HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources April 4 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
April 4, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE FORMATION OF A SURFACE
MINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SMAC) (AB2000 -069A)
McShane stated the membership for the Surface Mining Advisory Committee
(SMAC) was hammered out at the last meeting. It will not go before the Council at
this evening's meeting. He wanted information about the action items, how often
the committee shall meet, and the appointment process.
Hoag stated that in the proposed ordinance, on Exhibit A, the membership
did not accurately reflect the vote that was taken during the last committee
meeting. It is missing the position assigned to a citizen not living near a quarry.
Also missing are actions for the SMAC to do, which were discussed at the last
meeting. One of the items mentioned was to specifically look at quarries. This
ordinance doesn't say anything about quarries. Also, the citizens requested that
the SMAC review regulations of other communities and the list of Comprehensive
Plan items to see if there are any other items that have not been implemented.
She suggested adding language after action item eight, "In addition to these action
items, the Council would like the SMAC to review the regulations of other
communities, the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that were brought forward
by the citizens, and problems currently being faced by staff and constituents to
solve the problems." In addition, they discussed having the SMAC look at the
County's development regulations on reclamation and review fill and grade permits.
McShane stated that falls under the different things the staff is doing now.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that is correct. Staff has
several issues with the development regulations in which they would like to work
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
with the SMAC to resolve. That issue is one of them. He suggested looking at a
more encompassing definition of a mine.
Hoag stated they also mentioned the review and enforcement by the state
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding reclamation.
McShane stated that falls under action item number five.
Hoag stated it would be helpful for the SMAC if the Council lists specific
items. Also, there was discussion about the state Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) being involved with the DNR study, and adding an ex officio member from
WSDOT. There was a comment from a citizen about wild hemlock in the pits.
There was a question of whether or not there was appropriate staffing. Those
items could be summarized under action item number eight.
Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, distributed information (on file). There
is a section in his information that deals with Planning and Development Services
Department adjustments to operations. There are also suggestions for general
regulatory revisions. There is also information on specific regulatory provisions to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. Most of everyone's comments are addressed
in his information. One issue not included in the draft ordinance is that they are
not only concerned about impacts and conflicts to neighbors, but they must also
deal with environmental impacts. The issue is whether surface mining has come
into compliance with the goals of environmental protection. Impacts need to be
dealt with. The SMAC's charge ought to include the entire realm of environmental
impacts, which are ignored in current regulations. That would correct information
about impacts on aquifers, pipelines, flooding, and other issues. There will be
pressure to get more gravel out of the rivers. He tried to delineate all the
information the committee could pull together and review.
Nate Kronenburg, 2351 E. Pole Road, stated the concerns center around
performance standards and development regulations. Those areas have been
neglected and are not in the ordinances. Under all that comes the problems with
noise and dust. The large areas are performance standards and development
regulations. A third issue is reclamation. DNR suggests that this should be a
County function. The County says that it is DNR's responsibility to look after
reclamation. This would be a big issue for the advisory committee to look at.
McShane stated some of the action items are broad. He asked if reclamation
is covered in any of the action items, or if it should be separate. Kronenburg stated
it should be separate. He wanted a specific mention of the issue of reclamation to
be taken up as a separate item. It has been ignored over the years. There are
many problems to look at in that area. It may be valuable to have a DNR person
attend to let the SMAC know exactly what the DNR role is.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
McShane agreed that he felt strongly about reclamation. He has concerns
about DNR's ability to have pits reclaimed appropriately. That is unfair to pits who
reclaim properly.
Kronenburg stated the SMAC needs to study the issue of recreational lakes
and their possible dangers. It would be helpful to have a DNR person available as a
consultant to the committee.
Hoag stated some of the citizens took the time to go through a detailed
review of what was missing and had not been acted upon. Since the citizens made
that effort, it makes sense to make sure those items are being implemented
separately.
Tom Brown, Deming, questioned whether citizens brought forward a specific
list regarding the action items that have not been implemented.
Hoag stated a letter came forward and instigated this discussion.
Brown stated it sounds as if the Council is going back to revisit the
Comprehensive Plan policies.
Hoag stated these are things that are in the Comprehensive Plan and that
the citizens say are not being implemented. She would provide a copy of the list to
Mr. Brown.
