HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources for September 17 20021
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
September 17, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Sharon Roy
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
WRIA 1 Institutional Structure for Plan Implementation
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there are two key
elements of implementation: funding and institutional structure. Now, they are on
task for having the plan ready next year.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) doesn't recognize an entity for
implementation, only what needs to be in place as part of the development of the
water resources inventory area (WRIA) plan. Now, the question is what the
receivership is as they move into implementation next year.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated another element of the statute is
plan adoption. The intention is that those governments who need to implement
something must also adopt the plan, and there is an expectation that they will
implement a portion of the plan. For instance, if there's an expectation that the
County will do some portion of plan implementation, the County must adopt the
plan for implementation to occur. Now, the only government required to adopt is
the County. If the City of Lynden has an implementation element, it will also need
to review and adopt the plan. The County wants endorsement and adoption from
all initiating governments (IG's). He's not sure if the tribes will have a definable
implementation element. They will be expected to endorse the plan.
Roll stated there are types of implementation strategies. They can have
elements of more than one category. One type of an implementation strategy is a
state - enabled watershed management agency, which would require some
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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.
legislative modification to enable this type of state mandated regional watershed
management. That doesn't exist right now.
Another type of an implementation strategy is the interlocal government with
a county government as lead agency. That is similar to what Whatcom County has
been doing through the Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514 process.
Three other types of implementation strategies are the interlocal government
with a.) the Conservation District as lead, b.) the state or federal agency as lead, or
c.) a tribe as lead.
There are several elements of successful implementation. Locally, they have
achieved all of these elements during the planning stage. However, it is important
to think about what they need to implement the things they've planned. In the
successful plans nationwide, there's now recognition that problems can be solved
locally. Some of the best plans have been from a local stakeholder process that
comes to a consensus.
There are needs that are basin -wide, throughout the entire WRIA, such as
instream flows. There are also needs that may be more specific to smaller areas,
such as the individual drainages. In the plan, they've identified three areas of more
focus, called detailed management areas (DMA's), as they create the plan. These
three areas will provide templates for other similar areas. There are two
government issues: what they need for globally for data management models, and
what they need for more refined models. Then there become different levels that
need to be considered for implementation.
Having a coordinator at the watershed level is desirable. They have a very
large basin. This item refers to watersheds generically. There are three
watersheds in WRIA 1.
Another element of successful plan implementation is making sure that
environmental, economic, and social values are compatible. A social economic
analysis is being done at Western Washington University. It will talk about the
intrinsic social values WRIA -wide and in the drainage areas.
Another element is that plans only succeed if implemented. One of the
lessons learned from previous planning is that there was no implementing agency.
They are trying to deal with this issue ahead of adoption, so people know what will
be out there.
Partnership with equal power is important in terms of reaching consensus.
There is not a single agency capable of pulling off all the elements of
implementation. The details outline the actions and who has the authority to
implement.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the three watersheds are too much to carry
through implementation. One of the flaws of plans that don't work is if they are too
large. Roll stated there needs to be a core basis of information WRIA -wide. There
is also a need to gather the kind of information basin -wide to begin making
decisions. The next step is to focus on specific areas, depending on the issues and
political will to deal with those areas. They have the three DMA focus areas where
they will get further down the path of management strategies. That sets the
template for how they deal with other basins. The legislation recognizes that WRIA
1 area, so that is the County's mandate. People need to understand what
information the models will and will not provide. They lack data in some areas.
They will have much better clarity in what exists drainage -by- drainage.
Monsen stated there also might be the value to have various levels of
governance. It is a big picture versus a focused area designed to deal with the
issue at hand.
McShane stated the initial discussion about implementation organization
would have some significant impacts, even to Drayton Harbor watershed if they
think about what the County can do. The City of Lynden, the tribes, and others
who agree to this might affect how they put the implementation strategy together.
Roy stated the small cities caucus has said they don't understand where the
process will lead them. Roll stated there will be a response from the Executive
shortly on that issue. That caucus shares the same issue as other caucuses. The
complexity makes it difficult for a single person to understand how it all fits
together. He hears that comment frequently. The small cities caucus asked for
support from the County to help them disseminate information.
One element of implementation is public involvement and understanding.
