Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 28 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 46 47 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee November 28, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Connie Hoag COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES PLAN (AB2000 -404) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated he would highlight the Water Resource Plan 2001 update. Staff members would give briefings in their respective areas. This is the second update since the original plan was presented in February 1999. It is not intended to replace the existing plan. It is intended to add to or update the status of the plan. He anticipated a version II next year. Nelson asked if all the accomplishments and phases have been accomplished or if some are still going. Roll stated some are still ongoing. The update tried to address the objectives in the original plan and outline the anticipated work in the coming year. They combined those things that have occurred over the past two years to know what has happed from 1999 on. Nelson asked if these are all equally important, or are weighted for importance. Roll stated he hadn't received unified guidance from Council as to the priorities on these things. That is an exercise that they will have to do in the coming year Nelson asked if anyone reading the document should assume they would get done in the year. Roll stated there are many goals they are trying to accomplish, and they will accomplish some and not others. It's a matter of resource allocation. John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, discussed the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 Watershed Management Project beginning on page three of the update. The updated section begins on page five. The 2000 accomplishments are listed, but not by priority. The Joint Administrative Board was created. It created a unique working arrangement including the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Public Utility District 1, City of Bellingham, and Whatcom County. The final scope of work was completed and adopted by the Planning Unit. It is the overall work plan for WRIA 1. Subsequent to that, the map was adopted that Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 46 47 48 gave everyone their geographic references of their own drainage within the overall basin. In July, Utah State University (USU) was identified and tasked with the technical scope of work that was adopted. The work of the past year and a half is beginning to generate real substantive technical work and information to move them forward in the context of the overall scope of work dated March 27, 2000. The draft of the Watershed Management Plan was initiated and they are moving forward with that. It is also referenced in the 2001 planned actions. Nelson stated USU is doing much work. He questioned whether the data is there, or if USU will collect data. Sproul stated both. USU will identify and collect data. Roll stated phase II is going to identify some of the gaps. As they've done their assessment of the existing data, as well as information coming in from various agencies, this will gel over the next two to three months. They will then be able to prioritize those areas and data gaps. It is important to emphasis that this isn't a shotgun approach to data collection. It is an approach that would be very systematic and focused on particular areas of interest, as identified by the Planning Unit members and the governments. They can expect a clearly defined plan of attack for data gaps analysis. At the same time, the groups will have to go through a prioritization. The goal is to have that flushed out so they know what pieces will remain and the data gaps for phase III, which they hope to have adopted by the second quarter of next year. McShane stated that, in going through data gap evaluation and prioritization, there is a budget. He questioned whether Mr. Roll and his staff was responsible for communicating the limits of how far they can go before bringing something to the County Council. Roll stated that throughout all the water resources sessions they have found focus areas. As they answer specific questions, the County Council will be updated and asked to provide guidance to him as he goes to the Planning Unit to identify specific areas where they want to work collectively to fill data gaps. The County Council can expect him to bring those forward in a timely manner. He expected a number of work sessions over the next three to four months where many of these issues will be brought up. McShane questioned whether economics would play a role in determining priorities, and if Mr. Sproul would do that kind of evaluation. Sproul stated he would to the extent that the information is available. Currently, there is limited organized and consistent economic information countywide. He would like to see that as an attribute for identifying and focusing in, but there are several environmental and social components, as well as economics. Nelson stated this seems to be a problem where they don't know what the questions are, so they are mulling through everything to come up with the questions. He questioned whether that was accurate. Sproul stated it was not. In Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 the scope of work that was adopted in March, there were specific questions that were articulated for each of the components: water quality, water quantity, instream flow, and habitat. Those were adopted and incorporated into the technical scope of work by USU. The context is with the legislative call to work for water quantity, as well as some constituent - oriented specific questions for the other components. The questions have been identified. Nelson stated there should be an economic impact to that type of research. Sproul stated economics is alluded to, but not an explicit component of the scope of work for phase II. In phase III, to the extent that this is a priority for the Council and the caucus forum, they can bring that forward as an important element for prioritization and consideration. Nelson questioned whether they are moving forward to accomplish a particular objective