proposal that is being circulated among the Planning Unit for early action work. They are implementation projects being proposed. Sue Blake, Resources Planner, provided handouts (on file). There are certain things to do during first three months of the overall plan adoption strategy. Staff and facilitators came up with a review strategy. By mid -June or July, the project Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 1 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. participants will end up with a document they can support putting forward for public review. There are underlying thoughts and considerations for review. First, have a document that can be supported for public review. Review the document section - by- section, starting with sections three and four first. Those are the sections that will require commitments and funding form different parties and resources. They want to get a sense of that now so that work can take place before the public review draft phase. There is a format being proposed for how to review the document. Recognize that monthly Planning Unit meetings will not be enough for review. The April Planning Unit meeting has been lengthened to three hours. The Planning Unit will discuss that the proposed strategy was a recommendation to them at their previous meeting. The Planning Unit will determine at their next meeting if this proposal will work for them. Council needs to give direction to staff about whether this timeline will work. The Planning Unit also wants to start discussing section three during its next meeting. Regarding the review and comment procedure, attachment one of the memo she handed out is a proposed review process and comment form. It asks members to consider three questions, listed in the handout. Comments on the draft plan will be compiled. If the document is approved as it is, the County is identified as the lead or participant in the actions listed in the table attached to the handout. Roy stated the process looks good because there are opportunities built into the process for people to say this isn't enough time. The Planning Unit can do that on the 28t ". She understands the Council will have the opportunity to discuss the schedule and strategy at one of its water resources work session. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's comfortable with the process. She's confident they'll develop a better idea of the costs involved, given the involvement of the caucuses. Roll stated the Council will discuss it further at the Water Resources work session next week. Roll stated he wanted to discuss the funding proposal in front of the Council. The County helped fund this project in 1998. Early in the process, the County decided to help develop a draft plan and technical studies. The financial plan they created to fund the plan was created. The County never indicated it was the funding source for plan implementation. As they begin to create the plan, the County is going to have requests for funding implantation projects. These requests before the Council are the beginning of many more requests that will come forward. The 2004 budget did not include funding for implementation of the water resources inventory area (WRIA) projects. Funding would require identifying a funding source and submitting a supplemental budget request. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 2 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. During the plan development, they periodically evaluated next steps. Now, they are creating models and looking at the draft plan in preparation for adoption. Many participants want to move ahead with certain projects ahead of adoption. There is a proposal in the Council packet. One proposed project includes the Comprehensive Irrigation District Management Plan ( CIDMP) being performed by the Watershed Improvement District (WID). He anticipates a draft plan that outlines how Bertrand will manage water in the future sometime this year. An integral piece of their work and other work is development of instream flows. There is a chapter in the appendices in the plan that is the instream flow action plan. It describes how the Planning Unit will approach development of instream flows throughout the basin. A cornerstone of this project was to establish new instream flows throughout the basin. One question that came up was the cost to set instream flows basin -wide. The estimate was more of a guess. They will be engaging landowners in the Bertrand Creek watershed to do a pilot project to establish instream flows in that watershed. The first proposal today looks at what it will take to develop instream flows specifically in the Bertrand Creek watershed. There are other pieces tied to this, including community outreach and drainage - based management. The CIDMP looks at the water rights issue and also what needs to be done to deal with compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act. Those are three prongs to that strategy. The fourth project is groundwater modeling. This work needs to be part of the modeling network throughout the WRIA. This fourth project is to begin that work. It can be very costly to do large scale groundwater modeling, compared to more geographic- specific areas. Groundwater modeling is needed to understand the relationship between moving from surface to groundwater sources at critical times of the year, particularly in the lowlands. The modeling would give insight into the timing and distance of withdrawals that would impact the stream. This is currently WRIA -wide. Caskey- Schreiber stated a representative from the State said the State was to pay for the groundwater modeling for the Bertrand area when the Council set up the watershed improvement district. Representative Linville also said that the State Department of Ecology would pay for it. Roll stated they haven't heard that. Caskey- Schreiber stated she specifically asked Representative Linville and the State representative that question. That was one of the conditions of her support of this item. Also, if the groundwater modeling is 90 percent complete, then why do they still need $155,000. Roll stated there are two things that need to happen. The model needs to be constructed, and they have to have sufficient data to calibrate the model. Until they understand where the model will function and the types of questions they want answered, he's cautious about what it will take to calibrate a model. If they want a WRIA -wide groundwater model calibrated to make tough decisions, they will spend a significant amount of money. