HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession January 16 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
44
45
46
47
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
January 16, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Connie Hoag
Absent:
Bob Imhof
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
2. SALMON RECOVERY
John Thompson, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Resources Planner, spoke on
the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board. In the first round earlier last year, they
submitted 15 projects totaling $1.7 million and received $1.28 million. The latest
round of requests was for 11 projects totaling $3.1 million. The early word he
heard on Friday was that they got about $2 million. It will fund the first five
projects from the Whatcom Land Trust, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association
(NSEA), Nooksack Indian Tribe, and the Lummi Indian Business Council. The SRF
Board will formally approve the funding amounts next week.
Citizens Committee
There are four empty positions in the citizens committee for salmon habitat
restoration. He would provide an update on where the committee is. The
recommendation is to not fill those vacancies immediately. The County Council
appointed 21 members in August 1999 in response to the Engrossed Substitute
House Bill (ESHB) 2496, the Salmon Recovery Act, that directs the lead entities to
create a citizens advisory committee to solicit and rank projects. The role of the
committee is to implement local and state policies. The main task of the committee
is to solicit and rank projects. One member left the area. Other members have
resigned for a variety of reasons. Now, rather than fill the vacancies immediately,
they recommend developing rational options. There is stuff going on with the lead
entity right now. A lead entity advisory group is meeting next week. There is a
SRF Board meeting also next week. There is a salmon leadership conference this
week. Those meetings will help them firm up the role of Whatcom County as the
lead entity, which would help them tailor who to recruit for the committee.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
45
46
47
48
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that when they originally formed
the committee, the County had already stepped forward as lead entity, which was
to facilitate the exercise. The state now wants the lead entity to play a more key
role in making decisions, rather than simply facilitating a process. The SRF Board
goal is that, whatever the structure, it doesn't want to get in the middle as long as
it works. How it judges whether it works is if there are complaints to the SRF Board
about the local process. On the other hand, state agencies are trying to consolidate
project prioritization processes such as salmon recovery, clean water, and coastal
zone management. The state is looking for ways to consolidate that type of
decision - making. This committee was not formed to deal with that. There is a
conference this week to look at common factors that need to be done in the
decision support system (DSS) in Puget Sound, to roll up salmon recovery. Now
there are dynamics to consolidate these processes and the lead entity to provide
more specific leadership. The County needs more time to understand what is
expected and the alternatives that are out there. This may be an opportunity to
have time to bring alternatives forward, have discussion, and talk with partners,
especially regarding salmon recovery. The County may also be able to find where
the legislature is sitting on this issue. Some legislators want to do away with or
consolidate ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496. The County priority is to maintain success
in making decisions and acquire funding to support those decisions.
Hoag asked what interests the vacancies represent. Thompson stated that
when the committee was originally put together, they tried to get a broad
representation of the community. There is not a set number of positions. They
ended up with 21 members. The folks who resigned include a commercial forestry
representative, two private non - profit environmental group representatives. He
was unsure about the fourth.
Monsen stated the applicants went through a review by the County Executive
and County Council. Every applicant was approved. They wanted to make the
committee as inclusive as possible and to make sure all interests that the statute
referred to were covered.
Hoag asked if the statute specifically lays out the interests that need to be
included. Monsen stated it does. The SRF Board approach is to not verify whether
the interests are at the table. The statute says the interests must include counties,
cities, the Conservation District, tribes, environmental groups, business,
landowners, citizens, volunteer groups, regional fish enhancement, and other
restoration interests. Most of those interests are represented. There are only a few
people who can directly be linked to the interest defined by the statute.
Hoag asked if the interests of the people who resigned are still being
represented. Thompson stated the agricultural people are not represented on the
committee, and it would be desirable for a representative. They want to take time
and talk to folks at the Skagit Watershed Council and find out their structure. The
statute says they must create a committee that does certain things. However, the
statute and reality don't always jibe. There are other interests and desires that are
included.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
45
46
47
48
Hoag asked if the Conservation District is included. Thompson stated the
Conservation District is under a contact to provide support services. It doesn't
have anyone on the committee, but it is participating.
Crawford questioned who resigned. Thompson stated Pat Smith, Ron
Thorneycroft, Brandi Bessire from NSEA, and Curtis Wambach. Another member
hasn't currently resigned yet, but might.
Nelson stated this committee would still work on and identify projects for
various restoration ideas. He questioned whether the projects also go through a
technical review process as well. Roll stated they will.
