HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources August 10 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
August 10, 2004
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Seth Fleetwood
Also Present:
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY THE NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT
ASSOCIATION REGARDING A WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS
CREW FUNDING PROPOSAL (AB2004 -301)
Wendy Scherrer, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA)
Executive Director, stated the Washington Conservation Corps program is nearing
the end of its fifth year at NSEA. She hopes to continue the program in future
years, but was told the budget looked dismal. This program should be in the
County's budget because it brings more money into the county and it helps the
county's stream and salmon resources.
Last year, NSEA had two Conservation Corps crews and three individual
placements through the AmeriCorps program. NSEA lost its 15 AmeriCorp workers
because of problems in Washington D.C. They had to cut back the number of
people on the crew. The program has a lot of support from the community,
including state and federal legislators. They have two crews cut out of 25 crews
that are in the state. The City of Bellingham also has two crews. She put funding
together from different sources. They needed to get work done with grants and
match monies. She was able to creatively fund the project through the end of
September. Currently there is a six - person crew. The crew workers are employees
of the State Department of Ecology (DOE), who make minimum wage. The workers
get an end of year $4,000 stipend to go back to college.
The kinds of projects include work on private and public property, fencing of
livestock, and riparian and instream work. They need to do scientific monitoring,
which is a condition of their grants. They look at projects before, during, and after
the work to monitor project success. There is no funding for monitoring on a lot of
projects. They also have a native plant nursery for their projects. Plant survival
went from 15 to 90 percent. They can plant smaller or larger plants as needed.
The most important thing they provide that is not funded through the Salmon
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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.
Recovery Funding (SRF) Board is community education and participation. The
volunteer base has doubled in last three years, due to the Conservation Corps
helping out.
She showed a Power Point presentation with photos of the different types of
projects. They work with DOE when livestock is in a creek to build fences and
bridges to get livestock across the creek. NSEA provides project management and
helps with permitting. A project manager works with crews on getting all permits
and materials. Youth crews do the labor. This is sometimes the only way to get a
landowner to participate.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a cost share for a bridge. Scherrer stated
it depends on the landowners and their available resources. They try to raise as
much money as they can. NSEA is currently working with Family Forest Fish
Passage program on culvert removal, which requires a 25 percent cost share with
the landowners. Some people don't have the resources, so they get contractors to
donate time and resources. About fifty percent of landowners donate money or
time.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many bridges they have done. Scherrer stated
they are doing five this summer.
Riparian enhancement is restoring stream corridors. NSEA goes into
farmland to convince farmers to use logs instead of riprap to stabilize banks and do
heavy planting. They do a lot of manual, chemical, and mechanical preparation of
the sites. After planting, they follow up for three to five years. They have worked
with public and private agencies. Crews are trained on safety regulations. Young
people come away with job skills.
They have worked this year on Ten Mile Creek, Four Mile Creek, and Deer
Creek, which are all a part of the Ten Mile watershed. There has been a lot of
fencing and work on steep slopes. They used alternative jail crews and
conservation crews.
There are 12 landowners on the Kendall Creek riparian project. They work
to get reed canary grass out and to open up the streams. It's a fish passage
barrier. Fish can't get through reed canary grass.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Four Mile Creek looks fabulous. She walked it
last fall and for the first time saw water flowing instead of a stagnant pool.
Scherrer stated that in addition to the riparian projects, there are instream
projects. Logs are an alternative to riprap. The logs are cabled and anchored to
the bank. Terrell Creek is a small stream now. They are working with agencies to
put in more structures to reestablish that creek channel. There has been a lot of
grant money for this, but the grant requires a 50 percent match. Each
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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
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.
Conservation Corps crewmember can be counted as a $15 per hour match. The
work is technical. People are well trained. There have been no claims or accidents.
They do monitoring to count fish. No one pays for that monitoring work.
NSEA has entered into a partnership with the Bellingham Technical College. They
take photos before and after the project and during monitoring to see how growth
is growing. If needed, they will replace dead trees. The native plant nursery has
new plants potted every year.
There is at times grant money to involve the community. To get a class of
high school kids, a lot of site preparation is needed so the community can have a
successful restoration experience. NSEA's capacity to involve people has grown,
with the organization that the Conservation Crew can provide. They've been able
to include more school, scout, and service learning projects because they can have
more sites and trees ready to go. The number of volunteers has increased.
