HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources January 20 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
Special Water Resources Work Session
January 20, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N.
Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the Flood Control
Zone District recommends submitting three letters of intent for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program from the October flooding. There will only be about
$500,000 from the program. They will have to come up with a much smaller
project to have a chance of being successful.
The advisory committee recommends three possible areas. The Marietta
area is one project that will likely be more long and expensive than the others. The
other two projects look more feasible for this round of funding. There is a site on
Glacier Creek that is getting closer and closer to going into the creek. They're still
trying to assess whether they will go toward Jones Creek or Glacier Creek for the
next round of grant funding. The goal is to put together a project to relocate a
house or two.
Roy asked if these are competitive grants. Cooper stated they are.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if cost sharing is available for the Marietta project.
Cooper stated other avenues might be better. The amount of work on that project
is too much for this grant. There are quite a few homeowners involved in this
project. Staff is working on the analysis for the project, but it won't be done by the
deadline for this grant.
3. SALMON RECOVERY
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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
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.
Update on Interagency Salmon Recovery Coordination and Update on WRIA 1
Salmonid Recovery Plan
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the County and two tribes entered
into an agreement in 1998 regarding salmon recovery planning and to address the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the same time, the County was designated the
lead entity under the State Salmon Recovery Act. Because of the County's
agreement with the tribes, it didn't literally follow State provisions of the Salmon
Recovery Act in deference to the tribes. The County has struggled with the grant
funding program, and tried to put together an interlocal agreement a year ago that
addressed that process. They weren't successful in putting it together. The focus
was on a grant program rather than comprehensive salmon recovery in the area.
The primary focus today is local comprehensive salmon recovery while also dealing
with State grant funding.
Brenner asked if this is the same as the instream flow working group.
Monsen stated it is not. There is no direct relationship between the water resource
inventory area (WRIA) process and this interlocal agreement. This interlocal
agreement is a method by which they implement certain water resource issues.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated the
Salmon Recovery Act is targeted to grant programs, not the development of a
recovery plan. They will continue past efforts to do a Chinook recovery plan and
salmonid recovery plan. It includes bull trout and other salmon trout that live in
WRIA 1. To date, they have taken the previous drafts and received a grant from
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for $100,000. Using
the grant, they contracted with the Nooksack Tribe to develop the technical
components of a recovery plan. They didn't finish an existing version because
there's new data available. The Nooksack Tribe is fleshing out the living factors,
things that limit salmon production in the basin. They're developing hypotheses
that lead to management strategies that lead to action. Now, the Nooksack Tribe
technical staff will finish the work by the end of January. They will give the County
as much as they can. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association is advising the
development of the plan. Once the County gets the product, staff will take those
draft products and fill in additional technical work specific to land use management.
Staff will bring a full draft forward to the stakeholder committee initially the first
part of March. Then the draft will go to the shared strategy folks by June. They'll
do regional plan development between June this year and June next year to see
how it adds up to a regional plan.
Roy questioned what the stakeholder committee is. Thompson stated that
last June, staff invited folks from a broad cross - section of the community to advise
them. The stakeholder committee is advising the County.
Roy asked who would make the final decisions. Thompson stated this plan
will need to have the County Council, tribal councils, Bellingham City Council, and
councils from the small cities endorse the plans.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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.
Roy stated salmon habitat is critical to instream flow. She asked how it
interfaces with WRIA. Thompson stated that as they implement the action plan to
select instream flows within a drainage, this salmon plan will provide information to
that process.
Roy asked if this salmon process will be identified by drainage. Thompson
stated it is watershed -wide. To the extent they have detailed information on
drainages, they'll include it. They'll have reach -by -reach recommendations for
Chinook. They may or may not have that detail for other species.
Fleetwood asked why they recognize that Salmon Recovery Act alone is not
sufficient. Thompson stated the scope of the Act is narrow to the Salmon Recovery
Funding Board funding process. It doesn't describe how a project list leads to
recovery.
Brenner asked what staff wants from the Council. Thompson stated this is
an informational update. In next couple months, staff will need to get into more
detail and lead the Council up to making a decision on endorsing the plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she hoped they could use the Nooksack inventory of
the shorelines that is being done by a large grant project.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated that has to translate
into how they're going to manage land. Shorelines is a piece of it. Those are the
questions that will be on the table in the next few months.
McShane stated he would like to see the draft plan brought to the Council's
Natural Resources Committee at a meeting in February. This will be something that
the Council needs to be educated on. Roll agreed.
McShane stated the management team section in the memorandum of
agreement says the County will lead the land use team. Include the tribal planning
departments on that land use management team. They are listed as part of fish
management, but not land use.