Nelson stated his concern is how the lead agency deals with this. They could
get so bogged down in minutiae that they bog down the entire system and can't
move forward at all. He asked how to approach this so it doesn't get bogged down,
and how to have confidence in the advisory committee and technical teams to come
up with the projects and get them implementing. Thompson stated a question is
whether a citizens committee could be the ones to generate the projects. The
NSEA team job is to get the job done, not foster the process along. Part of this is
defining the roles. It will be difficult for the citizens committee to have the
expertise to do what the statute says. The way it's been working was that the
applicants submitted their applications to the County as the lead entity and they
were reviewed by this technical advisory committee of agency folks. The technical
advisory committee provided a sorting and summary of each project that was
provided to the citizens committee as technical background. They have a process
that works. They need to define the roles and determine what will be the best mix
of roles locally.
Hoag stated they need to keep the process with the citizens as much as
possible, with technical advice from the technical committee. Since the citizen
committee representation meets the requirements of the law, she didn't have a
problem waiting to appoint the four members. It is important that there not be one
particular group that is driving all the salmon effort in Whatcom County. A citizens
group is a very important part of the process.
Dawson asked if they anticipate the state changing ESHB 2496 to require
more County input. Monsen stated he didn't expect that during this session, but
that the legislature could work up to it at the next session.
1. WRIA PLANNING
Independent Peer Review Panel
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated this item went forward for
Planning Unit consideration. The Planning Unit met on January 3rd and gave its
support to the Independent Peer Review Committee.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
44
45
46
47
48
John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, stated the panel is the entity for
the watershed planning project that will provide independent peer review for
projects. First is the scope of work for phase three by Utah State University (USU).
The names that have been selected were generated by USU and Planning Unit
caucus members over the course of the last several months. The Planning Unit
created an ad hoc committee in November to review those recommendations based
on criteria approved by the Planning Unit. The ad hoc committee went through 32
resumes, applied the criteria, ranked the people, selected the 11 candidates, and
recommended them for approval. The list was approved by the Planning Unit at the
January 3 meeting. He did not have an opportunity for the County Council to
review and provide support for the list due to the holiday break. There were three
representatives on the Planning Unit who abstained for the same reason and to give
a chance for their caucus to approve. The memo provided to the Planning Unit is in
the Council's packet.
Nelson stated he would defer to the ad hoc committee.
Hoag moved to support the candidates. She questioned whether the Council
is approving the full list. Sproul stated it is.
Hoag stated Tetra Tech /KCM is heavily represented. Sproul stated there were
no issues or concerns expressed by the ad hoc committee or the Planning Unit.
Nelson stated he was comfortable enough to approve the ad hoc committee
and Planning Unit decision. He didn't have enough background to make that
decision. They had the criteria and 30 candidates from which they selected. It
went through a selection process.
Hoag stated, without having information on any of these people, all they can
do is hope that the ad hoc committee sees things the same way as the County
Council. She was concerned about Tetra Tech being represented in three different
spots. USU suggested that there be at least two for each category. She questioned
why. Sproul stated it was so someone would be available to do the work. The ad
hoc committee didn't identify who would be primary and who would be back up.
Hoag asked if there was a concern expressed by the Planning Unit that there
be well- rounded representation. Sproul stated there was, but it was not suggested
that there would be an internal competitive advantage.
Hoag stated she was concerned about policy or agenda, not competitive
advantage. She preferred that one of the Tetra Tech candidates be removed from
the quality category. Sproul stated he could provide the criteria by which the
candidates were ranked.
Nelson stated USU wanted people two deep in each category to ensure one
person is available. Only one will work on a project.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag asked they would send out information to all regarding the process. Roll
stated depends on their availability. This project has many deliverables throughout
its process. At any point, the goal is to cover the bases with all areas and have at
least one person who has expertise to review. It isn't the intent that all eleven will
review one project. In terms of who gets information, the group of candidates will
be given background information that provides the context of the project. It will
then become an issue of who is available on the particular date to do the particular
review. It's all a matter of timing.
Dawson stated the documentation is available for the councilmembers to
review. The Council could come back to it.
Hoag asked about instream flow. She questioned how the County knows the
view of the candidates. Sproul stated each comment would be documented. The
response to that comment will be articulated by USU. They will have an
opportunity to look at those comments and make a judgement.
Hoag asked, in choosing the candidate, how they know where the candidate
stands on the issue of instream flow.
Nelson asked what Councilmember Hoag was trying to accomplish. These
individuals don't approach their peer review process in terms of their personal
philosophy. The candidates would use their expertise and provide their best
scientific advice. Don't confuse why a philosophical content will make a difference.
Hoag stated it is not black- and - white. Scientists can have opinions that too
much water has been taken out of the river already, for example, and they should
stop all future withdrawals. If someone on the ad hoc committee agrees with that
philosophy, he or she could be included on the candidate list.
Sproul stated the names were put forward to the Ad hoc committee, who
determined whether the candidate was independent. There were members present
who identified whether there was a particular bias suggested that the candidate did
not meet the independent criterion.
McShane stated the Council saw the entire list earlier and had an opportunity
to add names.
Crawford asked who also abstained from the vote at the Planning Unit.