Understanding will evolve over time. They don't have the roadmap that shows
where they are today, and what will happen in three years. They have goals for the
future. They are creating the technical tools to evaluate the tradeoffs. People are
going to continue to scratch their heads as they continue to evolve forward. The
questions become about what the data reveals and what the policy decisions are to
make sure they are protecting fisheries, have adequate water supplies, and have
creative management strategies. Scarlet Tang has done a fantastic job with public
involvement and education (PIE).
Roy stated the number one issue is collaboration and consensus with
stakeholders.
Roll stated good tools are available in terms of management strategies and
the decision support system (DSS).
Measure, communicate, and account for progress. This is important. They
need to create monitoring strategies that effectively monitor their progress, and
gauge it against agreed -upon benchmarks for determining how they are
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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.
progressing on this path of watershed planning. That is a big piece. As they create
a plan, they need a monitoring strategy for water quality, for example. Through an
adaptive management process, they need guidance to change the plan as needed.
There is information on adaptive management strategies. In his experience,
agencies forget to do this. People talk about it, but it never gets implemented.
People have a plan, and then there is no defined process for bringing it back around
once a year for evaluation and modification. That will need to happen, especially
with the modeling.
Education and involvement drive action. This is a big piece. They are starting
from a state that was segmented and had disjointed interest. Unifying and
coordinating has been a significant task. Also a task has been to get people to
understand their impacts to other people in the WRIA. At Lake Whatcom, they
need to create a cultural change inherent in the population before the resource
declines. Fundamental stewardship principles and education pieces need to be out
there for some time to educate an entire generation.
Build on small successes. One small success is the Ten Mile Creek work done
through the early action grant. It is a story that people often dismissed because it
turned into something much larger, but it was WRIA that helped get it going. More
importantly, it educated the entire planning group on the value of this. As they
start looking at the DMA areas, there are lessons to be learned from small
successes.
Those are the ten elements of successful planning.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that maybe the small cities haven't experienced the
small successes yet. Roll stated the small cities representative said he hasn't had
adequate time with the small cities mayors to discuss this issue.
Roy stated there must be some way to empower these caucuses on a project
level. Give them something to do other than just absorb information.
Nelson stated they need to be a part of the implementation on a small scale,
so they can experience success. The question is where they start to do that. They
don't have the modeling complete to do that yet.
Roll stated they will talk about what they expect to be in the first draft plan.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated they are clear about the
motivation to set up the WRIA process. Now they need to look at incentives people
will need to buy into implementation, other than altruism. It might be helpful if
staff broadly outlines the motivations for starting the WRIA planning process to
begin with, and then try to extend beyond that what they can foresee as the
incentives for people to willingly engage in implementation. Do that in the form of
frequently asked questions. Roll stated that was an exercise they did with the DSS
worksheets with Utah State University (USU) and each of the caucuses. The
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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.
caucuses had to put forward their expectations and questions. They spent a lot of
time doing that. Public Utility District (PUD) 1 compiled that information and the
management options that the groups brought forward.
Nelson stated he was disappointed that this paperwork didn't talk about the
importance of a funding mechanism. An evaluation of funding requires an
evaluation of the overall goal. He asked if there are any examples in which
evaluation mechanisms have been used for economic impacts and funding. Roll
stated they have on a larger scale. Other cases that were studied listed consistent
funding as a key to success. He will get back to the Council about that.
Nelson stated they won't see success if they dump large sums of money, and
then forget about it. There must be consistency. They need to know the economic
impacts of protecting environmental concerns and on industries and the agricultural
community. Roll stated that is a key piece being done by Parametrix. He can't
think of a specific example of an economic assessment in the context of
implementing a WRIA plan.
Roll stated Council packet page 51 is a technical memorandum. A summary
of the caucus scoping meetings addresses implementation. It was used to create
these memos. There is a summary of what the caucuses have to say. This is
where they begin to flush out options for them to consider. The government -to-
government structure was established with memorandum of agreement (MOA)
early in the process. How that plays out in implementation is yet to be seen. There
will need to always be some larger basin -wide government -to- government
relationships.