Nelson stated that when the draft plan comes before the Council, there isn't
a land use application for it yet. When the draft plan is made public, it only talks
about target flows and ecological flows. They don't have enough information in the
draft plan to make good land use decisions. Yet that's what impacts the public. He
questioned the public impacts. Monsen stated he would answer that question later
in the presentation.
Nelson stated it's appropriate to work with tribal planning, but questions
whether they should restrict County planning by waiting for other agencies. He
asked if that would preclude the County from proceeding.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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
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.
McShane stated they should deal with tribal planning similarly with the cities.
They are the controlling entity on the reservation. Have a plan for habitat recovery
that depends on a land use plan on the reservation. They shouldn't go forward
until they coordinate with the reservation.
Nelson stated that's fine. He was concerned about being able to proceed
with a process that waits for information that may or may not come forward.
Roy stated Councilmember Nelson is hypothetically saying that it may have
an impact on a lot of people.
Nelson stated the County is clearly responsible for land use. The tribes are
clearly responsible for fish habitat in the streams. However, they impact each
other, so the County and tribes have to work together. However, he doesn't want
to hold up the process because they are waiting for input on land use issues from
the tribes.
Monsen stated he would talk about salmon recovery that has nothing to do
with the WRIA planning process. He would talk about what the interlocal is and is
not intended to do.
In the past, they've struggled with grant funding for salmon projects. More
significantly, the real challenge is to participate in a process to develop salmon
recovery plans. The draft interlocal agreement refers to Chinook and bull trout.
While the County's approach to salmon recovery is for multiple salmonid species,
the end product of the local process leads towards federal engagement in the
recovery of threatened species under the ESA. There will always be confusion
between a Chinook recovery plan for Puget Sound and salmonid recovery within
WRIA 1. Both must occur in WRIA 1. The motivation and process are different.
Brenner stated recovery is in both. She asked if they would have a recovery
plan that acknowledges historic shortcomings. She is concerned they will come up
with a product that is a wish -list, and may not be feasible. Roll stated he could talk
about it in the context of WRIA.
Monsen stated the purpose of the interlocal agreement is to recognize that
there are federal issues involved in the two species listed. There are clear treaty
and status issues with local tribes regarding fisheries. To deal with land use
planning, this agreement intends to recognize that there are technical harvest,
hatchery, and habitat management issues directly related to the co- managers,
which are the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, and the State, and their individual
interests. How they address environmental stream issues and salmon recovery in
the context of land use is based on State and local law. The two have to be in the
room periodically to be mutually compatible. It's an iterative process.
He asked whether or not the direction of the interlocal is reasonable. If so,
he will continue to improve the draft agreement and then engage the cities. This
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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.
draft is a result of a preliminary discussion with the co- managers, who are
comfortable with the direction. He asked if the Council is comfortable with
direction, not necessarily the literal words. The interlocal replaces the
memorandum of agreement and makes the State and all cities parties to an
understanding of that type. Consistent with the memorandum of agreement, it
recognizes the two parties of joint salmon recovery, the fishery co- managers and
the land use managers. Those two caucuses have to work together.
The current draft creates the new salmon recovery board. The focus is
coordination and cooperation. The current draft agreement creates no new
administrative body with money or authority. The agreement also tries to resolve
federal and State administrative issues. It establishes this new board as the new
lead entity for all purposes.
Brenner asked if this board would replace Whatcom County as the lead
entity. Monsen stated it would for salmon matters. This County currently has
limited authority as the lead entity for salmon matters right now.
Brenner asked if each entity would bring funding to the table for the board.
Monsen stated the individual entities on the board would independently do the
things that need to be done.
Nelson stated this board is set up for salmon recovery to get federal and
State aid and to only make recommendations for implementation.
Brenner stated this is a board set up to take advantage of funding sources
dealing with salmon. She asked if there is any other authority or goals of this
board, besides obtaining funding for salmon. Monsen referenced the language in
the agreement.
Brenner stated the language in the agreement is broader. There are many
kinds of efforts besides funding. Monsen stated that when it comes to salmon
recovery issues, one activity relates to an annual grant selection process for State
funding. It has nothing to do with dealing with the requirements of ESA for
Chinook salmon or bull trout. It's a necessary administrative action, but is a small
part of dealing with salmon recovery.
Brenner asked if this is the main focus of what they're going to do, or if it's a
small part of what the lead entity is going to do. Monsen stated it's a small part.
The big part is how a recovery plan is weighted against local land use regulations.