This is a partnership program. The DOE provides match funding to $75,000,
coordinates with AmeriCorps at the federal level, coordinates the educational
stipend for crew members, and arranges for tools, a vehicle, and fuel. The DOE
also does all the payroll and provides health insurance and provides training in the
work the crew will do. NSEA provides supervision, tracks the hours and the
resources they get for the material, coordinates landowner contacts and project
partners, and trains crews on how to do the projects. NSEA is the only agency in
Northwest Washington to get a Pacific Salmon Commission grant. The grant
provides materials until next June. NSEA must do quarterly reporting to DOE.
Even though the County has the contract, NSEA supervises and reports to John
Thompson.
An AmeriCorps volunteer can stay for two years and double his or her
stipend. The Pacific Salmon Commission is very excited about this project. Their
only other projects are research projects. This is the only on- the - ground project
the Pacific Salmon Commission has funded. Whatcom County has been a partner
to this program in the past.
One issue is the budget and the most cost - effective way to get work done.
NSEA has worked with alternative corrections crews. They're a great labor source,
but can't do the heavier, more technical work such as cabling and monitoring that
the conservation crews can do. All those things make a strong package for salmon
recovery. They have paid for the alternative corrections crews with DOE grants.
There's a lot of work in drainages other than Ten Mile that needs to be done. The
alternative corrections crews are great crews, but this Conservation Corps program
is different. It provides more opportunity for flexibility to get the work done by this
labor force.
The amount of money coming in for restoration is not well understood by the
general public. NSEA brings $1.1 million for environmental restoration. Of that,
about $300,000 comes in as the match for the Conservation Corps crew. Grants
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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.
match some of that money. Other grants just need a labor match. They could not
get a lot of those grants without the labor force. Most of their work is lined up for
the next two years. She is counting on this labor force. They have funding through
the end of this calendar year. Her request, to continue the grants they have so far,
is to share the cost of the crew this year. The cost has gone up to $75,000. They
want the local community to chip in. She asked the County to fund the
Conservation Corps crew from January through September 2005, at a little over
$65,000. If the Council chooses to fund to the end of 2005, she would love to get
the $75,000. Executive Kremen and the state legislators support the project.
Putting together funds and match money is a jigsaw puzzle. With County money,
they will get more resources into the county.
The crew can go anywhere, but there are priorities coordinated with the
county.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the County provided in the past. She asked if
the crew will be self- sufficient next year. Scherrer stated they're nonprofit with
undedicated revenue. She would like to have a long term partnership with the
County. This is an important piece of salmon recovery for the County. She is
always looking for extra money, because grants are contingent on it. The County
has provided funding for the program for the last five years. The cost for the first
three years was $50,000, then $65,000 for last two years. Then she lost the
AmeriCorps funding, and the cost has gone up to $75,000.
Roy stated most grants are looking for local matches, not matches from
other federal programs. Scherrer stated that's correct. They can't match federal
money with federal money.
Roy asked if they are getting more salmon that come back. Scherrer stated
that is not a yes or no answer. Every species is different. Over 5,000 spring
Chinook returned. Not all were wild fish. That stock was down to 10 fish in 1990.
The ecosystem is not quite sustaining them yet. They want to keep that program
going for awhile. The spring Chinook are on the edge. They are doing pretty good
with the pinks and Coho. They haven't done a lot of surveying to know if the Coho
are wild or hatchery fish. Salmon are getting through the culverts they've opened
up. They've had pretty good runs in the last couple of years, and there have been
great ocean conditions. Temperatures have been good. There is a good number of
feeder fish. They have reduced the harvest, but have had problems with drought.
There's a conflict on the Nooksack River with the rafters. The Chinook are not back
yet to self- sustaining levels.
Roy asked if they will put in egg boxes at Terrell Creek. She asked if that is
considered a hatchery operation. Scherrer stated it is done with native stock,
including chum from this watershed. With all the blockages, they haven't seen fish
in that area for decades. They are still working with water quantity problems.
There are Coho there. Coho have to stay in the creek a year before going out to
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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
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.
sea. Chum can go right out to sea. It's a hatchery augmentation program with
native stock.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the south fork was to be closed to rafters soon.
McShane stated there is a possibility of developing an ordinance in areas of
concern, but no one has taken it on.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the program is great. She will support it. Talk
about funding options at the water resources work session. It will be hard to solve
the funding problem long term. She supports this program next year. Everything
in the program is working well. She wants to figure out how to get reliable funding
for NSEA from the County.