Sproul stated the state representative and the non - municipal water systems
representative.
Hoag suggested that the Council approve the list, look at this thing, and bring
it back if needed.
McShane stated that the Council would provide comments and see if there is a
problem.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Hoag stated it is a problem to challenge the science. It is better to do it up
front.
Nelson stated this is the responsibility that was given to the Planning Unit. He
is not the expert to select people. He depends on the people in the community.
They're the ones who are going to complain if there are problems.
Hoag stated the community members are part of the Planning Unit.
Motion carried unanimously.
WRIA Early Action Projects
Roll stated an item came forward at the Planning Unit and the Joint Board.
There is an interest in seeing early action projects go forward as they are
developing a plan. This is a proposal for an early action project. It went through
the Planning Unit and was approved.
Hoag moved approval.
Nelson stated in the finance section, it talks about the administrative costs
going to the City of Blaine. Several agencies are going to be working on this. He
questioned whether the City of Blaine is going to take the lead. Roll stated they
would be the contractor.
Nelson questioned whether the Planning Unit has discussed administrative
costs in general regarding projects. Roll stated no.
Nelson asked if there are uniform or set criteria.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated no. They have been working through
project by project.
Role stated the desire is to get the project forward. It is now in the hands of
the Joint Board to figure out how to fund this within the context of WRIA, and then
implement. These are mini - implementation projects.
Nelson stated there are potential problems if there is no set criteria on
appropriate funding uses for administrative costs.
Crawford asked about going through a bid process. Blake stated that was
with the hope that these things would get done quicker than what reality has
shown. They still would like to do this as soon as possible.
is.
Nelson asked if it is a reasonable amount for post- monitoring. Blake stated it
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Dawson asked why Semiahmoo would contribute funds. They are Canadian.
Roll stated they are also in the United States.
McShane stated it was their burial grounds that were uncovered. They have
an interest.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 10:50 a.m.)
Motion carried 5 -0 -1, with Brenner abstaining.
Roll stated there are other early action items.
Blake stated the Tenmile Creek Watershed Volunteer Riparian Restoration
Pilot Program is on the Planning Unit's agenda for this month to make a decision.
In the future, staff will get these project summaries to the County Council before
Bruce Roll gets to the Planning Unit table, so he can take a position.
Hoag questioned whether this is the same program that was presented by
Dorrie Belisle.
Nelson stated it is.
Blake stated this proposal is to help do salmon restoration in a way that
allows farming to maintain its viability. It's a voluntary program. It amounts to
planting riparian plants next to streams while working with the farmers and
landowners next to streams. There would be an advisory committee.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Blake continued to state that the committee would consist of a number of
different organizations and individuals who would help provide the lead on this, with
a project coordinator who would make sure that all of the things that need to
happen actually do happen. This particular piece is for assistance to get a
coordinator for four months. They are applying for grants that would extend the
program an additional two years beyond the initial four months. There are two
sections of the program. One section is a plan for four months, and the other
section is a plan for two years, including money and program.
Brenner asked if people could get involved after the four -month period.
Blake stated they could. If they can make this work, this will extend beyond the
area they are currently looking at, and it can be done countywide. They are at first
focusing on a smaller portion of the Tenmile Creek watershed. The advisory
committee will be instrumental in determining where to expand.
Hoag asked if funding for the four -month period would also be used to get
matching funds for grants for the two -year program. Blake stated these funds are
not to write grants. That will be done outside.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated it is a good idea to start these projects, but he was concerned
with how to apply the project basin -wide, or if this is a pilot project to see if it can
be applied basin -wide. They could end up with lots of people doing a lot of projects
without any coordination.
Roll stated another group is working to specifically answer those questions.
Tom Anderson is setting up a group that would address how to place projects in the
context of WRIA, how to prioritize the projects, and identify the criteria. These are
small early- action pilot projects. They are experiments in showing how the WRIA
group can support a project. They also look at funding issues to come up with a
match. That is coming, but has not been determined on how it fits into the big
picture.
Hoag asked if the salary for a .333 full -time equivalent (FTE) employee is
1/3 rd of 12 months or four months. Blake stated she assumed the position was full -
time for 12 months, but will confirm it.
Hoag asked what legal benefits are being provided.
McShane stated it is not legal advice, it is employee benefits.
Blake stated she would clarify.
Nelson stated he wanted to see these projects going as soon as possible. It
is something. They need to start doing something. The only concern is tying
projects together basin -wide.
McShane stated he had a hesitation on this one. It doesn't fit into an early -
action item. It is hard to evaluate whether they should focus on Tenmile Creek at
this point. This is more for salmon recovery. The project proponents should maybe
go through the SRF Board process. The project wouldn't have much of a chance if
it went through that process. He was not sure if the County is ready for this at this
time. This project is not a no- brainer. They could be doing this in a lot of other
creeks and watersheds. Thompson stated it is an initiative on the part of the
agricultural caucus and Dorrie Belisle. The reason it is coming through the
Technical Team is because the real focus is on water quality. Another sub -basin
may be a higher priority for water quality, but these people live in this basin. They
are trying to provide for the coffee table conversations to get folks educated and
focused on water quality issues and salmon.