Brown stated the SMAC should spend time reviewing the complaints that are
generating this discussion. It should be a priority of the SMAC to look at the
complaints and determine if they are something that could be addressed with
current regulations or if additional regulations need to be implemented. The SMAC
should look at the source of the complaint. The SMAC should determine whether
there is legislation already in place, or if it is about a lack of enforcement or
regulation. There is a Noxious Weed Board on staff who is supposed to investigate
the complaints regarding the poison plants. They would have the work done, or do
it and bill the landowner. If a seed is coming in, it is coming from outside an area.
Rather than blaming the landowners for the noxious weed, blame should be placed
on the fact that it is coming in from outside the area. There are already regulations
in effect for this. Regarding noise and complaints, he reviewed the noise values in
the County code thoroughly on another issue. He didn't see how they had to add
more regulation. The County only needs to enforce the existing code. The SMAC
needs to look at the root problems. He requested that Mr. Skinner's information be
put into the file. One recommendation was to invalidate a pit that had been
inactive for a certain period of time. However, it is ideal to have low intensity pits
that would fill a cycling function. He would hate to see everything required to be
producing 100 percent.
Hoag stated they need to see the merits of the proposal.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Brown stated he would like to see the proposals.
Don Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, stated he brought up the hemlock issue.
Within a day or two of bringing it up, the County went to the location. The County
sprayed the poison hemlock and got a 99 percent kill. The problem is, in his area,
there is a small access road. The hemlock seeds infected a small portion of his
land. The County missed a bit on the County berm. That is a matter of coming
back out to touch it up. The hemlock is dangerous and has killed in Whatcom
County, so it is an issue with pits. He talked to Alvin Starkenburg, who said it was
not a concern in his area. Nielsen didn't know where the seed came from. When
the County purchased the pit next to his property, it was trees and farmland. The
County was in the process of developing the property by crushing and bringing in
gravel for oiling the roads. He talked with the Parks Department. He suggested
they strip it, berm it, and save it. This was done, and then the weeds came. They
are not that bad in pits in the north area of the county, but they are a problem.
When sprayed, a combination of three herbicides was used. It produced a terrific
kill.
In his neighborhood, there is a report from the County Engineering Division
stating the width and shoulder size inadequacies of his road. It takes time for the
County to develop the roads. The Siper Road, coming off the Hopewell Road, which
comes off the Goodwin Road, is a corridor road. It is very narrow. They have a
dangerous situation. At the corner of Hopewell and Goodwin roads, a lot of rock is
coming off the hill. The trucks cannot make this turn without crowding the shoulder
and ditch. The SMAC has to understand and look at access if there are going to be
more pits. Traffic crowds the roads over the winter. The Hopewell section is very
short. It is evident that these trucks are forced to turn before the stop sign cross
mark. The situation is compounded by the three school districts, Mount Baker,
Nooksack Valley, and Lynden- Christian, which use it during the daytime. During
the daytime, there are extra buses from Mount Baker School District that transport
disabled and special education children. The SMAC has to look at the infrastructure
needed for the gravel industry.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, spoke on the function and the
purpose of the committee as laid out in the Exhibit A. It is laid out very clearly.
The SMAC is to look at action items of the Comprehensive Plan. The function is
consistent with the comments they've been hearing. Her concern with the things
that have been brought up today is that it expands the function outside of the
purpose. What they are talking about, looking at quarries, looking at other
community regulations, looking at the Comprehensive Plan items brought up by
citizens, reviewing problems with staff, regulations for reclamation of three acres or
less, fill and grade definitions, and enforcement of DNR reclamation plans, are
getting into what is laid out under the organization of the SMAC. She suggested
that the action items cover the function of the SMAC. The Council can give the
SMAC four priorities, not exclusive of other issues. Most of the issues brought up fit
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
under action items five or three. The SMAC could be given the minutes and the
handouts from these discussions to decide how they are going to move that
information forward and how they will prioritize getting stuff done within the
framework. A laundry list of everything that was discussed in the last six weeks
does not belong in the ordinance. That would send a signal that the comments
made are more important than the comments that weren't made, or are more
important than the priority list. The SMAC should begin with a presentation by the
DNR, state Department of Ecology (DOE), the County, the State Environmental
Protection Agency (SEPA) officials, and permitting entities to get background on the
exiting regulations and processes. Then everyone on the SMAC will begin with the
same base of knowledge. These items can't be addressed by only knowing what is
out there. She wanted the SMAC to address the weeds, but the Noxious Weed
Board is available for that problem. For the SMAC to micromanage things without
being aware of the processes could waste a lot of time. She would like to see that
the list be given to the committee, but is not established as an action item.