Fleetwood asked if the Watershed Management Act describes what the
required governing bodies are. Roll stated it identifies the process for planning. It
identifies initiating governments as being representatives of the largest city, the
largest utility, and county government. The legislation includes participation by the
tribes. The tribes agreed to participate in the MOA for this planning effort. That
group created the Planning Unit and identified the stakeholder groups. Other
WRIA's are very different, depending on the issues and who is at the table.
Monsen stated the statute implies a government -to- government relationship,
at least in the formation of the process. They determine the status of the other
participants locally. They have developed a caucus structure, and suggested that
the Planning Unit and participants have unique status. They are not just an
advisory committee. They have a unique status. Other WRIAs have a governing
oversight body with an oversight committee.
Crawford stated the Planning Unit isn't government -to- government. The Lake
Whatcom Management Committee is. He likes the way the Planning Unit works.
They have made tremendous progress on this project.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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 that when he's used the term government -to- government,' it
has been in the context of sovereigns. Those three sovereigns invite participants
and give the participants status. From the statutory standpoint, it is broader and
more inclusive. Some of the debate was how to create status for those sitting at
the table.
Nelson stated sovereignty implies authority and power. The only thing in
government that established authority and power is money. Monsen stated the
concept of government -to- government is a status issue. The concept of
governance is either status or the ability to govern. Financing has significance over
ability to govern.
Roll stated other governing alternatives include an implementation committee.
They are beginning to focus on implementation, and there will be an
implementation committee. This committee will help them deal with adaptive
management issues. There are multiple sub - watershed districts. There is a letter
from the agriculture group, which proposes the concept of looking at drainage area
level management districts. Ultimately, they will need to implement at the
drainage area level. There needs to be an element of that in the final plan. A
WRIA -wide management entity is one potential element to deal with global issues,
such as instream flows.
WRIA 1 Implementation Funding Options
There are options for financing plan implementation. They received
$600,000 from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) as part of their planning
grant. Currently, DOE has no money for implementation. A group is talking about
monies for implementation.
Nelson asked the total commitment statewide from the State. Roll stated he
would find out. It's around $15 million. There is an opportunity for funding for
certain elements, such as alternative storage supply strategies. They will be small
amounts. The planning effort has given them an opportunity to acquire additional
grants. Whatcom County has done as well as any other county in the state. The
monies are there to do pieces of the project, but they are not long -term. Whatcom
County will remain competitive, though, as long as they have some type of
structure and definition of plans, priorities, and unified goals.
Nelson asked if USU and Parametrix are evaluating economic impacts. He
asked when that deliverable will arrive. Roll stated it will arrive by the year's end.
They are refining checkpoints, which has to do with how things are delivered.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson asked if Mr. Gibson has reviewed. Roll stated he doesn't know.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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 he has looked at financing options in general, but not specific
to this.
Roll stated one issue is federal requirements for stormwater for urbanized
areas. That's an issue that will require funding.
Monsen stated they will see program proposals and financing options for the
short term. Now they have a countywide flood control zone district for financing
flood hazard management countywide. The City of Bellingham already has a
stormwater utility fee in place. By March 2003, Bellingham and Whatcom County,
in the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), must apply for a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit under the Clean Water Act, which is the phase
II permit for stormwater management. In addition to complying with stormwater
management issues in that area, staff plans to propose that they consider including
at least the entire Lake Whatcom watershed, not just the Bellingham UGA. By the
time they incorporate that boundary and look at the drainage boundary instead of
political boundary, there are differences in the areas. They are trying to put
together a program to deal with more comprehensive surface water management in
the Lake Whatcom watershed. The Lake Whatcom watershed will be in compliance
with the minimum federal requirement.
Nelson asked how this applies to stormwater management in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. Monsen stated he couldn't provide an answer to that yet.
From an administrative standpoint, being able to apply consistent standards in both
the City and County so it can be regulated is important.
McShane stated the issue is that there are cross - jurisdictional and cross -
drainage boundaries. If they aren't coordinated, the County could thwart the City's
decisions.
Nelson asked if a person in the rural area would be subject to the same rules
as someone with a 5,000 square foot lot. Monsen stated he couldn't imagine that
happening. However, differing locations have a relationship in terms of stormwater
management requirements.