Blake stated they want something to be successful. It may not be the
highest priority area needed, but people in the area are willing to get involved.
McShane asked for the staff opinion. Roll stated they are going to see more
cross -over between salmon and other issues. They want to encourage that so
people are looking at salmon at the same time as other issues. A lot of the
outcome of where they go with the management plan will support the best places
for salmon recovery. They will not see a separation.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
McShane asked staff if the project is a good idea. Roll stated it is.
Hoag stated it is important to support because it involves farmers and they
are ready to go. Farmers will be the hardest hit.
Nelson moved to approve the Tenmile Creek Watershed Volunteer Riparian
Restoration Pilot Program as an early action item, with a caveat that all projects be
tied together basin -wide so any future early- action item can be tied to it.
Hoag stated it is a stand -alone project.
Nelson stated his caveat is a condition on how to describe future projects.
Hoag stated she wanted a condition of Planning Unit approval. Roll stated
this approval allows him to support the project when the Planning Unit votes.
Hoag stated she would want to fight for it only if there is Planning Unit
approval.
Nelson stated the system is that Bruce Roll represents the Council's view.
The Council is giving Bruce Roll that view. When the Planning Unit works on this,
and if it doesn't agree, then it is voted down and will die or come back to the
Council in a different version.
Brenner asked if it has been before the Planning Unit at all. Roll stated it is
going out to the members in the next day or two.
Brenner stated there are times when she doesn't want to do something
unless they really want it. However, she was not sure she wanted to put that
requirement on this positive action.
Dawson asked how many property owners are involved. Blake stated they
don't know yet. That is a task for the first four months.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break at 10:10 a. m.)
WRIA 1 Decision Support Worksheet
Roll stated each of the technical teams supplies quarterly updates, per the
direction set in the technical team charges. The Council has the quarterly update.
If there are questions, direct them to the technical team lead or Water Resource
staff.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Regarding the decision - support system (DSS), he was not looking for a
position to take to the Planning Unit. He was trying to get the Council's thought on
where to go with DSS development.
Dawson asked about the final report. Roll stated it is not available yet. They
can anticipate a deluge of reports and assessments from USU that will go through
the WRIA Planning Unit, technical teams, and Councils. The technical scope of work
last year identified tasks. These are the task deliverables. The kinds of products
coming in will go through a process. The goal is to not focus on what the process
says, but to focus on Council input on the review. He wants to have the products
on file at the County Council office for Council review. Some of these are huge.
They are getting to the end of phase two.
Blake stated there is a list of the projects and their due dates, which are due
mostly December through February. For each product, there will be a number of
different versions, which will be draft versions. If the Council wants to provide
input on these documents, the draft version is where the staff needs to hear from
the Council. There will be 31 products. Some may be grouped together. When the
products become drafts, they will go through the product review process. Technical
groups will review the preliminary drafts. Comments would be provided to USU,
who decides which comments are appropriate for the next draft.
Roll stated the preliminary draft is the very beginning of determining whether
USU is on the right path and the appropriate information is included, so they will be
confident that the next draft will have the scope as identified and addressed.
Nelson asked if the Council would go through the final version for review.
Blake stated she would discuss that question soon.
Brenner stated it is beyond her technically.
Nelson stated that is true for all of the councilmembers. He wanted to see
the comments on the original.
Blake stated the updated draft would go to a broader audience for local
review. There will be an opportunity for councilmembers to provide input. Product
and comments go back to USU, who will be obligated to respond to all comments.
Her job is to compile the comments. She won't make editing changes. USU will
review comments and make any appropriate changes in the next version. That
becomes the final draft 1. It can go in two directions. One, it could become the
final document for the Planning Unit and Joint Board approval, or it could go to the
peer review panel discussed earlier in this meeting. None of the phase two projects
are scheduled to go to the peer review panel at this point.
Brenner stated everything is stated to "ensure" outcomes. She was not sure
they can ensure anything. She was concerned that they may find that the projects
are not ensuring the product, and then the County is committed financially.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Roll stated a big piece is the adaptive management philosophy. They can
adjust the process at any time. All the plans have adaptive management sections
so they don't get stuck in a course.
Hoag asked for clarification on who the Joint Board consists of. Roll stated
the Joint Board is the Initiating Governments, which include the City of Bellingham,
Whatcom County, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, and the Public Utility
District (PUD). The title of the initiating governments is now the Joint Board.