in the four areas and whether they have a sufficient amount of questions regarding what they need to get there. Roll stated the questions have to be refined. Some of them are broad questions. They are going to send out these things to the caucus members and everyone else to update, refine, and better define these questions as they move forward. That is part of the process. In phase II, they will hone in on defining specific questions and specific areas that need to be answered with data and the decision support system (DSS). Nelson questioned whether phase II would be completed in 2001. Role stated they are scheduled to complete phase II and adopt phase III in May 2001. The next few months are critical for phase II. Since the budget was adopted, there has been a need to extend the duration of the technical assessment studies to work within the current revenue stream. That was done by proposing a one -year extension to the USU contract, which would allow them to continue collecting the information that is needed and to also work within the existing budget. They are in the process of re- working the schedule with USU, the governments, and the Planning Unit to take into consideration the revenue constraints. Sproul stated he and Mr. Roll look forward to meeting with the councilmembers individually to address the decision support system questions to the extent that economic considerations are integrated with the other concerns. Nelson stated he would hope to do that collectively, not individually. John Thompson, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Coordinator, discussed Salmon Recovery on page seven. Background information lists the 1999 accomplishments and the planned actions for 2000. He would discuss the 2000 accomplishments. One item is the project status reporting. That was something that the Council looked for to answer what is going on with salmon recovery and who is doing what, where. The Nooksack Recovery Team has compiled a database and geographic information system (GIS) coverage that show the more than 300 projects that have been done locally to date. Currently, not much of the County's Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 work is in that database. It's a nice comprehensive database, and does a good job showing the types of projects, who's done them, and the level of local cooperation on salmon recovery issues. Regarding fisheries enforcement enhancement, there wasn't a specific team fielded this year due to lack of funding. It is an important program that needs to continue. Regarding the recovery goals, they are tracking what the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service are doing in developing their recovery plans for chinook salmon and bull trout. Regarding the inventory and enforcement of regulatory compliance, their consultants are finishing up a report that has an evaluation of where the County regulations are at and how strong they are with respect to ESA. Recommendations will come from it. They will use those recommendations in shaping parts of the Chinook Recovery Plan with respect to land use habitat management issues. Regarding the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), they were successful earlier this year because this WRIA received $1.2 million, which is 73 percent of the amount asked for. That ties back to the Nooksack Recovery Team (NRT) and spirit of coordination and cooperation. They submitted 11, not 13, applications in the late round. They will be defending those applications to the SRFB panel next Tuesday. They will hear the result in January 2001. Regarding the WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Plan, they are currently trying to complete a second version of the Chinook Recovery Plan and hope to have a technical draft by the end of the year. Regarding the Salmon Habitat Restoration Citizens Advisory Committee, it is beginning to hit its stride. It began having monthly meetings. Their primary task has been to review and rank the salmon recovery projects. They're taking a more active role in evaluating the interim strategy and how they are doing the ranking. Regarding culvert barrier removal, they fielded a team of summer students this year. They did a comprehensive inventory of the South Fork, Middle Fork, and North Fork of the Nooksack River. They identified all the culverts under County roads, whether or not they are a fish passage barrier. They are currently putting that information into a database and linking it to a GIS. That is being coordinated with the County Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Division. Regarding the Conservation Reserve and Easement Program (CREP), the Whatcom Conservation District enrolled the largest number of individual farmers into that program than any other county in the state. It has been a very successful program that they will continue next year. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 Another program is the Farmers Planting Trees for Salmon Program. It is a program through the Washington State University Cooperative Extension. Six local farmers got it going. Regarding restoration project support, they've helped support Washington Conservation Corps crews for the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) team for this year. Regarding planned actions for 2001, they will get the County project information into the NRT database, including all the culverts that have been fixed. They plan to continue the culvert barrier removal program and link it to the other culvert databases so there is a comprehensive view of what is going on and can do GIS analysis to get a handle on how much habitat is actually blocked by a culvert, so they can do a legitimate prioritization. Rather than fixing them on a case -by- case basis, they can strategically approach culvert replacement. Regarding the farmers planting trees for salmon, he would like to continue working with Cooperative Extension. This last year, they planted Douglas Fir exclusively because that was what was available. They will look at expanding to other native plants. Regarding the CREP program, they will continue to coordinate with Cooperative Extension. Regarding fisheries enforcement, he would like