Nelson asked if the coordination used to maintain a uniform standard of
compliance is to scale, or whether the issue is of uniform regulation across
boundaries. Monsen asked to defer that discussion until later in the meeting. In
order to deal with regulatory requirements, they need to revisit and redo financing
in the Lake Whatcom watershed relative to surface water and stormwater
management. Doing that in the near term will influence discussions about other
financing options. A legal test is to not have two revenue sources for the same
activity.
McShane stated he is concerned because they possibly need a planner. They
could go down a certain path for planning. The question becomes how much the
County should fund when the areas will become the cities' UGAs, and if the County
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, Page 7
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.
1 can afford to do those sorts of activities. The Planning Department needs to be
2 involved so they don't charge a fee to those who don't contribute. They need to
3 look at this from a planning perspective, in addition to a financing perspective.
4 Planning can give them direction on where the financing will not be so difficult. The
5 County doesn't want to spend money, but in its planning it can save the City some
6 money. The City deals with all the runoff coming from the county. If the County
7 plans appropriately, the City could build its systems with the idea of planning for
8 the future. There is a need to plan early on for a cost - effective approach.
9
10 Nelson stated Councilmember McShane is saying that he now wants to create
11 uniformity across jurisdictional boundaries. They all agree that impacts cross
12 jurisdictional boundaries. They have not gotten to the point of implementation. It
13 is now merely about coordination of funding and the planning effort. Monsen stated
14 they need a significant discussion on federal regulatory changes in this area, the
15 changing world of flood hazard management, shellfish issues. The steps they take
16 for other reasons will influence WRIA plan implementation, governance, and
17 financing. They will always need to build in transitions for relationship factors.
18
19 WRIA Checkpoint Update
20
21 Roll provided a checkpoint schedule (on file). They've always taken a phase
22 approach for the technical work for USU. They are now into phase three, which is
23 creating the DSS and other models. Prior phases focused on assessment.
24 Parametrix and USU identified checkpoints in each of those scopes of work, so they
25 can revisit and change the scope and timing.
26
27 They have the alpha versions of the models, which are technical and
28 complex. They need to think about how they want to use them for implementation.
29 The community needs to understand how the DSS works so the policy people
30 understand the capabilities and limitations before framing serious policy questions.
31
32 Sue Blake, Resources Planner, distributed a recommended outline for what
33 was supposed to be in the June 2003 plan (on file). It came from the March 2000
34 scope of work that was adopted by all the jurisdictions. They need to be clear
35 about how far they have come along regarding all the different pieces and whether
36 or not there are gaps. She distributed a matrix on the plan outline that includes
37 more detail for each item to be included in the plan (on file). They want to include
38 the implementation strategy in the June 2003 plan, but they need to have more
39 discussions.
40
41 They also need more discussion on the alternatives analysis that is required.
42 In some cases, they will have clear -cut recommendations. In other cases,
43 recommendations will depend on the models. They may want to work with the
44 models for subsequent iterations of the plan. As a staff team, they will take a
45 closer look to see what other people think about this. The key thing is making sure
46 all the expectations are clear about what will be in the June 2003 plan.
47
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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
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.
Nelson asked who would see this document. Blake stated at this point, the
staff team would see it. Ultimately, the Planning Unit and the Joint Board members
would see it. This is a draft working document now.
Roll stated Parametrix would do most of the work of writing the plan. Staff
will do certain pieces of it.
Nelson stated Parametrix will write detailed plans on three designated
management areas (DMA), then the County will extend those three plans to other
watershed issues and areas. They will adapt findings from the three areas to other
areas. Roll stated that is correct. The models are very complex. It is a learning
process for everyone. They need to work on getting the group's expectations on
the models. He recommends slowing some of the technical modeling work so the
community can catch up. They need to talk about who is going to maintain and
keep the models going. Before they get too far, they need to identify how the DSS
will be administered, how the data protocols will look, and create the interlocal
agreements. In the short term, they will deal with implementation elements rather
than spending all the time on the models.
Nelson asked if there is a timeline for small implementation projects so they
can begin to see whether or not they will have results in the modeling process. He
asked if that is possible. Roll stated it is possible in some places. They are now
going from the alpha versions of the models, which are the most rudimentary
versions of the models, to the beta steps, which can be run by a broader audience.
Right now, it has to be run by USU.