It reviews the plan to see how it can be applied in each entity.
Brenner asked if this is a coordination group for funding, plans, and
everything regarding salmon. Monsen stated it is. It creates a vehicle by which the
local governments can have some form of standing with the tribes in the context of
their federal interests.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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.
Brenner asked if this group will operate on consensus. Monsen stated it
would.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is implied that the people representing each area
of membership will be staff or elected officials. Monsen stated each entity will
figure that out for themselves.
Crawford stated he needs to study this a bit and talk to people about it to
understand the ramifications more thoroughly.
Fleetwood questioned the decision - making process and asked how disputes
are resolved. Monsen stated the intention of the board is to find matters with
common ground so each party can move ahead. There isn't a decision making
mechanism that would require dispute resolution because that presumes there
would be a majority and minority. That won't happen here. This process looks for
areas where they can cooperatively move forward.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Fleetwood asked if it assumes consensus. Monsen stated it does. If they are
going to make a statement that the collective is moving forward on something
together, there must be agreement compared to individuals taking action. If the
County participates, it will state a position and request concurrence before moving
ahead. They'll at least have a discussion.
Thompson stated the board is really two caucuses, the fishers and the local
government. The people in those caucuses have to make decisions amongst
themselves before they can say yes or no at the board level.
Monsen stated that in many cases, it's more difficult for the three co-
managers to agree on a topic themselves and for the local governments to agree on
a topic than it is getting the two caucuses to agree.
McShane asked about the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board funding
glitches. Monsen stated one goal is that this board would have final authority.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the concept. Formalize the stakeholder
involvement by calling it what it is.
Monsen stated the current draft is written to resemble actually how they've
been proceeding the last couple of years. The County and City of Bellingham have
had a productive relationship with the tribes on these topics, but the smaller cities
haven't had an opportunity to engage the tribes directly. This will create that
opportunity.
McShane stated a struggle is the small cities' abilities to staff that type of
position. Monsen stated anytime they create another structure or process, there
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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.
are resource issues. He can't predict whether this process makes it easier or
harder. It creates an opportunity to find ways to allow that engagement to occur,
hopefully without increased staffing. It has to be formed at a level where people
can engage. At the same time, it creates a way for the small cities to engage when
they can.
Fleetwood stated it seems that they can foresee a scenario where two
caucuses with competing interests would conflict when making recommendations.
Monsen stated that as it relates to project ranking, this process is clearer than it
has ever been. The two representatives have the ability to decide, which is more
than they've had to this point.
Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated the binding force to reach
consensus is that State and federal money available to everyone. They will have
timeframes and clear objectives and goals. If they don't achieve consensus on the
projects, then Whatcom County doesn't get the money.
McShane moved to allow Mr. Monsen to move ahead with distributing this
to the cities and to provide specific comments at the next Natural Resources
Committee.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson absent.
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Draft Instream Flow Selection and Adoption Action Plan Update
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated a cornerstone of the
water resource inventory area (WRIA) management project is instream flow issues.
This planning effort includes a technical knowledge base. They went forward with a
comprehensive approach to water resource management in the entire WRIA,
including groundwater, surface water quality and quantity, instream flows, and
fishery habitat. The goal early on was to deal with all these concurrently and
coordinately.
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District (PUD) 1, stated they first attempted
watershed planning on a basin -wide basis with the tribes in 1992. The current
effort is most successful. He showed a map of WRIA 1, divided into drainages.
WRIA 1 includes some of Skagit County and some of British Columbia. It does not
include Lake Samish and the Samish River drainages, which are in WRIA 3. WRIA 1
also doesn't include any of eastern Whatcom County. A significant portion of WRIA
1 and the Nooksack drainage is in the mountainous regions that are uninhabited.
Another significant area is in the agricultural low lands, which is heavily impacted
by human activity. The areas in WRIA 1 that aren't part of the Nooksack drainage
but are important to pay attention to are Lake Whatcom, the coastal areas, Johnson
Creek in Sumas, and the coastal drainages at Lummi Bay and Birch Bay.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, 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.
He read from his power point presentation (on file). They have the most
data for the main stem of the river in Ferndale. A flow duration curve looks at a big
period of record. They can calculate the total volume of water that passes through
the Ferndale Station. The probability of exceedance is the percentage of time that
the cubic feet per second (cfs) flow is higher than that point on the chart, based on
the mean daily flow.
In the summertime, they don't have low flows because the river is supported
by snow and glacier melts. The river also doesn't have high flows because there
aren't major rainstorms during that part of the year. In the summer, there is the
least variation.