Blake stated there are two times when the County staff will need to connect
with the County Council. The draft is particularly important, to have the most
influence. Later versions rely on the peer review panel and technical expertise of
USU staff.
Sproul stated the summaries would be available upon request.
Nelson asked if the Council could have a staff report on each draft. He would
be more comfortable getting information on staff concerns and how it applies to the
scope of work.
Hoag agreed that one copy be provided to the Council office.
Brenner stated she preferred having a presentation.
Blake stated it is a timing issue.
McShane stated the purpose is to make rational decisions about where to put
resources in the future. Some education of what the draft means would be
beneficial to the Council. It doesn't need to be tied to the schedule or to the
Council's comments. He didn't want to interfere with the timeframe, but wanted to
keep councilmembers in the loop.
Nelson stated he would be happy with a summary in email format.
Roll stated USU is providing an executive summary with each product. The
Councilmembers will get that summary. The summary gives a context of each
project. He encouraged the councilmembers to look at that summary.
Brenner stated a concern with a written summary is that she would not
understand it if it were too technical.
Crawford suggested putting the summaries on the website.
Roll stated he would make available to the councilmembers a copy of the
product and the timeline. At the same time, the councilmembers would get a hard
copy and an electronic version of the summary. With that would be the timeline for
comments for the draft. At same time, he would present any issues that staff has.
If the Council doesn't hear from staff, then it should assume it's okay.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
48
Brenner stated she was uncomfortable with receiving just a written copy.
She needs a summary discussion.
Nelson stated the Council will get many summaries and won't want a
presentation on each one.
Roll stated staff would keep the Council informed. Many products feed into
what they do in phase three. There will be an approval process for phase three.
The Council will not lose an opportunity for keeping in the loop.
Nelson asked if phase two is primarily data collection. Roll stated yes, and
also assessment.
Nelson stated they would tweak it to their comfort level.
Roll stated the DSS is the culmination of USU's work. They are hitting all
constituencies with questions to take WRIA from a huge area and begin to narrow
down the issues. With a WRIA this size, they would go bankrupt if they answered
every question. These exercises will take the scope, begin creating the framework
to answer the four issues of quantity, quality, habitat, and instream flow, and also
narrow it down to specific areas. It will begin to break down different areas of the
watershed to look at land and water issues. The intent is to narrow the bigger
issues to specific things. They are trying to slowly home in on the issues. All the
other groups are doing the same thing. USU provided a worksheet to flush out
information they need to develop the DSS. Staff would work through the sheets,
and bring to the Council an example of staff's response. It went through the Water
Team. This is a compilation of County Water Team and Water Resources staff.
Blake provided a sample worksheet. This is different than what they've seen.
The staff talked about trying to be clear about their hopes and expectations through
the process. They heard from USU that, if the County is not clear about the
expectations, they might find that the expectations don't get fully met. The County
needs to be as clear as possible. Staff feels that the water quantity issues are a
major driver in this effort. This is an iterative process. This worksheet is focused
on a bigger perspective focusing on the four components of quantity, quality,
instream flow, and habitat.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Roll stated each caucus has been working on this. Look at the perspective
only. He was not seeking specific direction.
Blake stated Part I is a section that outlines the current understanding of the
situation and if there is a particular outcome or goal. The first thing to see is the
goal, taken from the adopted March 27 scope of work. At this point, they are
starting to hear from USU on their interpretation of the water quality problems.
This provides a snapshot, recognizing there will be more information to define the
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, 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
45
46
47
nature of the problem from a water quality standpoint. Part I defines the issues
around the solutions. Staff thinks this is not just about assessing the problems, but
also about finding solutions. They need to understand what the solution options
might be.
Brenner asked if quantity is the highest goal. Blake stated they could come
back to that question.
The first section of Part I describes what they are shooting for, the nature of
the problem, and the decision -maker solution. It is fairly generic.
Part II is the management alternatives and includes four sections. The first
section addresses the potential initial conditions, which are the natural human -
caused conditions that influence the problem. The next section is about the
background natural conditions. It also illustrates the human - caused conditions, but
also addresses naturally occurring items. The third section is about the specific
actions, policies, and beneficiaries. It notes things that have to be done, based on
the March 27 scope of work. They have to develop a recommended approach for
implementing total maximum daily loads (TMDL). There are other things besides
TMDL's that they may want to pursue. The fourth section is the management
alternatives or scenarios, which will be completed later.
Part III is about the assessment needs. It has a number of sections as well.
The first section is about the performance measures, which are how they know
they've gotten to the goal. They would define the minimum that has to be
accomplished. The next section is about the focus areas that they want to target.
This is where they home in a bit on areas for consideration. They can't do
everything in the entire WRIA all at once, but can set up a DSS to do all the areas,
phased in. One focus area is Lynden North, including the Kamm Slough, Bertrand
Creek, and Fishtrap Creek watersheds. There are many people who get their
drinking water from that area, and there are problems, such as known nitrates.
