Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources May 25 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 May 25, 2004 Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson Sharon Roy Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the Drayton Harbor shellfish feed is coming up. He encouraged all to attend. There has been a citizen's petition for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Y Road investigation. The EPA is here this week doing that investigation. They're going to sample in both Y Road one and two, Carpenter Creek, and two control sites on Austin Creek and Smith Creek. They're doing sediment testing. This information will go into a model to rank for superfund cleanup sites. He tried to get as much sampling and analysis done by the EPA as possible so the County doesn't have to pay for it. The County Health Department staff is involved. There will be a report to the County this fall. They will find out potential long -term options for the sites. The backcountry horsemen has a lease to use a trail right now. The report will make recommendations on whether they need to do any additional monitoring or management strategies and on land uses for the site. A memo arrived yesterday from the Governor's water advisor on the State's perspective of what's happening in the Nooksack River and what's been accomplished. The information is fairly accurate and something for the Council to consider. 1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN May 2004 Update on the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the schedule and strategy is still under debate by the Planning Unit. She discussed the history of the schedule and strategy adopted in May 2003. Not all members of the Planning Unit agree with the proposal. Issues of concerns from Planning Unit members are needing more time, whether they should get public input starting sooner, and how the section -by- Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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. section approach would be handled. She needs a recommendation for how to proceed with this item at the Planning Unit meeting tomorrow night. Staff needs flexibility within this framework for discussion with the Planning Unit. The schedule and strategy may get tweaked in ways they can't predict right now. She recommends that staff goes to the table with Council support in allowing staff to be flexible in the framework, as long as whatever they decide doesn't require more resources, doesn't halt the project, and that opportunities for public involvement would be provided as soon as possible. Crawford stated it's all about making decisions to adopt this plan. The main difference is on the discussions to date. It looks like they hoped to accomplish it by late fall, but now it's early 2005. Blake stated the original schedule was based on getting feedback in April and May. They have gotten some comments, but staff hasn't been directed how to adjust the plan. The timeline doesn't work anymore. Crawford stated he would defer to the Planning Unit. It's moving forward. Give staff maximum flexibility since they're shooting for a plan that has consensus. He asked if the different timeframe would be an issue with the Planning Unit. Blake stated there are various perspectives from different members. Some people need more time and some people want to get it done as soon as possible. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he doesn't want to drag it out so that review will cost more and so they can get substantive public comment. He is anxious to get the draft plan to the public as quickly as possible. Brenner stated she doesn't know what kind of flexibility staff wants. Roll stated three recommended conditions for approval of a new strategy and timeline are on Council packet page five. Fleetwood moved to approve the staff recommendation on page five of the May 25th water resources work session packet. Motion carried unanimously. Roll stated there are many pieces of the WRIA plan that are moving forward, regardless of the review schedule. It's not realistic to keep the plan from the public until every piece has been reviewed, which certain Planning Unit members want. Pieces of the plan are going out to the public now. People are asking for and using the information. Addition to Scope of Work for Surface Water Quantity Model Blake stated this is an additional item they're considering adding to the surface water quantity model being developed by Utah State University (USU). Specifically, the topic is whether or not to add a drainage component to the model. It will allow them to look at road and agricultural field drainage. If added, the component will be used to help model historic conditions and it will also be a Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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. component of the surface water quantity model to enable management actions related to drainage. To move forward, they would have to amend the USU scope of work and see if funds are available from some other source. Brenner stated that since money was allotted for groundwater modeling, they should leave it for groundwater modeling. Roll stated he's not proposing using the money allocated for groundwater modeling. One place in the existing budget for USU work would be from a technology transfer for the groundwater model, which they're not doing now. There's a likelihood that, by working with USU and the existing scope, there is a potential for funding that work. The development of the groundwater model is a separate issue. This is a piece of the information they need to know for the groundwater model. There is money the Joint Board can find in its existing budget to do this work. Blake stated the issue before the Planning Unit is not with funding, but whether they want to move forward with this proposal. There are differing perspectives on this topic. Roll stated Henry Bierlink and John Gillies' looked at this component. They felt they can do this analysis. Also, the group has got to proceed work with the models to understand what they can and cannot do. The group is trying to second - guess what the model can and can't do ahead of developing the model. The tribes want this to be done. They want to be able to describe historic conditions. The agricultural community is concerned because they don't want their tile drains to get ripped out. These are legitimate concerns and questions that will be asked. They need to get and work with the models to understand if it is important. One Joint Board member is very supportive of this. The rest are not committed one way or another, and the agricultural caucus is concerned about supporting this. There are many perspectives. Brenner asked that the memos from the Planning Unit, staff team and technical teams actually include the name of a contact person who is authoring the memo. Fleetwood asked why this drainage component wasn't envisioned before. Roll stated it was when they talked about groundwater. There is a single well application model that helps people find where to sink a single well. All the aquifer data is there. The conceptual model for groundwater will come in the next month or so. There is a bunch of groundwater stuff that's done. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 11:45 a.m.) Fleetwood stated one object of WRIA is to quantify the amount of water they have. He wants to be sure that there isn't anything they're doing, by quantifying water in this drainage component, that will compromise the quality of other things such as groundwater. He asked if they're compromising. Roll stated some people want to deal with it now. Others want to deal with it later. One group wants USU Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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. to do it now, while they have an opportunity. Others say they can do it later locally and cheaper. It will have to be addressed as they develop the groundwater model and linked to all the components of the groundwater model. This is one piece of the information they will need. The Joint Board agreed to find existing funds within the Joint Board budget to do it. Brenner stated she won't vote for USU to do this work. Fleetwood stated he thought they'd severed their relationship with USU. Roll stated this would be additional work to the current contract. McShane asked if someone else could do this work. Roll stated the agriculture caucus wants to know fully how this will be used, but they can't predict it, especially since the loudest proponent