to work with the salmon co- managers to support an enhanced fisheries enforcement activity, including educational aspects. The County may be able to help out by developing educational materials and providing educational forums for the community to get a better handle on what the issues are and what the community can do. Regarding the SRFB, he plans to aggressively pursue additional funding. Regarding the lead entity duties, it is an administrative function they will continue. Regarding the Chinook Recovery Plan, the intent is to get it finalized, get the appropriate public review and comment, and get endorsement by the local government. He plans to step up coordination with the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project. The two processes are intertwined. They need to demonstrate that more clearly. Regarding project design assistance, they need to be able to get the expertise the County has in various programs working more in concert on programs that will help the County respond to ESA in a constructive and productive manner. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 Nelson asked about how they are going to seek policy endorsement in early 2001, following appropriate policy review, when the NMFS recovery strategy won't be out until mid -2001. Thompson stated they do have some draft information from NMFS about what their intent is and the structure of the plan. He received information recently regarding the basic strategy. He would forward that information to the councilmembers. At this point, it is an outline of what they see the components of their recovery plan to be. Nelson stated they are looking at seeking endorsement of policies, particular land use policy for the County. He questioned how this meshes. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there have been many discussions over time about the goals that are targeted. Mr. Thompson is describing that the focus and the priority are how they intend to function and in the direction they intend to move toward. That is a priority that is being placed on the County. There is another notion of the recovery goals. When they talk about mid -2001, they expect to hear something like the number of fish that are necessary to remove them from the list. Requirements on the County and how the County adopts a recovery plan sets a course of direction with an inability to say when they can achieve recovery. They are only setting a direction right now. They will know that there is recovery only when they get there. That is what the County is being told. Thompson stated there are advantages of setting the local path early on and getting NMFS informed of that. Nelson asked how to work out land use regulations with what the Water Resources Division is doing, given that they don't know what the NMFS decisions would be. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he has the same question. That is the million - dollar question. He will be working with Mr. Monsen to work that out. Nelson stated his concern was that they will begin finding a lot of problems once they settle on a path. Those problems have to be worked out ahead of time. His particular concern was that they recognize that there are many ways to provide land use decisions and still protect the rights of those who own property. He didn't want to give the idea that the County would place certain restrictions because they know those restrictions would provide the goal of recovery. They need to be working with land use and the problems they face on a day -to -day basis, as well as on policy directions that are appropriate for the concerns of the community as a whole. Monsen stated that, when they put the original Comprehensive Water Plan together, it was clearly more of a statement to describe the big picture and a listing of some short -term tasks they knew needed to be accomplished. These updates are a checking -in of those early actions without trying to put too much significance on the new and revised water plan. The expectation when they rewrite the water plan now is going to be based on the knowledge they've gained doing the early actions and to truly bring in an idea of how the pieces come together, the Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 46 47 48 significance they have, and the future alternatives. The document will deal with policy decision - making. It won't simply be a presentation to the Council. Nelson stated it is going to take a great deal of effort on the parts of both Mr. Monsen and Mr. Hart because the objective says early 2001. That is in only a few months. McShane stated he keeps getting mixed answers on the concept of the Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) for chinook. He was told not long ago by someone with authority that it included both fall and spring chinook. He questioned whether that was true. Thompson stated it is true. It includes chinook, and doesn't specify spring or fall. McShane asked the difference between endangered runs versus the entire ESU of chinook in Puget Sound. Thompson stated that, for example, they have a North Fork Nooksack River native stock spring chinook and a South Fork Nooksack River native stock of spring chinook. Those are native, listed, and considered essential for recovery of the ESU. Then, the fall chinook salmon are primarily hatchery fish with a Green River origin. They're listed, but not considered for recovery of the ESU because they are a non - native hatchery fish in the Nooksack River. They may also have a native component for the fall chinook, such as the ones who spawn in Hutchinson Creek every year. That is an unknown. They are certainly covered under the listing because they are part of the ESU. They haven't made the distinction yet between the native and hatchery fall chinook salmon. That is dependent upon some DNA data that is being run now. McShane questioned who would make that determination. Thompson stated the DNA determination is made by a fellow with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). He'll do the genetics. If they are unique, it indicates they are of a native origin. It would be up to NMFS to determine whether or not they are essential for recovery. McShane stated that