Brenner stated she had a vision of the SMAC also fielding complaints as they
come in so they are worked out in at the SMAC. She questioned whether
Starkenburg - Kroontje thought that was a useful thing for the SMAC to do.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated she didn't envision the committee being the starting
point for the complaint process. She envisioned the SMAC taking action item five
and listening to the current inspector and enforcer to assist in developing a
regulatory program. The SMAC may have a role along that line, but things need to
go through the proper chain of command. The County has had 11 documented
complaints in seven years. Some councilmembers receive few complaints. The
operators feel good about what is going on. There are perhaps some isolated
problems. Others are being deluged with complaints. A regulatory program needs
to be developed so people know whom to call, what happens if they make that call,
that their call is being handled the same way as anyone else's, and the protocol.
That takes away the uncertainty for the operators and the complainants. The SMAC
could address an unresolved issue with staff. They need to start with the resources
that exist, which are the people who know the codes.
Hoag stated the purpose of the committee is not what it should be, as it is in
the proposed ordinance. That is not what the Comprehensive Plan called for, which
is to implement a surface mining regulatory program, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, that addresses those areas where there is conflict between
land uses. They must maintain an ongoing advisory committee of representatives
of diverse interests. It doesn't say that the advisory committee should address the
action items of the mineral resource element of the Comprehensive Plan. That is a
part of what the Council has said it wants the SMAC to look at. They should rewrite
the purpose to reflect what is in the Comprehensive Plan, then go on to say the
committee serves as an advisory committee to Planning and Development Services
Department staff and the County Council. This purpose has been narrowed down to
only the action items.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Regarding the complaints, when they say there have been eleven
documented complaints in the last seven years, it is misleading. They went
through this last time and found out that the only way cases are documented is if
someone makes a written complaint. She received another complaint recently.
She asked the person if they've ever talked to staff and been told to fill out a
complaint form. That person said they talked to staff repeatedly, but haven't been
asked to fill out a form. That person is an undocumented complaint. To pretend
there is not a problem is not accurate. That is one of the things the Council wants
the SMAC to review. They should look at the complaints and find out what the
process is. It may be that the system for addressing the complaints is not
adequate, which results in a build -up of animosity between neighbors and pit
owners. It benefits everyone if complaints are addressed in a timely manner. She
wanted the purpose statement changed because it doesn't reflect what is in the
Comprehensive Plan.
McShane stated they would pull the language from the Comprehensive Plan
and use it for the purpose statement for the SMAC.
Hoag concurred.
McShane stated Starkenburg- Kroontje's suggestion of having the committee
review the meeting notes and handouts from the Council is a good idea. Within
that, the Council could list the items that the committee addressed, so they are in
the ordinance and the SMAC is aware up front that the Council is aware of those
particular items. That would include the items suggested by Tom Brown and Don
Nielsen.
Hoag suggested adding those items under action item number five, "Some of
the things the SMAC should review include..." and list the different issues.
McShane moved to:
1. change language in the purpose to reflect exactly what is stated in the
Comprehensive Plan,
2. add language under action item number five that refers routing the notes
and handouts the Council has received as testimony over the last couple
of months to the SMAC, and
3. list the issues that have been brought forward to the Council
Hoag stated the suggestion to have DNR give a presentation is a good
suggestion.
McShane stated he is trying to keep the functions simple.
Brenner agreed with the suggestions. She wanted to see the SMAC be
broader. The County's Road Name and Address Committee makes
recommendations, reviews road names, and reviewed the numbering system. A
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
function of the Address and Road Name Committee is to be a source to take in
complaints. She wanted that function for the SMAC. It is another avenue for
people to go. She wanted the industry representatives and citizens to work out the
complaints, rather than have everything come to the Council in the form of a
regulation. She wanted the committee to have that flexibility.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated the SMAC meetings could have an open session. Hopefully
the committee will be reflective of the community.