The Frasier River focus area is another high priority area. They are looking at it
from the perspective of whether there are opportunities in that area. There is little
development, it drains into Canada, and it is open for water rights. They are asking
if some water quality and water quantity issues can be addressed in that area.
Hoag asked about an inter -basin transfer. Blake stated an inter -basin
transfer goes from one water basin to another.
Nelson questioned whether the DSS Worksheet on Water Quantity was
provided only for an example of how the DSS worksheets work. Blake stated it is
for use in making sure the DSS is set up in a way to accommodate the questions
that might be asked around these kinds of areas and topics.
Nelson stated they are problem - solving scenarios and decision - making
processes. Part I defines the problem and collects the facts and assumptions for
that problem. Part II is to establish all the criteria. They don't want too many
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 13
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
48
criteria, otherwise the matrix will become too convoluted, and a decision won't be
achieved. They have to outline how specific the criteria will be.
Roll stated they also want to make sure that they home in and collect
sufficient data in appropriate areas to provide technical data.
Nelson stated they are not reviewing that now. He didn't want the
councilmembers to think that this is being done now. This is only an example of
the process. The military goes through this process. USU is pushing for the DSS
worksheets so they can provide answers. They have to do a statistical analysis of
the information provided, based upon the WRIA's desires. They will produce a
course of action for the problem. Blake stated USU would come out with a way to
evaluate options. The template they are creating needs to have enough pieces to
evaluate the options.
Dawson questioned the storage options.
Nelson stated they are not there yet.
Hoag asked if staff was looking for comment and direction on the template
worksheet. Roll stated he was hoping to hand off the content of the worksheets
with comments to USU after they've been through the Planning Unit. They are not
looking for answers to the template. They are looking for the content of water
quantity.
Nelson stated this isn't the final look. It's an idea of how to put the materials
together that they will submit to USU.
Hoag stated she wasn't prepared to give comment on the water quantity
worksheet.
Nelson agreed. He questioned when the comment is needed.
Dawson asked if the section on sediment problems includes natural migration
of the river. That is a major sediment problem. Blake stated it could be added in.
Hoag agreed. A number of people living along the river have expressed a
concern about migration.
Blake stated the other two areas are the South Fork, because of the chinook
issues there and the known water quantity problems, and the Lake
Whatcom /Middle Fork area.
The third section of Part III is the timeline of proposed actions. The TMDL
study is the only action with certainty because it is established as a five -year cycle
by the state. For the other actions, the timelines depend on what is involved.
Some things may require technical work, and other things may require policy work.
It is difficult to speculate on the timeline.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 14
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
48
Dawson asked if there are alluvial fans along the south fork of the Nooksack
River. Thompson stated they would look for sediment sources tied to land
management.
Brenner asked if they are trying to figure out what man has done to make
the problems worse. Blake stated that natural sources need to be considered.
Dawson stated that maybe certain parts of the river should not have fish
because of the natural conditions involved. Thompson stated the natural
background conditions could be a limitation. Part of the DSS is to pull that
information up when developing alternatives. The DSS will help develop the most
effective strategy.
Hoag stated it's not okay to define a background of naturally occurring
sediment, and then limit sediment to what naturally occurs. Some naturally
occurring background sediment needs attention. River migration is naturally
occurring, but it doesn't have to occur. It isn't fair to say that anything naturally
occurring is okay. Thompson stated that is why it is important to develop the DSS,
to ask the right questions up front.
Nelson stated a criterion would be having a way to protect farmland.
Hoag stated an appropriate question would be whether there are naturally
occurring situations that are contributing to the problem and where intervention
would improve the problem.
Brenner stated they can ask those questions and come to a conclusion, but
the state and federal government may not let them tamper with those things.
Nelson stated that would come out under the facts and assumptions. Now,
they need to start looking at the materials and provide comments to staff.
Councilmembers don't have to agree on them. It will be flushed out by USU.
Blake stated USU would provide the tools to weigh the options.
Thompson stated the big deal with the DSS is to integrate all the questions
to develop a range of alternatives. Part of the information base will have to include
considering the regulations.
Hoag stated that if they are just looking for an objective answer about
whether or not things can be done, even if it doesn't match current regulations,
they can use it to change the regulations. They should look at all options even if
they are not allowed.
Monsen stated one activity is looking for where the solutions are heading and
how they relate to regulation to begin confirming that there may be problems in
implementing a solution.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 15
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
48
Brenner asked if there is going to be someone from the federal government
assigned to help the County. Roll stated they have a federal representative who is
analogous to Jim Bucknell as the state's representative. He serves as a Planning
Unit member.
Nelson stated the Council is being asked to provide information, and
questioned whether staff needs direction now. Roll stated he wanted to know of
any potential problem areas.