being considered essential for recovery is a higher tier than the entire ESU. Thompson stated there may be a higher sense of urgency tied to those stocks. McShane stated they could have healthy ESU stocks through the hatchery programs. Thompson stated that is true for some stocks, but is at the detriment of other stocks. There is beginning to be some genetic drift in the South Fork chinook. McShane questioned how much the County would focus its planning on those areas considered for essential recovery in Whatcom County versus what they may be required to do generally for chinook ESU in the Puget Sound. Thompson stated the draft plan to date has an emphasis on the native spring chinook. Those are the priority stocks that have been identified. When they get into the County's purview, it is the land management end. It is not practical to revise any of the regulations specific to just spring chinook. They need to branch out and look at salmonids so Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 46 47 48 they address what the agencies are calling the properly functioning conditions in a stream rather than protecting a particular spot. They need to look at how the habitat functions are, what the lifecycle needs are, and which fish are using different parts of the watershed at different times of the year to develop a comprehensive approach that will cover them. They are working on a Chinook Recovery Plan, but bull trout are also listed right now. Coho are a candidate species. By taking a comprehensive, thorough view of the land management and habitat management, they can set themselves up so they don't have to do this again next year for bull trout, the year after that for coho, and the year after that for native fall chinook. Nelson questioned how recovery is measured. Thompson stated that is something that is still being discussed. Traditionally, the measure of the health of a stock is the number of adults returning. Nelson stated they can't control what happens after the fish leave the system. Thompson stated the process is building into the monitoring a way to evaluate how effective the methods are. One approach that the co- managers are pushing with NMFS is that the measure isn't just returning adults, but also smolts coming out of the system. An example is the North Fork native chinook. There is a hatchery supplementation program going on up there. They are finding that the total number of adults returning is actually high, more than the recovery goal in the draft plan. They are also finding that the replacement ratio is less than one. That says that, even though the adults are coming back, they are the adults coming out of the hatchery, not the native spawners. The data indicates that there is a fresh water habitat in that the egg is not getting to the emergence survival level it needs. That is data to indicate a habitat problem. Ocean conditions have improved. Harvest has been reduced. Enough adults are coming back, but they are not sending enough juveniles out. Nelson stated they need to be able to explain in laymen's terms for the public what is happening with the fish. They need to improve the number of fish that are coming back able to reproduce. Then they know they've done their job. If the fish aren't coming back, it's a problem. Dawson questioned whether erosion could be part of the reason for the cycle of freshwater problems. Thompson stated that big storms could certainly have an effect. A lot of the restoration work done to -date has been to prevent sediment sources before they have an effect. It is an important aspect. Monsen stated the question was what the County is responsible to do. The County is responsible for creating an opportunity for success. It is not responsible for the actual recovery. They want to know how all the pieces fit together so they can focus on what they are responsible to do to get the biggest bang for their buck. The requirements being placed on the County are being geared toward salmon recovery altogether and not just the local listed stocks. That is the challenge to communicate to the local public. The question is whether what they are doing is leading them toward recovery. A lot of what they are doing is dealing with broad- Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 based policies that are being required at the state and federal levels. They are trying to maximize energies so they know what to do first, and are concurrently trying to assist the other elements of recovery. The County is responsible for the land use issues. McShane stated that the councilmembers were excited about the Fisheries Enforcement Enhancement program, which faded away and disappeared. It is listed in the planned action for 2001, but is not specific. He questioned whether there is going to be money. Thompson stated they don't know at this point. The grant application was not prepared. It was not an eligible project type. The County can work with the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, and WDFW to lobby for funding. It is an ongoing program that should be funded through the tribes and WDFW. Monsen stated that is a message that would be carried to the state legislature and congress. At this point, the SRFB does not feel like they can use their current resources to finance programs, a category under which this falls. The County is one of many agencies that understands the significance of this program. Roll stated the next topic is shellfish protection regarding the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay shellfish protection districts. The County Council has had reports on those districts. A position was approved for a coordinator for next year. He asked for specific questions. There were no questions regarding shellfish protection. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Erika Stroebel, Planner II, discussed activities in the Lake Whatcom watershed and the highlights of 2000. Ten program areas were identified through the 2000 program plan. There are update categories under each of those. One of the key elements for successful management of the Lake Whatcom watershed is to have good community involvement. She's focused a lot of her efforts on reaching out to the community and providing a resource to them, so they can make choices as individuals, which will help as a whole. An example of that is the new enforcement position in the Lake Whatcom watershed. This team of people will be out in the watershed talking with people and educating them about erosion control practices in the watershed. The team will be able to give correction notices and work with the land use group to levy fines if needed. Earlier this year, they found that education as a very good tool for dealing with the erosion control problems in the watershed. The team will also work with residents at the earlier permit stage. They've also held a number of workshops and other educational activities. They've had a lake- friendly gardening workshop, several master gardener clinics, and a stormwater facility workshop. They will be having an erosion control workshop for contractors, in conjunction with the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the City of Bellingham. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 46 Other activities include the Celebrate Lake Whatcom event, the stewardship awards, and a home show fair booth. They consistently use the website and Water Whys newsletter as educational tools to communicate with people. They've been working with the Lake Whatcom Citizens Task Force, which is a great group of people bringing together a variety of perspectives about the watershed. They've been working on the criteria for the Land Preservation Program. They do expect to see that in the next couple of weeks. Other educational programs include eight mutt mitt stations throughout the watershed. There is an educational flyer about dog waste. It has been a successful program and they've heard a lot from community members. She gets calls frequently when the dispensers are empty. There is a pilot project for a vegetative buffer. The Water Resources Division is working with the Public Works Engineering Division's flood crew, who is working on three sites at Beaver Creek. They will also be putting in a vegetative buffer along with that bank stabilization. As a part of that, they will develop educational materials about what people can do to ensure and restore a vegetative buffer. The boating education program is developing into a boating kit for next year. They did a spill response exercise. They've got the transfer of development rights (TDR) program underway. Under development for 2001 is the watershed living kit. That will include information about what people can do in terms of gardening and other lake- friendly practices. A series of workshops are planned to go along with that activity. They are looking at underground storage tanks and providing options for technical and financial assistance to residents. They've had new data activities this year, including the Y Road assessment, the Bloedel Donovan bacterial sampling, and a follow -up fish tissue analysis, and the fish consumption survey. Nelson stated Ms. Stroebel identified many wonderful things that they are doing. They are going to have great impacts. He questioned the major impact to Lake Whatcom water quality. Stroebel stated there are a variety of things that have an impact. That is why they are taking an approach to look at all the pieces that they can bring together to make a difference. Stormwater is a large issue. That has been highlighted in residential areas. Nelson questioned the major impact on Lake Whatcom water quality. Stroebel stated stormwater is one of the major impacts. Nelson stated that people are the major impact. Many of these programs are geared toward people problems. He questioned whether the majority of the lake is impacted by people. Stroebel stated that about 80 percent of the watershed is in forestry use. Depending on the estimate, between ten and twelve percent is in residential use right now. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 Nelson questioned whether the water quality is impacted by forestry activities. Stroebel stated that is still being determined. There are different perspectives on that. She hasn't been involved with the forestry issues. Roll stated he would rely on the group charged by the joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee, the Lake Whatcom Forestry Advisory Forum, to give them guidance and advice on how to make sure they have well- managed forest practices in the watershed. Nelson questioned why the Forestry Advisory Forum hadn't met yet. Roll stated the Lake Whatcom Management Committee discussed it at its last meeting. Mayor Asmundson was not there. They are meeting this next week to move it forward. Nelson stated forestry, fish, and wildlife is one of the base ten elements. It states that the Management Committee wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to request several actions related to forestry management within the watershed, including adding a water quality component to the watershed analysis, which the Forestry Forum never saw. The County, City, and Water District participate in a legislatively - established committee that was to report to the DNR in November. That committee is not the Forestry Advisory Forum. He didn't see anything in there regarding the Forestry Forum or those who provide the greatest amount of protection and who are the individuals in the watershed practicing forestry. Roll stated the Council can expect him to energize that group and bring forward the resources that were uniformly agreed to be brought forward. At this point, it is on the next agenda. He hoped to get the entire management team there so they can collectively address it and say what resources are coming from the City and the County. Nelson questioned how they protect forestry practices in the watershed, since 80 percent of it is forestry, which has the least impact on water quality. That would be a major question for that group, before something else is decided. This other group has no foresters. McShane stated a forestry issue is that there is a lot of emphasis on the DNR and legislation. There is a very sharp distinction between what is going to be going on on DNR land versus what will be going on on the private forest owner's land. That needs to be kept in mind. What the DNR will be doing is actually setting a higher standard for themselves. Nelson stated that DNR approves private forestry applications. McShane stated the legislation is aimed only at DNR. Nelson stated it is, but DNR approves forestry practices on non -DNR lands. McShane stated that the legislation coming out of this committee would only be aimed at DNR. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 Nelson stated no administrative staff administers two separate sets of standards. McShane stated the DNR has consistently done that. Nelson disagreed. It is important that, when they are going through this watershed, they keep in mind the global picture they are trying to accomplish in Lake Whatcom. Scooping dog waste and enhancing trails is great and helps the community see what it can do, but they need to keep in mind how to preserve the watershed and still understand that there is a watershed resource that is impacted by people. They need to focus on what they need to do to protect the watershed in a larger scale. Dawson questioned what that means. Nelson stated it is to provide for the things that protect water quality, including stormwater regulations and forestry practices. Regina Delahunt, Environmental Services Manager, talked about groundwater and groundwater protection. There have been major accomplishments in 2000 related to groundwater. One of the bigger accomplishments was determining the appropriate alternate supply options for north county residents associated with the fumigant contamination. The state Department of Ecology completed an assessment of what those supply options are. It came up with two alternatives. One alternative would be a public water supply, most likely through the City of Lynden. Another alternative would be a point -of -entry treatment system for residences that are affected. The Department of Ecology recently contacted residents in the area to determine which option they would prefer. Of late, Ecology has had difficulty getting a response at all from the residents. If the majority of the residents are not interested in the public water supply, then the more likely alternative would be the point -of -entry treatment. Ecology identified some state funding that could be used. There is also a match associated with that state funding. It is questionable as to where the matching funds would come from. Hopefully they will have alternative supply options in place in 2001. Another issue they've been working on in 2000 is the drinking water supply regulations for Whatcom County. They don't currently have such regulations in the County Code. The County uses the state code. They have drafted a local ordinance that has gone to the Public Health Advisory Board. It will be presented to the Board of Health next week. They will be working with the community to get additional input prior to bringing a draft forward for public comment and review. Some of the things they are looking at that they are trying to make sure are addressed include the groundwater testing in areas of known contamination, which would be specified in the regulations, and also disclosure requirements regarding groundwater upon sale of a residence. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 Additionally, the Cooperative Extension continued doing work related to farm practices and integrated pest management. The Health and Human Services did additional testing in areas of the county that have high naturally occurring arsenic levels and fluoride levels. They've been testing wells on a seasonal basis. The last testing will be in the next couple of weeks. They will have a report available at the end of the year. Next year, they want to make sure they get the alternate water supply in the north county and that the drinking water supply regulations are adopted and in place. They want to continue with integrated pest management and dairy farm plans. Nelson stated they've done quite a bit of groundwater well testing in the watershed on the Y Road. Delahunt stated that was correct. That information is included in the Lake Whatcom section. Delahunt continued to state that they continue to work with the water quality and water quantity efforts in relation to the WRIA effort. McShane questioned whom he should contact in the Health Department for information on the 1,2 DCP. Delahunt stated he could talk to Paul Chudeck. They have that information mapped. Scarlet Tang, Public Involvement and Education (PIE), talked about PIE efforts. In 2000, they hired two new people at Cooperative Extension. One person would work on nutrient management with the extension faculty already working on dairy nutrient management. The other person is the Integrated Pest Management Program Manager. They've been focusing a great deal of effort on those two areas. She also spent much time this year supporting the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project and the Lake Whatcom Management Program. She chaired the technical team on PIE for WRIA 1. They developed a long -range plan that will hopefully be approved by the Planning Unit this week. They hope to begin implementation. For Lake Whatcom, she's begun working on the watershed living kit. They plan to issue it in time for the gardening season next spring. It will include information on specific actions people can take regarding lawn and garden care that will help protect water quality. In support of that, they will do a series of workshops on different aspects of that, including soil care, lawn care, and pest management. Last year, they found that the workshop on lake- friendly gardening was pretty well received. There were 40 to 50 people who attended on a Saturday morning for the three -hour workshop. There is interest by watershed residents in doing the right thing. For 2001, she plans for implementation of the WRIA 1 PIE plan, continued work with farms on integrated pest management and nutrient management, and doing an educational program in support of the ESA program. They are also looking at developing and implementing a compost marketing strategy, which will have many purposes. Purposes including helping farmers manage their nutrients, Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 47 48 