Brenner stated it is very important that the SMAC membership not be heavily
balanced one way or another. It seems like it is weighted more toward the
members of the public. It should include three citizens who live in close proximity
to a mine, or they should increase the surface mining representatives to three.
McShane suggested that this be brought up before the full Council because
the Natural Resources Committee already took a vote and made a
recommendation.
Brenner stated that if the membership leans one way or another, the SMAC
will not do what everyone wants it to do. That is why she supported adding more
citizens to it last time, but she wanted there to be three citizens, not four citizens.
Hoag stated she compromised on four citizens when she originally asked for
five citizens, and dropped the other two positions to one. The problem with not
hashing this out at the committee level is that the people that are interested in the
subject are present. If they wait to bring it up to the full Council, it would be after
the public hearing. No one would have any idea that they are going to make
changes. The public can't talk to them about it.
McShane stated he is satisfied with the way it is now.
Hoag stated that if there are changes that people want to propose, it should
be done in committee so the public can respond to the changes and the public can
view a document that reflects what the Council intends to adopt.
McShane suggested that Hoag make a change during the committee if she
wants to.
Hoag stated she is all right with the way it is.
Brenner stated she wanted there to be three citizens. She is not part of the
committee, so it wasn't a compromise for her because she didn't get to vote on it.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Hoag stated she didn't vote, but she was part of the discussion. It is
important that the citizens be properly represented. The membership is very equal,
but should be weighted toward the citizens because they live with the impacts. The
forestry representative could be pro- mining. The agricultural representative should
be neutral. The water resource interests representative was supposed to be a
representative for groundwater potable water supply, which is not the same thing
as a hydrogeologist. They weren't just talking about representing water resource
interests. It was specific to represent groundwater protection of drinking water.
That position should be corrected to reflect what they voted on. This is not the
language the committee voted on.
McShane stated he would check that language.
Hoag stated that position would be a neutral party. It is a good idea for the
SMAC to have an open session. She would like to see that in the ordinance
because they are setting up what the SMAC will do. If it is the intent of the Council
that there will be an open session at the beginning of each meeting, it should be in
the ordinance. It could be listed as the second item under function.
McShane stated he would put it under the meeting organization section.
They also need to talk about the selection process and the length of terms.
Hoag moved to add the requirement for an open session.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to have the County Council make the appointments.
Brenner stated they could say that any member would be biased. The
forestry representative is supposed to be neutral, just like the agricultural
representative and the water representative. They get to the point where nothing
is going to be any better than the people who are on the SMAC and the members'
intentions. Those last three positions are neutral positions. She asked how it was
weighted for or against the citizens.
Hoag stated it is important that it not be weighted in favor of industry
because they are trying to resolve conflicts. If it is weighted for industry, the
problems would not be solved. There is no way to control whether the neutral
position would be pro- industry. She asked what it hurts if they have more citizens
than industry representatives.
McShane stated they could debate this for a long time. They agreed to move
on from this. The committee decided it was happy with the current makeup by
approving it. He wanted to move on to address the organization.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Brenner suggested language that a geologist must represent the industry.
She was concerned that they are too worried about it being lopsided one way or
another.
Hoag stated, according to Thomas Jefferson, the purpose of government is to
protect the individuals from the abuse of others. That is their job. The industry
has plenty of money and lawyers who can represent their interests. The public, the
individual, does not. If they are going to err, they should err on the side of those
they are supposed to protect. They are making sure that the others are adequately
represented. However, they have more resources to represent their own interests
than the citizens have.
Darlene Del Boca, 7208 Lankaar Road, stated it is important that the SMAC
not be considered a conflict resolution body, but have a purpose that is more policy
oriented. When conflicts arise, they constitute an emergency and need an
immediate response; especially when potential losses of resources are involved and
it is something the sheriff does not respond to. Complaints need to be responded
to quickly, the complaint is an enforcement issue that needs an administrative
response rather than discussion.
Brenner agreed. She didn't see that one precluded the other. She
envisioned that people would come to the SMAC, which would tell the people where
to go and how to handle it. The SMAC refers people.
Del Boca stated it is always helpful to have direction, but not to charge that
committee with the function of resolving the immediate problems when an
enforcement capability exists.
Brenner stated she envisions that the SMAC takes in complaints.
Del Boca stated that is an administrative function.