Nelson stated this is a decision - making process for the future. The question
is whether this is the process they want. This is exactly what they want for this
process.
Hoag stated the staff is not asking the Council if it likes the procedure. Staff
is asking the Council if it approves of the way the worksheets have been applied.
Regarding water quality, she was concerned over consistent bio- cumulative toxins.
She hadn't seen them addressed in terms of public or private water supply or in the
preliminary draft. Roll asked if there is a specific class of toxins that she was
concerned about.
Blake questioned whether referring to what the state Department of Ecology
(DOE) has come out with as a list.
Hoag stated DOE has a list of nine. Another group had a list of 27. Things
are documented as building up. Because drinking water is something that is
ingested constantly over a long period of time, the bio- cumulative toxins should be
looked at. She questioned whether they are present and if they are a concern that
needs to be addressed. The State Department of Health tested her well and found
hydrochlorobenzine. Her well had a chemical in it that she wasn't familiar with.
When she checked with the state Department of Ecology to find out about the
chemical, she was told it could have come from a number of agricultural sources in
the area, and it wasn't a problem because of the small quantity. However, it was
on the Department of Ecology's list. There is a gap there.
Roll questioned whether Councilmember Hoag was specifically interested in
the bio- cumulative effect in humans only.
Hoag stated yes. She wanted to know whether the municipal and private
water supplies have bio- cumulative toxins present in them.
Nelson stated these are the comments that need to be provided. They don't
have time to go through all the concerns today. There are many issues on the four
components, and they don't have enough time to go through them.
McShane questioned whether the concerns and issues should come from
each councilmember independently or from the Council body.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 16
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
Nelson asked if this could come to Natural Resources Committee, if needed.
He asked if it matters whether the Council approves the issues. Roll stated it would
matter as they begin to talk about resource allocation for particular areas and
things they want accomplished. They have a month and a half to do this.
McShane stated he didn't want one councilmember to focus on something
that the rest of the councilmembers don't care about.
Hoag stated it was better to do it as individuals because a particular
councilmember may have particular information about their area.
Brenner stated there is limited funding and resources. Do both. Bring
concerns to the Natural Resources Committee for Council support. Those issues
would be the higher priority. They could also submit the individual comments.
Nelson stated that if there are comments that have significant impacts, they
could be brought to the Council by staff. He didn't want something to be ignored
because there are not enough facts and assumptions to support it. They could
have a Council discussion on it at that time to get a better understanding of the
issue. There are different issues in different areas of the county.
Brenner stated that if a councilmember has something that he or she feels
strongly about, the item could be scheduled for a discussion at the Natural
Resources Committee.
McShane stated he was open to that option.
Brenner questioned whether water quantity is the most important. Roll
stated he would discuss that soon.
Crawford asked why the DSS items don't correlate specifically with the scope
of work items. Roll stated that there are four components they are required to
address. This is the proposed way to present it.
Blake stated it is consistent with the March 27 scope of work. There was a
technical breakdown by USU.
Roll stated the Water Team asked which areas they need to get sufficient
data in the first version. They talked about issues of availability. That is the critical
issue right now, not the issue of allocation. They asked if they are going to create
enough information during the data assessment piece to make those hard
decisions. If another area is not as important, then there may not be as much data
collected. They are interested in what's available in the context of water quality
and instream flows. Staff is homing in on quantity to make sure they get some
good answers on quantity. The data collected is helping to home in on that
information. It may come at the expense of other instream flow areas.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 17
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
48
Brenner questioned whether quality is not as important as quantity. Roll
stated it is not.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 12 :30 p.m.)
Sproul stated the water quantity DSS worksheet is identically structured. It
follows the same outline. The Water Team brought forward its comments and
concerns in the context of what they already know historically and also what
they've already agreed to. The format was created by USU. The goal of the water
quantity component is to assess the water supply. It follows specific language in
the adopted scope of work. If there is add -in language from the councilmembers,
he asked that it be provided. Council directed staff and the Water Team to fill these
out. At that time, Councilmember Brenner asked if other caucuses were doing the
same. They are. He is collecting that information from the caucuses.
Nelson asked if they are looking for possible solutions, or for facts and
assumptions that need to be considered. Sproul stated he was looking for all.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Sproul continued to state that the overall general categories in Part I is
description of the issue. Part II is Management Alternatives. Within Part II are the
human conditions of influence and natural conditions of influence, which are
background conditions. Part II also includes the policies and beneficiaries. Part III
is the assessment needs, which are specifically drawn right out of what was agreed
to in the March 27 scope of work.
Dawson stated there was a message of conservation incentives. A
disincentive for conservation is the "use it or lose it" provision.
Sproul stated the Water Team spent time articulating these thoughts in the
context of focus areas. They will see consistency throughout the focus areas.