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 3 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council already voted not to do that because it will be too expensive. Roll stated there is still work being done by the technical teams to work up a budget for identifying it once the work from Utah State University (USU) arrives. That has not been done yet because they haven't received the work from USU. The groundwater work is to be available sometime in the first quarter, then to the technical and staff teams to develop a budget. Roy asked what happens if the Council doesn't want to spend any more on groundwater analysis. She asked if there is a useful product. Roll stated there are a number of good products, including a fate nitrate model and a single well application model. Extensive report of the major aquifers. All the data has been compiled. Roy asked if they've lost the 90 percent that's been done if they don't do the next ten percent. Roll stated they would not. A condition of the scope was that the product would be packaged by USU to be used at a later date should they move forward. They won't lose anything other than peoples' interest in having that information. Fleetwood asked which important pieces wouldn't be included. Roll stated they won't have a fully functioning model that will give them insight into the relationship of switching between surface water to groundwater sources and also different management strategies for managing groundwater. Fleetwood stated that relates to the decision support system. He asked if they had already decided the decision support system is very important. Roll stated it is, especially in situations where they may not want to use surface water. Fleetwood asked to what extent they are compromising the effort by going cheap at the end. Roll stated the work by the technical team will be to more clearly define what needs to be accomplished and for how much. Blake stated section two of the plan, on page 51, is a paragraph that discusses the implications of deferring the groundwater quantity model. It affects the work they can do on the quantity model. Changing the location or timing of a withdrawal won't be calculated when they're trying to figure out whether they have enough water in the stream to accommodate consumptive needs. Fleetwood stated it's a critical piece to have. Caskey- Schreiber stated she knows it's critical to regulate the water. She's resentful that the State made a commitment to pay for this, and now is nowhere to be found so the County has to pay for this. She doesn't know where they are going to get the money to pay for this. Roll stated he doesn't assume the $155,000 would be adequate. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 4 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy asked if they are going to be expected, when this is a success, to put more money into other potential WIDs. Roll stated Ten Mile will probably come up within the next year. He anticipates that, depending on Bertrand's outcome, this process could be applicable in other areas. If Bertrand works, there will be a lot of people, especially from the agricultural community, that will want to do that work. Fleetwood asked if the plan would be reviewed annually. Roll stated it would be reviewed periodically. The review schedule is in the plan. They will talk about this proposal more at the water resources work session in next week. This proposal will go before the Planning Unit at the end of the month. He'll need Council input before that. Fleetwood asked the amount dedicated each year to the Water Management Plan. Monsen stated the County has applied $2 million per year for four or five years. That expired as of the first of 2004, with a shift of $1.4 million additionally into the general fund. They do not have a revenue source for general implementation, other than in the general fund. What is in the plan will influence roads, land use, and flood hazards. This is the first of many proposals asking for cash for someone else to implement something. Roy stated County staff works on these issues, which are County resources going toward this plan. They have no money in the budget that is for WRIA action items. Monsen stated first make sure they're clear on the County priorities for its jurisdictional responsibilities, that can then be influenced directly by the County relating to the plan. The next level is, if there's cash and a way to generate cash, think about how they'll prioritize those discretionary activities. This is not going to be a simple exercise over the next few months. That's why the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and Executive are looking at a process for natural resource integration, programmatic changes that deals with updating the Comprehensive Plan, the critical area ordinance, shorelines, adoption of the watershed plan, and development of the salmon recovery plan. Come up with how these things fit together to come up with a tiered budgetary proposal. Roy stated that while that's going on, they are getting early requests for money and haven't had a chance to do that long -range planning. Monsen stated the process includes a belief that, as the plan concludes, they would have to pause to figure out what to do next. Everyone is ready to move ahead with something. Know that at some moment they have to pause to sort through what they can accomplish. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Monsen continued to state that there is a financial element of implementing a plan, including just retaining an administrative capacity just to maintain the document. They can't ignore the cost to sustain data, whether or not that data is Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 5 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. ever used. That's the kind of thing the staff has to bring to the Council to make sure they can do something with it at the end. Caskey- Schreiber stated she questions the cost of the Bertrand project. The total is about $500,000. Roll stated it is. Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought taxing themselves would cover those costs. Roll stated the four requests aren't all watershed improvement district (WID) projects. Those four elements aren't all from the WID. Those four elements were chosen by a collective of people that would like to see them come forward sooner rather than later. Caskey- Schreiber stated the thing that bothers her most about Tom Anderson's letter is that he implies that this would be funded countywide because there was an agreement in 1998. She asked how they are supposed to do that. She doesn't understand how the County would sign away its rights to forever fund something. She asked what kind of context this agreement was made in, and if there was talk about a maximum amount of funding or length of time. Monsen stated as the project was put together, there was agreement that the easiest way to finance projects like this, including implementation that required coordination, was from a single source. The County put together a financial package to finish the plan. How they are going to implement will be tough to decide. There is no promise of a blank check. There was a different economic and financial reality when