Roy asked if NSEA works with the Public Works Department.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they do at times. They work as
they can on a variety of issues. It's more of a capacity issue rather than a lack of
desire. He's very impressed with the work NSEA is doing.
Scherrer stated NSEA is a subcontractor for the County to do the culvert
survey on private lands. They received a grant to fix seven of those culverts, and
the survey isn't even done yet. They coordinated citizen input into the Salmon
Recovery Plan. That was a contract NSEA had with the County. NSEA worked with
John Thompson on a lot of their projects.
Roy stated the work NSEA does that includes everyone has had many good
effects. Also, Ms. Scherrer has done a great job managing all of this. Scherrer
stated she has a great board of directors. The biggest challenge is matching all the
resources and getting the work done. The board has thought about how that is
done.
She will make an appointment today with Dewey Desler and Pete Kremen to
ask for funding in the County's budget for this project.
McShane stated the Council will struggle with funding this from the general
fund. Recently, there was a road project to widen the Jackson Road bridge. He
asked if there was enhancement or mitigation on that project. Monsen stated there
was mitigation. From a permitting standpoint, they performed the work that was
required.
McShane stated the County has to do mitigation for flood and road projects.
He asked if it is possible to have a preferred contract for that mitigation work to
transfer funds from one fund into another fund. If the general fund pays for a
crew, and NSEA ends up working on a flood or road mitigation project, then pay
NSEA from those funds and general fund money is reimbursed. Monsen stated that
is possible. To pass an audit, he needs to describe the project that has a direct
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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.
interest in the road or flood project, and show that occurred at the end of the year.
They can make an allocation on the front end, and then demonstrate it happened at
the back end.
McShane stated they should have that crew capacity for those types of
projects available. If they don't have anything for the crew to do for roads or flood,
they will do their own priorities. The County can use NSEA for its mitigation on
some level, instead of hiring a contractor. Monsen stated he would consider how
they could do that procedurally in a way that would pass an audit.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated the County would pay more from the general fund than what
would be reimbursed, but the idea of providing funds would be easier. Scherrer
stated they do that now with the culvert project. There is a fund for culvert
mitigation that NSEA works with.
Monsen stated NSEA's work relates to a road or flood eligible project.
Roy stated when these other agencies want local matching funds, there is an
expectation that a certain number of tasks would be completed on their agenda.
She asked how that affects the projects. Scherrer stated they treat it as another
project on the project schedule. It would be useful to schedule the projects the
County wants into the NSEA project schedule. It's a project management issue.
There's always a degree of flexibility unless there is a large project that conflicts
with something else.
McShane asked if NSEA has worked with Parks Department. Scherrer stated
NSEA has done stream restoration. They have worked with the Whatcom Land
Trust. They have cleaned up sites.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County is going through a two -year budget
cycle now. She asked if NSEA needs to bring forward a two -year request. Scherrer
stated the federal funding has been committed for three years.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that Ms. Scherrer ask the Executive for a two -
year commitment.
Roy stated the councilmembers had a presentation from Geoff Menzies about
shellfish protection issues. One Drayton Harbor watershed issue is the hobby farms
and the animals getting into the creeks. The Conservation District saw many hobby
farms in that watershed. Scherrer stated NSEA has had no funding or materials for
that watershed, but it's an area people want to work on.
Roy stated it's an appropriate area for work from the water resources
department. It benefits both salmon enhancement and shellfish protection.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/2004, 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
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.
Scherrer stated she must mobilize everyone to do a project. They need the
labor. There is a dislocated worker program that is more expensive. This is the
most cost effective program she's seen to get this amount of labor done in the
community. She can't get the other resources unless they have the $75,000 match
to fund the crew. It's a bargain that has great community support. It is politically
popular and economically cost - effective.
Monsen stated departments are in the later stages of submitting projects to
the Executive through the budget process. This is an example of the things he
wants to talk to the Council about at the budget work session, regarding the
County's core policy areas to make sure they are dealt with, then identify what the
other things are that they can do if they have the time and money.
Roy stated look at what they want to accomplish and the priorities, and then
look at the resources that are available to make that happen. Monsen stated one
thing is to determine geographic priorities. Then, match the flood, road, and
salmon recovery aspects. They may get to do a bigger project because of
leveraging and coordination. However, by doing a bigger project, they may have to
shift away from something that may be a priority to get that big benefit for their
investment.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 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, 8/10/2004, Page 7