Nelson asked if they are concerned that the decision - making process would
have to encompass all focus areas. He asked if all focus areas are universal in
application. Sproul stated no. They might find in each category that there may be
different levels of each category, if they agree to advocate those four components.
Blake stated there are some elements that are common throughout, and
others that are not.
Hoag stated the water quantity worksheet says to make sure there is water
available for energy construction, which could be construed in two ways. One way
is to make it available for power plants, and the other way is to make it available
for dams or hydropower. She wanted to make sure that it wasn't for power plants.
In Whatcom County, there are dams that are on rivers that flow out of Whatcom
County. She asked if they are part of WRIA 1, such as the upper Skagit River.
Thompson stated it is part of WRIA 3 and 4.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 18
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
Hoag asked if WRIA 1 does not need to address it. Sproul stated that was
correct. Whatcom County deals with WRIA 1 issues only.
Hoag stated it has to do with the water quantity available for fish. She was
not clear on where the lines are drawn. Sproul stated the storage site is in the
WRIA.
Thompson stated they are at Baker Lake and Ross Lake.
Sproul stated the issue is implications of power outside of the WRIA. The
source of the water that generates the power is within the WRIA, and is then an
issue of quantity and availability.
Monsen stated WRIA 1 is the Nooksack Basin, plus the smaller basins along
the shoreline and Canadian border. It is not further east.
Hoag stated the Water Bill kept talking about use and recycling of gray
water. However, health regulations run the opposite direction. She asked if it is
appropriate to look at existing regulations. Blake stated they have to look at that.
It's a piece they need to know about.
Hoag suggested that staff look at whether regulations stand in the way of
reusing gray water.
Nelson stated the Councilmembers would provide input to staff.
Hoag questioned her residential area. Sproul stated Councilmember Hoag
lives in the Lynden North area.
OTHER BUSINESS
Roll stated that they would discuss the long -term financial strategy for WRIA
during the next work session. They are now acquiring the information as they go.
The councilmembers will not get specific information ahead of time. He would bring
the latest information they have to the meeting.
Nelson asked if the WRIA funding for 2001 went to the Planning Unit to
create their budget, and how the funds will be used. Roll stated the Planning Unit
would use the dollars per the scope that has been defined so far. Predominately,
there is the cost of USU and some stream gauging work.
Roll continued to state that there were a couple of caucuses that had
questions about whether there was enough money. An ad hoc committee resolved
the issue and will put forward applications in March. The ad hoc group
recommended that the caucuses apply as soon as possible, so they can get on with
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 19
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
deciding what the need is and who needs it. There are still some constituencies that
feel the funding is not sufficient to meet the needs.
Brenner asked if the caucuses understand the Council's position.
Sproul stated they don't like it.
Roll stated the collective group sees it as positive.
Hoag stated specific water quality doesn't apply to multiple areas. Water
quantity applies to multiple areas. They need to look at water availability for the
farmers. Sproul stated the reality is that there are people who are still sitting
where they are. After the first iteration, they will have to be patient until the
subsequent iteration of the Watershed Management Planning process. It will be
difficult for some people to accept.
Hoag asked how feasible it is to include the Sumas area as a focus area.
Sproul stated the Planning Unit advocated for that as well. It would be an easy sell.
The struggle will be how broad the demands and expectations are for all the
caucuses.
Hoag stated that area isn't represented by a lot of caucuses, but mostly the
agricultural caucus. Sproul stated this is something that is a question for the
agricultural caucus representation. That is a challenge within that caucus.
Hoag asked if it was possible to do both. Roll stated it depends on how much
information is needed.
Hoag asked if the Sumas - Abbottsford aquifer is closed. Blake stated it is.
Hoag suggested that they look at the Sumas drainage area. She was
concerned that the Lynden North focus area is being influenced by interests who
are looking to develop in Lynden. The people in the Sumas drainage area are being
overlooked because they are not adequately represented. There is only a single
interest there.
Nelson questioned whether Councilmember Hoag was making a motion for
the Whatcom County caucus to go back to the Planning Unit and add the Sumas
drainage area as a focus area under water quantity.
areas.
Hoag stated that was her motion.
Roll stated they would add it to the DSS worksheet that it be one of the focus
Dawson stated they don't need a motion.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 20
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
Nelson stated the Council is providing direction to staff, and it needs a
motion.
McShane stated this goes back to his initial question of whether they put
forward concerns as individuals or as the Council.
Nelson stated this is going to the Planning Unit. It is a request to the
Planning Unit.
Roll stated it would get to them indirectly. Everyone will see it eventually
because everyone will see what everyone else is writing on the DSS. This isn't
something that they will take specifically to the Planning Unit. This is the County
Council's worksheet.
Hoag questioned whether there is support to add the Sumas drainage area to
the water quantity DSS worksheet.
Nelson stated staff would already add it.
Brenner stated there is Council support.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 6-, 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 1/16/2001, Page 21