Hoag stated Tom Brown suggested that the SMAC look at the complaints
received to determine if there is a pattern and if there are problems that need to be
resolved. Del Boca stated that function would be appropriate.
Hoag stated that is what she wanted to see.
Jim Weedman, 5747 Hannegan Road, agreed with Brenner about being able
to settle conflicts, but it is weighted away from the industry. He didn't know how to
settle it when only two industry people are in the group. There is a lot of regulation
in place. Review is important and they need to make sure it is being enforced. He
would hate for the SMAC to reinvent the wheel. He is interested in safety. For
instance, Nielsen's corner needs to be dealt with if it is a problem, trucks or no
trucks. He works for Whatcom Builders. A number of agencies already oversee the
industry. If there is a complaint, agencies take action. Fortunately, they've been
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
able to work out problems with people who have a problem with the activity. One
issue worked out was about trees going into a berm that blocked a neighbor's view.
They cut down the trees to make the neighbor happy. Instead of drawing the line
in the sand, he sees people working problems out. He is surprised that, as well
advertised as this meeting was, the people who complained to Councilmember
Hoag are not present. Regarding having the membership include the people who
live near the pits, it would be important to consider only folks that hold mortgages
on the land, rather than someone who rents land.
Hoag stated when she was on the Land Use Study Commission, there were
twenty plus members. Four members were from industry. The remainder were
agencies and public citizens. It is not that half of a committee has to be industry to
address what is going on. Everyone took the comments seriously and tried to find
solutions that could address everyone's point of view. There seems to be a
misconception regarding industry being on the committee.
Gary Orr, Pacific Concrete, stated he is a citizen of the county and state. He
abides by the rules and the regulations. He does what is necessary and the citizens
don't have to be protected from him. He didn't see their attitude being pro one way
or pro the other way. They are not the people who Councilmember Hoag thinks
they are. He does what is necessary for his business and the people in the
community. He didn't appreciate the inference that the operators can't handle this
situation and they have to be a minority so that everyone is protected.
Hoag stated she has not had any complaints on Mr. Orr's operation. That
doesn't mean there are not problems out there and people are not being hurt and
do not need protection.
McShane stated they discussed length of terms. He suggested two -year
terms. He so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane suggested they meet at least once every two months. It would be
up to the SMAC to determine whether they want to meet more often.
Hoag suggested they meet monthly. Almost all of the Council's advisory
committees meet monthly. It is easier to get a regular schedule going that way.
McShane agreed.
Hoag stated the committee has a plateful of tasks.
McShane stated the committee could choose to meet more often.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Hoag stated if they get everything done, they can ask the Council to revise
the ordinance to meet less often.
Citizen suggested staggering the terms.
Hoag stated half the representatives would be appointed for one year.
Skinner suggested allowing alternates.
Hoag moved to allow alternates.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to require that the SMAC meet monthly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag move to stagger the term expirations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned whether the SMAC would be obligated to the Open Public
Meetings Act.
Jill Nixon, Administrative Clerk, stated the SMAC would be obligated to follow
the Open Public Meetings Act.
Hoag questioned whether that requires the meetings be audiotaped.
Middleton stated it is required that they have to be recorded, at least by
minutes.
McShane stated some of these would be legal issues that the Clerk of the
Council would work out.
Hoag stated that audiotaping the meetings would help verify what took place.
People have different perceptions of what actually occurred. She moved to require
that the meetings be audiotaped and that the tapes be archived.
Brenner stated the meetings should be taped and the tapes should stay on
file. Minutes are fine, but they don't give you the information you have to have at
times.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked what would happen with complaints that go to the SMAC.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
McShane stated there will be an open session and the SMAC would address
complaints.
Hoag stated they would review complaints, but complaints would be handled
through administration.
McShane stated the SMAC should be able to help direct people with
complaints.
Hoag asked if the person has to go to the SMAC first.
McShane stated no.
Brenner stated a committee should not be a means of conflict resolution.
When they get the two sides together, and the sides are of good conscious and are
trying to work out the problems, some of these things can naturally be worked out
without having to go through the entire administrative thing.
Skinner questioned the member selection process.
Brenner stated there is already a process.
Hoag questioned when the ordinance would be introduced.
McShane stated it would be introduced at the next Council meeting, as
amended.
1. DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION REGARDING
THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB2000 -143)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, distributed the packet for next week's
work session. Today, he wanted to introduce a couple of documents for the
Council's consideration between now and the work session, so he can receive
Council direction during the work session. One of the documents is the proposed
scope of work for the technical assessment phase. It is supposed to be done by
Utah State University (USU) and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS). First, he
explained the process. On March 22, the Planning Unit approved the scope of work
that was crafted by the Planning Unit and the initiating governments (IGs). It set
the foundation for how they are going to operate in the water resources inventory
area (WRIA) project to collect data assessment and generate the plan. Occurring
at this same time was the question of where they go once they have crafted the
foundation document, the scope of work, with implementation of the assessment
phase. They entered a concept paper that was brought before Council on March
21. It presented an approach utilizing the USGS and USU to do the technical
assessment phase of the work. From the moment Council provided direction and
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
subsequent input to the Planning Unit, the Planning Unit agreed that it wanted to
actively pursue a proposal from USU and USGS to conduct the assessment phase of
the WRIA planning project. What they have now is the outcome of this. Last
Wednesday, they met with scientists from USU and USGS to work out the proposal.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated this is the agenda packet for
discussion next week. The discussion today is on item two only, with the goal of
getting questions and comments from councilmembers by the end of the week.
Brenner asked why they are pulling out item number two. Roll stated it is
partly due to the time crunch. They are trying to implement this work. He wanted
to introduce it so the councilmembers have the opportunity to mull it over and look
at it before they have to move forward with an implementation strategy. The
Planning Unit meets next Wednesday, the day after the Council work session. The
Planning Unit will look at this implementation proposal. Next week, he will ask for
formal direction from the Council, and then proceed to the Planning Unit meeting
the following night.
Roll discussed how the plan was developed. Councilmembers will need to
have the scope of work that was finalized. That is what they built this document
from. The scope is referenced throughout the proposal. The same items referenced
in the scope of work are also in the more detailed scope of work from USU and
USGS. Both documents are in the packet. This is an assessment piece. As they go
through the technical scope of work and defining the work, it references the specific
scope of work. A number of IG government staff met with USU and USGS, along
with Planning Unit members. They went through the scope of work, talked about
the relationship of the groups, and estimated the preliminary costs. They agreed
that USU would provide oversight between the four functions of habitat, instream
flow, quality, and quantity. USGS would hook into the quantity portion for the
project. This document outlines that philosophy. It takes it a step further in that
the philosophy of this management structure is in conjunction with the scope of
work that was developed. They are looking at two things: estimated cost and
management structure for performing the assessment phase.
One of the ground rules expressed by the Planning Unit and others is that the
technical teams are provided documents relating to the interface between Planning
Unit members and IGs. That interface will continue, and has to be an integral part
of this process. After the meeting, USU took their thoughts and the scope of work
and crafted the document in the packet that represents the outcome of that
meeting, as well as the thoughts expressed by the staff members and the scope of
work. The outcome of the meeting was the scope of work for the technical studies
portion. There are a number of proposed phases to this project. There are three
specific phases. One is an initial phase, in which the level of detail is needed for
the data collection is worked out between the IGs, the technical teams, and the
Planning Unit. Phase one would take four to eight weeks, in which they bring
together all the interests and the issues expressed thus far to make sure they are
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
incorporated into the defined scope of work for the subsequent phases. An integral
part of this process is to assure that they always recognize an adaptive
management strategy. As information becomes available, they are able to adjust
each piece of this strategy to get the answers they need. A lot of this is unknown
at this point. They have the idea of where they need to go for information. As
information becomes available, they will have to adapt. This document reflects an
adaptive management strategy.
Brenner stated he keeps talking about the IGs, the technical team, and the
Planning Unit. She thought the IGs are part of the Planning Unit. She suggested
they just say the technical team and the Planning Unit. She questioned whether
the technical team is part of the government. Roll stated it has staff from both
groups.