Another piece is getting the group to consistently provide the level of
expectations about how and where they want modeling done. They still need the
group and community to do work on that. There will be a certain level of resolution
to begin with, then tighter resolution in places where they have more detail and
better data sets. There will also be places where they need to add more data.
Now, they are determining what the models can provide, given a certain amount of
time and energy.
Nelson asked if they are going to have some form of evaluation of the
impacts on government -to- government relations. He has a concern about the
government -to- government relationship. He understood that the County is the
planning element. The other government -to- government relationships have a
broad role in making this a success. He asked how they will evaluate whether the
other governments are working on the elements of the plan as the County moves
forward. He asked if the County could quantify the successes of the other
governments. Roll stated he hoped so. The staff team will go through the
information from USU. Parametrix is going through the same exercise, so they can
refine their scope accordingly. He will provide updates in the coming months when
he sees a potential change in scope.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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
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.
Instream Flows Update
Roll stated a key element in the watershed plan is to deal with the instream
flow issue. They are gathering the data they need to assess instream flow. The
group is working on an action plan for moving forward with recommendation and
adoption of instream flows. The County staff has helped to facilitate this exercise.
Their hope of having WRIA -wide adoption of instream flows by June 2003 isn't
going to happen because of the complexity. A goal is to have an action strategy
done by October for circulation to the Planning Unit and caucuses. Some elements
have to be worked through, including instream and out -of- stream uses. USU has
been working on development of an ecological flow regime, which is needed for
enhancement and survival of salmon stocks and channel maintenance.
One exercise is to make sure they have necessary data, and then develop
the process for going from having the information to creating a flow regimen. To
date, there seems to be agreement to develop interim flow strategies locally before
considering federal implications of adoption. Before creating federal processes for
tribal rights, the group would come up with a strategy for managing the flows.
That's very encouraging because it considers flows from local needs rather than
other needs that will have to be considered.
McShane asked who would make that decision at the federal level. Roll
stated he didn't know.
Roy asked if the tribes are buying into this. Roll stated he doesn't want to
speak for the tribes. They have had very good process working toward an action
strategy. There is a strategy for recommendation and adoption, to be out for the
public and going through the Planning Unit process by the end of October.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Monsen stated that even if they come up with something reasonable, the
question is how they adopt the agreement so it is binding on all parties. A federal
judge will be involved at some point.
Watts stated federal agencies are glad to see a local entity come up with its
own plan. It's easier for the federal agencies to approve.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they could ask a congressman to
intervene on the County's behalf with the federal government. Ultimately, federal
operations will want the congressman to give his or her blessing.
Roll stated some of the options depend on knowing how much water is
necessary for instream flow. That is an example for adaptive management. Start
with two or three areas and agree on flow levels so they can start working on those
areas. Start thinking about how flows in certain regions influence other areas.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, 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.
There will be different issues in all areas. One exercise is to determine where to go
fi rst.
Nelson asked if they would determine flow regimes for the three DMAs. Roll
stated he hoped so for at least one of the areas.
Nelson asked if temperature is a consideration. Roll stated it has an impact
on how many habitats is available.
2. SALMON RECOVERY
Local Salmon Recovery Governance Structure
Monsen submitted information on salmon recovery efforts within WRIA 1 (on
file). They talked about moving ahead with the local governance issue. He asked
for input from the councilmembers on principles A through D of the information. He
hoped to get any negative reaction about any of those four statements. The
bottom half of the page is the third iteration of how they are to deal with those four
items.
After the last meeting about this issue, the form of the interlocal agreement
described number item five in the information. The idea is to create a forum by
which all things can happen. From a tribal perspective, the issue then was that the
stakeholders coming to that forum don't have adequate status to discuss policy
with them, even though the entire community must be engaged for long -term
success. This is the first attempt to separate the government assembly, deal with
the policy issues, and provide guidance without complicating the on- the - ground
work. Policy level discussion needs to occur to provide guidance so those doing the
work have some guidance. The difference of opinion at this point is that there is a
relationship between the two; however, one does not supervise the other. The
question is whether the government assembly has authority over the day -to -day
work. It does not, but they relate.
Roy asked if they could reach an agreement on how they relate to each
other. Monsen stated he hopes so. They will continue under the MOA with the
tribes.
Nelson asked if the current MOA encompasses the first four strategies.