The greatest difference in flow is in November. It is the time of year with the
lowest flows and also the highest flows, which are flood flows. The river spends the
majority of its time between 1,000 cfs and just over 5,000 cfs.
The reasons for watershed planning includes the ESA. There are listed fish in
the Nooksack system. They don't have as much data as they'd like on where those
fish are. Listed fish are important because they affect watershed planning.
Watershed planning is also important because humans need water. They got
serious about water law in the 1950's. The Whatcom County population has
increased quite a bit, and there has been an increase in water use. The per capita
use has probably gone down. Overall, they're adding people faster, and
consumption is going up. They need to plan for it.
Another thing that drives the need for watershed planning is current instream
flow regulations. The current instream flow is based on laws from 1971. Flows
were done locally in 1985. The State Department of Ecology's effort was based on
science, but it didn't have enough data. It set a flow that was intended to be a
regulatory management tool more than something they intended to achieve. The
flows are set at two -week intervals.
Crawford asked if the flow was set with the fish in mind. Anderson stated it
was. It was set as a regulatory tool, primary intended to prevent the issuance of
additional rights. In most of the low land streams, the paper rights exceed the flow
in the stream.
One example is that on one particular date of the year, the regulatory flow
was set at the 50 percent exceedance. Clearly the river goes below that flow level
about half the time. That's problematic.
When the Department of Ecology set the instream flow, it also closed a lot of
the basins to further water withdraws for part of the year or all year long.
Originally intended to apply to surface water withdraws. In most areas, the
closures now applies also to groundwater unless an applicant proves the
groundwater has no connection to the surface water. That has been done near a
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 8
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.
coastal drainage. In WRIA 1, there are 544 applications for agricultural rights and
39 applications for domestic and municipal use rights. If addressed today, the
Department of Ecology would deny the applications. There is a need in watershed
planning to address the issue of closures. There's some legal debate about how
that would happen. They have to get through a process that will get the State to
change the issues. They need to address the issues of closures and instream flows.
In certain basins, there is more irrigated land than there are certificates for
water rights. Some drainages have water systems that exceed allowed
connections. There are also water uses in wrong locations, which have not been
transferred.
Brenner asked if un- permitted use means that there's not enough water for
use, or they don't know. Anderson stated they don't know. If the Department of
Ecology were to enforce, it would have to shut down the illegal users.
Another example has to do with the number of documents they deal with and
the dead paper. To be valid, a water right must be a claim, certificate, or permit.
If the Department of Ecology addressed the applications, the claims would have to
be adjudicated. The Department of Ecology doesn't have the authority to
determine the extent of a water right. Water rights identify a point of withdrawal
and a specified place of use.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Anderson continued to state that past zoning and planned growth did not
take water availability into account. The Growth Management Act did not address
it. current water right management doesn't make change easy. Uncertainty about
that affects the decisions of property owners. Getting water to the agricultural zone
is a problem that watershed planning is trying to address.
They also have a problem because they live in a variable climate. The
summers are quite dry. In the summer, when precipitation is at its lowest, the
water use is the highest. The precipitation that occurs during that time of year
mostly evaporates. There is an over - allocation of water rights in certain
watersheds. It's important to analyze the paper rights in those areas to see how
much water is not being used. It's a data problem.
He continued to read his presentation regarding the science used to set the
current stream flow levels (on file).
One question being asked is if the current flow regulations can be
hydraulically supported and are ecologically appropriate. They used to be a
regulatory tool to restrict issuance of new rights. They're using Utah State
University to expand that knowledge base.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 9
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.
Watershed planning is ultimately going to work on storing water to get
watershed flows up. There are ways to do that.
McShane asked if there is an analysis that has gone into the low flows.
Anderson stated there isn't. It is possible to have an agreement about where they
want to get to. How they get there is what they're working on. There is a lot of
analysis needed on the low flows to determine when and why they occur, and the
impacts. They don't understand the trends.
Implementation of the action plan needs to deal with water right problems,
restoring ecosystems, population growth, and management strategies to provide
water for all needs.
Roy asked if the basis for the hypothetical stream flow is based on pre -
human levels. Anderson stated it is not. The estimated unaltered flow duration is
the level scientists would say was the flow if there hadn't been water taken.
Brenner asked if they've looked at what creates the most use that doesn't
get back into the stream. Anderson stated the primary use in the summer is
irrigation. Groundwater is just another storage mechanism that affects the timing
of when water is available.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are trying to supplement low flows from
storage or expressing flows from groundwater. Anderson stated they are trying to
do both. There is a significant delay for groundwater. There are times when they
can pump groundwater in the late summer or early fall to recharge a stream, and it
doesn't impact the stream until it doesn't matter.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they'd have to make sure it doesn't lower wells.