Brenner stated there isn't any caucus staff. Roll stated caucus participation
is open on the technical teams, per the guidelines of the technical teams. When he
said Planning Unit staff, he referred to the available resources that might be
brought forward from the individual caucuses to staff the technical teams.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Roll asked that everyone go through the information. There are sizeable
dollars tied to this. Right now they are on track and have unanimous agreement
from the people who approved the scope of work that this is the framework within
which they will move. They probably have as much broad spectrum support and
direction as he has seen since he's been with the County. People are indicating that
they want to collectively move on. He applauded the efforts of Council and those
groups for coming together with consensus. When they go into the assessment and
development of the plan, they will have a foundation and process in place so they
know who plays what role, how they are going to play it, where every stakeholder
can hook into the process, and where they can get their needs met. It has been a
huge task these last couple of months. The groups are ready to go.
McShane stated the Council has taken on a lot of responsibility since this
process started. Its participation is going to be important and can assist in moving
things along, or throw the anchor in and stop.
Kathy Bovencamp, Land Development Caucus Member, stated they have
agonized over the scope of work for a long time. The last Planning Unit meeting
was the most productive so far. They haggled over a lot of things and removed
things. One thing removed was the interest of all the caucus groups. It is a
technical group, and they don't need to attach everyone's wish list. It might be
helpful to have the technical team sheets when they look at this. She previously
expressed that they were concerned about the selection process and the criteria of
the technical teams. It was written in to the technical team documents that it
would be addressed so they would know how they are selecting consultants. The
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Planning Unit said the caucuses don't have the resources to hire technical staff.
The next best thing is to all agree on the process to do so, so they all feel
comfortable that who is there is looking after everyone's interests. Dr. Hardy, from
USU, is going to screen the consultants. That gave her comfort. They wanted to
stress to him the importance of neutrality. There are going to solve that by having
a representative from USU managing each team. No matter who is doing the work,
someone has oversight.
The other concern is that there is a process of gathering data, but there is no
framework for a final plan. That is due June 30, 2002. She questioned where the
data would fit into the final plan. There is no framework for what the final plan will
look like. That signifies there is a question about the political uses the data will be
used for if it doesn't fit specifically in the final plan. The Council needs to be on top
of that. They need to start developing that framework for the final plan,
simultaneous to data gathering. She questioned what the data would be used for if
it doesn't fit into the framework of the plan.
Roll stated he agreed with some of those statements. It is a key point that,
as they move forward, they have to hook in the elements of the plan they are
specifically addressing during the data assessment phase. They have to do that
concurrently.
Hoag questioned which change from the Planning Unit did not make it into
the scope of work.
Bovencamp stated on page eight, the last sentence in section 2.1 needs to be
removed. The Planning Unit decided it is not appropriate to attach caucus group
interest in summary of all the wish lists. This is a scope of work technical
document. They need to keep politics out of it as much as possible. Roll stated he
would take the correction to Sue Blake, who heads the technical team, which
crafted the document. He won't change the document without consulting the group
responsible for crafting it.
Bovencamp stated the big issue is creating the framework for the plan, which
should be concurrent to gathering data.
Roll agreed that has to happen concurrently. The scope of work, on page 20,
was approved. They have what they need to cover in the plan. These are the
topics that have to be included in the plan. They do need to hang the plan in a
parallel process with the data assessment phase and start filling it in where they
can. There are going to be decisions that direct technical assessment in certain
areas of the watershed. This framework for the plan development needs to begin
concurrently with the process so they make sure the technical phase collects data in
the areas where they need data to make good decisions. There are limited
resources, and it has been a resource drain to get the assessment phase going.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
The Planning Unit needs to revisit Bovencamp's comments about making sure the
plan comes concurrently.
Bovencamp stated they need to make sure all the IGs are on board with this.
Hoag asked about the guidance manual. Roll stated the guidance manual
was written for the ESHB 2514 process.
Hoag asked about the modifications. Roll stated he has 14 or 15 drafts and
would have to work through them to answer that question. That is a question for
Sue Blake.
Hoag stated she wanted to know how the outline for the format of the plan
deviated from the one recommended in the guidance manual. Roll stated when
they look at the scope of work development, it is one in a series in the contents.
There is a listing of appendices, which were the documents used to create this
process. It is a marriage of all the documents in the eyes of the technical team in
relationship to what they have to have, per the law. It may reflect that there are
portions that are not directly linked or addressed in the guidance manual. The
guidance manual didn't spend a lot of time looking at pods outside of quantity.
Hoag stated she wanted to know the differences.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 4/4/2000, Page 16