Monsen stated it does, although the MOA doesn't specifically say that.
Nelson asked if the intent is to formalize sovereignty. Monsen stated there
are two elements. One element is that, at the moment, they have a formal
relationship between the County and tribes. The first step is to participate with
other general purpose governments and formally agree on joint direction on certain
policy matters. The second element is to actively and formally engage the
stakeholders. The assembly is similar to a Planning Unit for the salmon issue. It
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, Page 11
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.
1 brings all the interests to the table to work it out. Now, there are several different
2 forums working on it. The intent is to make sure all the interests are at the same
3 table.
4
5 Nelson asked who is responsible for the shared strategy for recovery.
6 Monsen stated there is an intention to draft a recovery plan that deals with the
7 entire ecological unit of Puget Sound, of which WRIA 1 is a part. The shared
8 strategy is a joint voluntary effort among all the entities around Puget Sound. The
9 ultimate goal is that the species is removed from the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
10 list. The federal government is obligated to deal with it at the level of an ecological
11 unit. The shared strategy is where the federal services are now engaged. The
12 shared strategy is an organization, based on a handshake, between all the
13 participants. There is no legal authority among those sitting at the table.
14
15 Nelson asked if the WRIA 1 is assured that the federal government, through
16 the shared strategies group, would accept its work. Monsen stated there are ways
17 to protect themselves from legal risk, but the County is putting its energy and
18 expectation into the shared strategy process regarding recovery plans and delisting.
19
20 Robin Dexter, citizen, asked the difference between an assembly and WRIA
21 1. He asked why there isn't a technical team on that issue. It involves the same
22 players. Monsen stated that, at this point in time, the two tribes don't want to
23 combine the exercises. They aren't willing to deal with ESA and salmon recovery in
24 the context of the watershed plan. According to the tribes, the two are not at all
25 the same. In watershed planning, instream flows has a direct implication on the
26 success of salmon recovery. They have maintained parallel courses respecting
27 some of the legal and government -to- government issues between them. That is
28 not always simple. It also creates some confusion.
29
30 Nelson stated the groups working in Snohomish County aren't coordinated.
31 In the long -term, they are going to need a coordinated effort to guarantee
32 implementation.
33
34 Watts stated the tribes also don't consider ESA negotiable. By buying
35 everything through WRIA, it might come to that. The WRIA group may agree on
36 things that are not good for salmon, but the tribes are not going to go there. That
37 may be another reason the tribes want to see these issues decoupled.
.;
39 Monsen stated there will be a time when they have to have either a clear
40 description of the absolute relationship between the two, or they will be
41 consolidated at some point. He asked for input on principles A through D.
42
43 McShane stated he's happy as long as a local group decides on projects. He
44 will be concerned if the County or tribes have the authority to begin to push
45 forward their own projects and interests over what is in the best interest of salmon
46 recovery. It is a conflict of interest issue. Monsen stated the early work on the
47 interlocal agreement was driven by the idea of project selection and ranking. This
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, Page 12
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
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.
recognizes that project selection and ranking is only an element of what they are
talking about. This is to deal with the bigger picture, including future land use
policies. Project prioritization is an activity in this context, rather than a driver.
Nelson stated he needs to see the principles. Monsen stated the first version
of the guiding principals is the Countywide Planning Policies, which have been
reviewed and adopted by all local governments except the tribes. They can't
change those without an extensive public process. Start with the Countywide
Planning Policies. They may need to clarify them as to how they apply to the long-
term survival of the species instead of doing a re -write of the guidelines.
Roll distributed information on the Entiat Watershed Plan. Keep in mind that
the issues and amounts of funding vary from WRIA to WRIA. It's difficult to draw
comparisons. A plan is one step in time. There will be subsequent versions
through adaptive management as they come across issues. In June 2003, the
Council will get the first version of its watershed management plan, with the
assumption that it will be refined in years to come.
Fleetwood asked the amount of public comment required on the plan in
2003. Roll stated the plan would have to be adopted by jurisdictions and go
through a public process with the County Council. The legislation doesn't allow the
County Council to amend the plan. If it doesn't approve, the County Council can
only send it back to the Planning Unit for revision.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on October 8—, 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 9/17/2002, Page 13