Anderson stated they would. That's where they don't have enough data.
Crawford asked if water from agriculture goes back into the river.
McShane stated it depends on where they take the water out and if the well
is or is not deep.
Crawford asked where the biggest water use goes. Anderson stated the
biggest water use on a given day in the summertime could be on agriculture. The
largest water right is City of Bellingham's. The second largest water right is the
PUD's. There are not many large agricultural rights, but there are many smaller
rights.
Jim Bucknell, Representative of the State on WRIA, stated that if there is an
efficient irrigation system, they don't lose water from the root system that goes
back into the stream. Crops such as berries use a lot of water. There is a large
consumptive use. The plant evaporates it off. More water is used and not returned
to the source.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 10
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.
Crawford stated there ends up being less water overall after water is used.
Jeremy Freimund, Lummi Nation Water Resources Manager, stated he would
discuss how the work is being conducted. He read from his power point
presentation (on file).
In the past, the instream flow setting has been set to one flow. Science has
evolved to consider several flows for sustainable resource. The water quality
maintenance flow is for waste dissemination. Next is the fisheries base flow for
fish. Fish also need a higher, channel maintenance, flow to flush sediments out of
the bed. The riparian maintenance flow is overbank to support riparian vegetation.
Highest is the valley maintenance flow that includes the catastrophic events. He
continued to read his presentation (on file).
Roy asked if they are looking at species other than Chinook. Freimund
stated they are.
Brenner asked if they are also looking at the historic pattern of Chinook
survival. She asked if they know for a fact that there has been ample presence of
fish historically. Freimund stated they are looking at historic, current, and future
conditions.
He continued to read from his power point presentation (on file).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Freimund stated there is management issue overlaps. They've identified
sites with competing uses for water. They wanted to make sure they have the best
available information for making decisions at those locations.
Roy asked if they are studying and getting information on near shore
environments and estuaries. Freimund stated instream flow methodology is for
riverine systems, not estuarine systems.
Roy stated it's extremely important for fish.
McShane stated it's another project.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the difference between intensive versus rapid
assessments. Freimund stated intensive assessment includes a large part of the
reach with high resolution. Rapid assessment sites take fewer measurements and
get hydraulic characteristics of the site. It's much less intensive.
Brenner asked for a large copy of the map of the study site locations, with
crossroads.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 11
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.
Freimund concluded his presentation.
Roll stated the process in WRIA 1 is novel. One of the biggest differences is
the active tribal participation. An early agreement provided a government -to-
government relationship that allowed tribes to work within the context of WRIA 1.
They are going to need to be a forum with a government -to- government
relationship to deal with federal claims the tribes have. They also need to deal with
the State Department of Ecology rulemaking method. There is a process by which
the Planning Unit can recommend flows to the Department of Ecology, which forces
the Department of Ecology through the rulemaking process.
They are using an approach for setting instream flows that they've used with
the Bertrand Creek work. They will go through drainage -by- drainage to come up
with a process that will meet the needs of the community. There will need to be an
overall review to see if the drainages mesh in terms of inputs and outputs.
Brenner asked if other counties are doing this. Roll stated other counties are
working on instream flows, but not using this process. This process is cutting edge.
The approaches of the other counties vary widely.
Roy asked if they are getting actual data on 40 of the 162 basins. Roll stated
they will have a knowledge base for all, some through extrapolation and
aggregation. They won't actually do all basins separately.
They have two pieces of information coming from WRIA technical studies;
what fish need and what out -of- stream users need. This is a circular process. First
they gather the information they need, including technical data and affected
persons. Take that information to various areas. Negotiate with the groups about
the appropriate flow levels. Seek agreement of flow regulations. Come up with
actual recommended flows. Work with community groups to determine how to
achieve the recommended flow regime. If there isn't enough for fish and users,
they will have to create a trade -off between instream and out of stream users.
After reaching an agreement, come up with an action strategy for plan
adoption. Ultimately, that will lead to an adopted, enforceable instream flow
regime throughout the basin. There are three steps that include enforcement,
education, and compliance monitoring. The final step is identifying timelines and
resources to maintain this over the long haul.
There are also legal issues the Council needs to be aware of that would be
appropriate for discussion in an executive session.
Brenner asked for a summary of what other counties are doing. She's
concerned this may get a life of its own and go beyond what is necessary. Roll
stated that information is on the State Department of Ecology website. Every WRIA
is different.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 1:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on February 10 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 1/20/2004, Page 13