House Bill 2514 was adopted. Since then, there has been a decline in monies from the federal and state levels. Mr. Anderson is suggesting that somehow the County agreed to finance any difference that might come up. However, that was not the case. Just because State and federal money declines, the County can't pick up the difference. The reality of these kinds of programs is that these independent districts are to find ways to fund their projects. Entities shouldn't be formed solely to apply for grants. The County will be a competitor for those grants for projects important to it. A limited amount of money is available to deal with the priorities, and they have to identify what those priorities are. Roy stated the County initially agreed to work with the funding to draft a plan and to pay for the technical studies. She asked if those are the only two things the County agreed to pay for. Roll stated they are. The draft plan was done over 50 or 60 Planning Unit meetings that included an enormous amount of administrative support. The County contributed money to create viable participating caucuses. Roy stated those expenses were to get the draft plan out there. Roll stated they were. One of the reasons this has been such a success was because of the enormous amount of administrative support the County contributed. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is frustrated to hear accusations of the County shutting down the process because it won't facilitate implementation with lots of staff and a steady flow of dollars. The County has to assess and prioritize the material and knowledge from the plan. It has to come up with a fiscal plan as well. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 6 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Monsen stated a countywide source of funding was preferred because it was convenient. They will actively engage in ways to implement the plan, which will be difficult. They will have to make choices. They'll have tools that will allow them to make very difficult decisions. Caskey- Schreiber stated everyone seems to think implementation is the County's burden. This is a countywide plan. Everyone should figure out how to implement the plan. Roll asked that this item be held in committee Blake spoke regarding section three of the management plan. The management option catalog, shown in section 3.4, page 14 of section three, is the clearinghouse of all management recommendations made in various plans in the county to date. Pilot projects are all in the catalog, and are updated. The second major topic of section three is in subsection 3.5 regarding Instream Flow Selection and Adoption Action Plan. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the ultimate decision regarding instream flows is made by the State Department of Ecology (DOE). Blake stated the DOE will have a role in making the decision. The courts will also have a role, because it is an attempt to resolve federal rights. Monsen stated first in time, first in right is the priority for establishing water rights. Priority dates establish who has legal rights to water first. To settle treaty issues and potential federal action, part of the proposal would be to put that priority date back to time immemorial, ahead of any other water right, from a tribal perspective. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can't set the water levels without figuring out who has priority first. Monsen stated that is part of the process they should go through to build cooperation and agreement. Setting instream flow from a scientific standpoint is a matter of scientific fact. Roy stated this could end up in litigation. Monsen stated he expects this to go to litigation. Roy stated she went to an instream flow conference that included someone from DOE in Olympia who said the County can do whatever it wants, but the DOE will decide whether instream flows are adequate for fish. There's that issue and the tribal issue to deal with. Monsen stated the County focus is dealing with wet water. However, most of what they hear about instream flow and water rights is a paper water exercise. Being creative in its application could fly in the face of legal water rights that are in place. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 7 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roll stated a group has been working, including the tribal initiating governments, for over a year on how to approach that, which is included in the plan. Most of the basin is currently closed. They need to reevaluate those rights from a scientific perspective to determine if the established instream flows are truly where they should be. Make sure they are managing the resources for wet water. They propose to have different instream flows throughout the year given the precipitation level. There would be corresponding management strategies for each instream flow situation. They would manage around the flow amount that optimizes instream and out of stream uses. There will be a paper water right overlay that empowers people to continue having access to water. Caskey- Schreiber asked how they are to account for exempt wells. Monsen stated the exempt well will not make or break the water levels. However, an exempt well is only exempt from going through the application process. It is still required to meet all the other regulations. Blake stated there is an overview of State and federal water rights in the plan. She can provide more information for the Council on how State and federal rights are authorized. Caskey- Schreiber stated that the County shouldn't spend a lot of time and resources if the State has authority for setting the flows. Monsen stated the State, including the DOE, is bound to act in the context of this plan when it is adopted. Blake stated she can answer specific questions about this section at the Water Resources work session. Focus on areas that identify the County as a major party that is involved, including the Comprehensive Irrigation District Management Plan (CIDMP), low impact development pilot project, and other WRIA -wide programs. The water use tracking program looks different and is more connected to the instream flow strategy. The County has been identified as the lead for the culvert inventory, but has already been doing that work. Roll stated that given the Council's desire to deal with the natural resource policy integration and land use activities, note that there is a WRIA -wide program called Natural Resource Policy Integration. He recommends spending some time discussing it and to hear from the Planning and Development Services (PDS) Department and his department on what that means. Also discuss the low- impact development WRIA -wide program. They will have some substantive discussion on these two items during the Water Resources work session next week. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 4/6/2004, Page 9