HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 29 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 29, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 9:33 a.m. by Committee Member L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MANAGER BRUCE
ROLL REGARDING WRIA (AB2001 -121)
(Clerk's Note: There was not a quorum at the time the meeting was called to
order. Due to an audio malfunction, an audiotape of this meeting is not available.
The minutes are taken from the clerk's notes.)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is the product the
Council approved last year for phase II. A series of reports were generated as a
result of the exercise. An abstract for each product is in the packet of information
he submitted (on file). He recommended that the councilmembers look at the
executive summary of all the reports. That would be the best place to start. Also,
the compact disc version of the document integrates a lot of geographic information
system (GIS) information from the maps. There are two databases, for water
quantity and water quality, that have been established. He is happy with the
executive summary. He recommended that it go forward for approval later in the
month. The goal and timeline are included in the information. As he received the
products, they were distributed to the various technical teams for review. The
technical teams will recommend any additional changes. The document was also
distributed at the last Planning Unit meeting. The goal is to have the documents in
such a state where they can seek approval of the documents in a month, and move
them into phase III.
There are issues related to plan development. Most work to date has been
on acquiring the data. There are other issues that the Planning Unit and Joint
Board will decide regarding the plan development. They need to craft an outline so
they can identify the management options to be looked at under each area or pod,
quantity, quality, instream flow, and fish habitat. They also need to get started
writing the plan, and evaluate the options for each discipline. They need to pull the
options together, screen them, and integrate them into the plan and the decision
Natural Resources Committee, 5/29/2001, 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
support system (DSS). The DSS will create the databases and models to evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
The Council can expect proposals to come forward. One component of the
plan is the need to do an environmental impact statement (EIS) during plan
development. That is critical. That would be a piece of work occurring sometime
this summer or fall. Development of management options is tied to that to also
evaluate the economic and other factors to determine feasibility of options.
A third piece is beginning to evaluate the social and economic issues within
the context of DSS development and plan development. Staff realizes that social
economic issues need to be flushed out more to begin to craft the management
plan that brings the science and social economic pieces together.
A fourth issue is in- stream flows. To date, they have collected enormous
amount of information on in- stream flow. This is the second summer of data
collection for in- stream flow. They must ask how to use the data in the context of
the watershed management plan, specifically the management strategies used.
Look at how the science will be used to create in- stream flow proposals throughout
the water resource inventory area (WRIA).
Dawson asked what kinds of management proposals would come forward.
Roll stated there are variables. Other people will have beneficial uses for instream
flow. The exercise is guided by the values created by the fish people and other
people representing beneficial uses. Ultimately, they will have a range of in- stream
flow information. They will have to have a management structure to manage and
change those in- stream flows as necessary.
Dawson stated it seems that if they don't dredge, water starts seeping
underground. She asked if the in- stream flow then changes, in terms of water
quantity in the river. Roll stated that as the topography changes, in- stream flow
changes. The data is collected, and they have created an adaptive management
plan. As in- stream flows change, they can adapt accordingly. Topography will
change over time.
Nelson stated they wouldn't see a significant change unless they dredge the
entire river. Roll stated he didn't know how to evaluate the impact of dredging.
Nelson stated that dredging of one section only shifts the pressure to another
section. He asked who would assist in the quantification needed for fish habitat.
Roll stated the Joint Board and technical teams would assist in the quantification.
They now propose to have a workshop to ask how to take the data and transmit it
into the management strategies needed to manage water in the WRIA.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/29/2001, 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
Nelson stated there is enough expertise and input to make those types of
determinations.
Roll stated they need to start this sooner than later. They have collected a
lot of data. They need to know how to manage in- stream flow before collecting
more data. There are places in the Nooksack basin for which they have in- stream
flow information. There are also areas in the WRIA where it may not be necessary
to establish the degree of precision in information, because of the lack of people
using water those areas, such as the South Fork.
Another piece is the early data needs that must occur before phase III of the
work. The phase III scope will occur between now and the end of the year. In
anticipation, there are early data needs that must be identified by all the technical
teams. There is still negotiation going on in terms of the data needs that they can
get now with the money they have. There are many opportunities to look at
hydraulic continuity issues this summer with the low flows in the river. Utah State
University (USU) is here in the basin with two field teams finishing the flow
information they needed to collect.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag arrived at 9 :45 a.m. A quorum was
established.)
Hoag asked if Mr. Roll was looking for any action by the committee. Roll
stated this is informational right now.
Doug Erickson, State Representative, 42nd District, stated this is an important
issue. He is dealing with the issue in Olympia. The legislature is in the middle of
the budget process. He asked how much money Whatcom County has spent since
this was mandated in 1998.
Dawson stated Whatcom County has spent more than most.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the first installment of money
received from the state was $250,000. The County received a second installment
of $250,000. To date, the County has spent about $3 million through 2001 for
almost three years' worth of work. Of that, about $750,000 has been budgeted for
the rest of the year, but not spent.
Erickson questioned the amount of money being spent at the County's
discretion, and the amount the state is forcing the County to spend.
Monsen stated the County is taking on all the required elements and the
optional elements. The County has chosen, because of the level of debate on in-
stream flow, to go back and make sure there is good, sound scientific information,
Natural Resources Committee, 5/29/2001, 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
and not simply a philosophical debate. Most of the expense is the gathering the
science behind it to have a true policy -level debate.
Hoag stated the state has not told the County how much money it has to
spend, but has said what the County has to accomplish. That is why the money
has been spent. They've discussed how much money the County has to spend next
year in order to meet the requirements.
Monsen stated a significant number of people have been working on the
water rights issue for the state Department of Ecology. There is a backlog of water
right applications. A question to be answered is whether that is another unfunded
mandate. The County is taking on the resolve to get rid of that backlog at the
County's expense. No one told the County that it had to do this work, but it has to
get done.
Erickson stated that is the DOE responsibility. He asked if the County is
taking on the work that the DOE is being funded to do.
Dawson stated the County needs that information for the in- stream flow
component.
Nelson stated a good question is the contribution that DOE provides to the
WRIA process.
Monsen stated the DOE attends the process. Also, the state Department of
Fish and Wildlife has put greater emphasis on one basin over another. That kind of
resource has not been applied to the Nooksack River compared to the Skagit River.
The data collection is occurring locally.
Erickson stated one of the aspects of the bill was identifying alternative
sources of water supply. He's heard a lot about in- stream flow. He asked if the
County is looking at off - channel water storage and other types of supply.
Roll stated that work is coming this summer. It is the work that needs to
happen in the next few months so the DSS supports those alternatives. It is a
matter of shunting resources in that direction. There is a request by staff to do
feasibility work on management options. The other piece of the budget is that this
WRIA is unique on how the Planning Unit was set up. Other areas were not set up
around caucus groups. This structure required a huge amount of input in terms of
education and assurance that the interests are routed in the process in a matter not
pushed by any of the agencies. This is almost the best structure they could have.
It has forced all the caucus representatives to devote enormous amounts of time
and information to this process. The total cost does not include staff hours, number
Natural Resources Committee, 5/29/2001, 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
of meetings, and other work provided. If they begin to capture those costs, they
would see a huge escalation of the dollar figure to just get stuff on the ground.
Hoag asked if the legislature is able to put strings on the money given to
DOE. Erickson stated that has been done in the past, and those strings have been
ignored by the agency. He thanked the Council and staff for their time. Whatcom
County is very far ahead of the rest of the state, with the most difficult area.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Committee Member
Natural Resources Committee, 5/29/2001, Page 5