is the tribe. Also, John Gillies felt that there were so many variables that USU would not consider, which he knew about, that it might not be a benefit if USU did the work. Also, John Gillies has models that are similar and may be more accurate. McShane stated the tribes really want this work to be done. This is technically doable. The one who is concerned is the agricultural community because it is viewed as a threat. It's a useful thing to do. This may be a way to compromise. He would like this work to be done. He asked if the tribe would have a problem with someone from the local agricultural community doing this work. Roll stated it would have a problem with that. McShane asked if the tribe would be willing to work jointly with the agricultural community on the work. Blake stated she didn't know. This is coming up now because of other products that are coming forward. Roll stated one compromise might be to get someone like John Gillies to make sure what they are getting from USU would meet the needs. McShane stated they would need local knowledge on certain things, particularly the drain tiles. He moved to approve this scope of work to be done by someone, but not necessarily by USU. He wants to make sure the Council wants to go ahead with this type of work. Then they can discuss who may do it. Roll stated this is tied to delivery of other components, which is on a tight schedule. USU says it needs to get this soon. Brenner stated she is completely opposed to USU doing the work. She doesn't want to vote to do something USU might do. Do the work locally. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Roy stated this is an issue that needs to be tackled sooner rather than later. She supports doing the work. They can do the work locally. Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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. Motion carried unanimously. McShane moved to approve USU doing this scope of work. Crawford asked about USU's quality of work. Roll stated they've received good products from USU. He's confident they'll receive a good product from USU. Brenner stated she remembers that some of the data they received from USU initially wasn't good data. Dr. Roll is recommending them, and she can't image that he would say anything negative about USU. That bothers her because they did have some very poor quality stuff initially. It also bothers her about the timelines and the fact they didn't do what they had agreed to. There was some problem with quality of work. Motion failed for lack of a Council majority, 3 -2 with Brenner and Roy opposed. McShane stated the Council would like this work done, but doesn't support USU doing this work at this point. 2. SALMON RECOVERY PLAN May 2004 Update on the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan (Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 12:10 p.m.) John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated he would update the Council on the status of the products, the timeline for completion of the products, and the supporting materials that are being prepared. There are two products the Nooksack Tribe delivered in January, including the preliminary draft of the recovery plan and the strategy for prioritizing habitat projects. They got the habitat strategy into a version to develop, review, and rank projects that will be submitted to the State for funding. Now, they are taking the draft plan and putting together the package that will go to the Shared Strategy in June. It won't be a final plan with all technical details and policy buyoffs. The package will be a status report that will identify key actions for the next five to ten years to recover Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Chinook. They will identify the commitments necessary to be responsible for and support those action. Those commitments could be of financial resources or staff work. They will also need a statement of conditions necessary to make those commitments. Making those commitments won't happen until around April of next yea r. Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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 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. In addition, a detailed description of key actions will also go to the Shared Strategy meeting. He submitted a memo (on file). The third piece is the technical modification. In June, Shared Strategy group will take the local chapter and combine it with the other 14 areas in the Puget Sound to come up with a single recovery plan. In July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries technical review team, including representatives from the tribes and State, will review these draft documents for technical adequacy. It won't be extremely in- depth. In August, the local folks will meet with the technical review team about their results. This fall and early winter, they will wrap up the technical documents and start working with a local government caucus to pin down the commitments those local governments will make. The target is to have a complete plan by June 2005. At that time, Shared Strategy will work with NOAA Fisheries to get the complete plan reviewed and adopted. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the handout is good for reviewing what they all will do in the next five to ten years. These are like the top eight things to do. This information and the draft plan has been given to their consultants to work with. Brenner stated one of the leads listed in the project to establish new instream flows in WRIA 1 is USU. She asked if this is something USU is already working on. Roll stated it is. It does not commit USU to doing something new. Thompson stated this version is an early draft. They are in the process of substantially updating the document, including making sure all the lead information is correct. McShane stated there is a fair bit of restoration and recovery listed. He is a member of the Puget Sound Action Team and the nearshore habitat planning group. Their charge in the next year is to come up with a ninth chapter to the salmon recovery plan for Puget Sound, regarding nearshore habitat. A lot of money goes into restoration. Within Puget Sound, there is a significant amount of nearshore habitat that is in great shape. They need to think about how to protect those areas. A tremendous amount of money goes into a certain area, but protection of remote places with good habitat is being ignored. There are many places being degraded that will eventually need restoration. Make sure they protect the great habitat that exists in Whatcom County. The critical areas ordinance will play a role in that protection. Don't forget those areas when it comes to funding. Thompson stated he has been talking to staff at the Puget Sound Action Team about nearshore areas. Within this strategy, restoration and protection strategies are listed for each reach. They know the nearshore is important. They would like to get some folks familiar with the nearshore together to put together protection and restoration priority areas. That information will be useful in planning projects and in doing the shoreline update. Within this strategy, protecting what works well is a high priority. Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, 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 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. Fleetwood asked if the Council is part of any commitment entity, such as the new Salmon Recovery Board, WRIA, or Whatcom County. Roll stated Whatcom County is a part of all three of those entities. Fleetwood asked how the County is able to bind all the other entities when it commits to something. Roll stated that now, they will refine an idea until everyone agrees to it next year. Brenner asked how much of the money the County will be responsible for providing when there is multiple commitments. Roll stated the costs will be shared. There will be contributions from many sources. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that making a commitment doesn't mean that the County must contribute any financial share. Fleetwood asked if there will soon be discussions about allocating money. Roll stated they will meet with that group monthly, and a couple of times in June. They will be working on this for the next six to eight months. They have to understand who is playing what role. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:33 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on June 15 , 2004. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 5/25/2004, Page 7