helping farmers develop alternative revenue sources in addition to dairy production, and improving water quality by keeping the nutrients out of the water system. Roll stated Jeff Monsen would discuss flood control and stormwater management. Monsen stated the Comprehensive Plan didn't touch at all on these additional Water Resources program areas because they were trying to identify those areas in which they needed to put special emphasis on. In part, that was why the division was designed the way it was. However, these areas have come into being or were already underway in one form or another. This update, and the one from last year, makes sure it's not forgotten that these other areas are there. They need to find additional ways to coordinate and look for efficiencies between all the water resource matters. The discussions they've had through the budget process regarding flood control, especially regarding prioritization and additional staffing, have been an adequate update. Stormwater management is an area where they had some noble goals last year to make headway. Very little occurred in 2000. The implementation schedule was to adopt policy and operational adjustments subject to state and federal regulatory changes. Those state and federal regulatory changes have not yet been finished, so he didn't know what exactly to base their work on to be in compliance. They chose not to put a lot of effort there because they knew that whatever they did would have to be redone. The City of Bellingham has taken some steps to do stormwater management, but they will have to take the matter on in 2001. One of the challenges for Whatcom County is that most regulatory issues regarding stormwater are urban issues, but there are carryover issues that may or may not impact rural applications. He didn't know where that line is today. It is an issue they need to be cognizant of as they go through this exercise so they don't apply an urban standard in a rural setting, which would have counterproductive effects. Another stormwater complication is how it relates to endangered species. He submitted a chart showing the Stormwater Management Study Implementation and Compliance Pathway. He participates in a stormwater policy advisory group at the state level through the Department of Ecology. The group is trying to determine what it takes to be compliant under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and state expectations. This is the second or third version of the chart that describes how they get through the process. Stormwater issues are based in process and not product. The chart describes a lot of process. There are four different venues that are trying to tackle the issue of stormwater management. Stormwater is the item that forces resolution between the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, if it is to be carried forward long -term. Nelson stated a tremendous amount of effort is going into identifying the significant issues in stormwater management regarding ESA, land management, public policy, zoning, construction, and other issues. He questioned what special Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 46 47 concern Whatcom County should focus on in this area when much of this effort is geared toward large urban areas with demonstrable impacts. He questioned the impacts to Whatcom County, Skagit County, and the smaller counties. Monsen stated the large urban areas clearly already have in place comprehensive stormwater management programs that resemble a utility, as well as a significant water quality management program. Under the Clean Water Act, King County was considered phase one of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Greater Bellingham is a phase two community. The urban area of Bellingham will have to put programs in place that are similar to those larger urban areas because the growth potential and intensification of development make the issues the same. The question of the boundary into rural areas is a question being asked by the rest of Western Washington. The biggest challenge for Whatcom County won't necessarily be urban stormwater management because the areas of Whatcom County were dealt with through development standards and what they are going to do next, not clean -up and retrofitting other than in Lake Whatcom. On the other hand, if there are pollutant levels in the water now from any source in rural Whatcom County, then those water quality issues will put Whatcom County in the situation of dealing with the quality of water that is there today while also doing other activities. Nelson stated their work would be how to engineer reasonable best management practices to achieve the cleaner water. Monsen stated a typical road construction project would deal with water treatment now more aggressively as it relates to a specific project. If the water being received on a project is already considered below Clean Water Act standards, then the question would be how to finance the additional work on that project that is more global in nature and not directly related to the road. Also, a question would be what land use practices and land use decision - making need to occur that will influence that over time. That is when they get into the update of the next water plan. It will start to look at what that relationship is, how far they have to go, and how far they want to go. Nelson questioned whether they would do an economic impact study. Monsen stated the work being done on stormwater management now has an economic element in the analysis. It doesn't get into how it effects the community's economy. A big question being raised by this policy advisory committee is whether they are talking about financing priorities or unfunded mandates. Those urbanized areas that already have these schemes and financing in place are looking for grants to do capital improvement. The rest of Western Washington is going to have problems with financing basic programs that aren't in place today. Eastern Washington is a completely different matter. McShane questioned whether Mr. Monsen was familiar with what Skagit County did on Cook Road regarding stormwater. Monsen stated he was familiar with Cook Road and that they did work there. He was not familiar with the basis of those decisions and how effective they are. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 McShane stated there is now a shallow curb that goes into catch basins and are discharged into detention /retention /infiltration areas that are set periodically along the road. Monsen stated some of that relates to a competition between the use of the adjacent land and the need for road improvement. He was working in Skagit County during an earlier attempt to do a Cook Road project. It was a matter of landowners not wanting to give up any more farmland. Most of Whatcom County's projects in its Annual Road Program are trying to identify the scope of water management relative to the projects. That has been the primary hang -up. The new DOE manual increases the size of detention basins on the premise of trying to provide greater stability in the receiving channels. There are other water quality issues that may come out of that. There was a road project in Snohomish County in which the detention area increased five -fold because it doubled the amount of the impervious area, so they had to retrofit the entire thing. He is staying engaged in the process so people don't forget that there are differences out there. 2. DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB2000 -132) Roll suggested continuing the water rights discussion from the work session. They discussed two issues. One issue is what work is to be accomplished in stage two of the Water Rights Assessment and WRIA 1 planning process. The second issue was the County's response to the proposal coming from the Water Quantity Technical Team about who does the work. Tom Anderson would provide answers to questions and walk the councilmembers through stage two with an eye on some of the issues discussed at the Water Resources work session. Tom Anderson, Public Utility District (PUD) 1 Manager, stated the water rights review effort is bigger than just stage two. It has been going on for a year. The ultimate goal was to have water use and available maps on a parcel basis so there was easy clarity about the water situation for people when buying and selling land. Today, they are in the process of finishing stage one, which produces a block of data that is the paper allocation that exists by delineated areas. There is a proposal going around for stage two. At this point in time, the goals of stage two include taking all the defunct paper off the table and begin educating the current water right holders in the community about what they have and don't have and correct misconceptions about water law and water policy. That is the most important element of it. They need to make changes in people's understanding about water law because at some point in time, they will either have enforcement or adjudication, and things will change radically. He distributed a preliminary draft showing water right summaries from the Sumas and Lynden areas. Within the next month or so, there will be significant documents characterizing watersheds. In the Sumas watershed, the instream volume on an annual basis is substantially greater than the paper - allocated water Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 48 rights, which are substantially greater than the current estimated agricultural use and multiple domestic use. The same is true of Lynden North. The problem is that, based on their experience, at least one -third of the paper is not valid paper. If that one -third of the water rights is subtracted from the total water rights, it becomes less than the actual agricultural use. It can't cover the existing use. That is why the dead paper is so important. An example of dead paper is the .1cfs water right for Canyon Creek that was issued to a railroad a long time ago for a steam engine filling location. He suspected that is no longer used. Another example is a .2cfs right for a storage pond for floating timber. It is for a mill that has long since ceased operations. There is a right in the Birch Bay area for a subdivision, which is currently served by the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, and has been for a long time. They will also find that some well locations are under a road. The reason this is so important is because they need to make sure the data is real as they begin to put out this type of data. The portion of the stage two water rights review that will take the dead paper off the table is critical because it will make this information more realistic. The other piece of stage two is to get out in the community and talk to people. The goal there is to talk to the people who are obviously using their water rights so they have their information. There is a huge amount of misinformation in the community about water law and policy. Their goal is to talk to those people, give them a copy of the file, and make sure they know what the state has on file for their particular water right. Educate those people so they know what they've got and what it takes to protect it. Ultimately, they will have adjudication and all of these people will be in court defending their right. His goal is to make sure they have enough information now so they have the paperwork they need then. One big issue that has come up in the last few weeks about the proposal was the question about the mapping. The proposal said they were going to map information if people were willing to volunteer. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Anderson continued to state that he had no problem not doing the mapping in stage two. That is not a goal of stage two. There has also been some concern raised about even identifying the water rights to the parcels. They don't have to publish that information or put it in the report. They can report out the data on a delineated area basis or a bigger aggregation. The only way to get to the current water right holder is to go through the parcel. They have to have that in their records. They have to create a public record that shows that path. They don't publish that information. If someone wants to get pushy, he would have to reveal that information through a Freedom of Information Act request. There is no way that he knows of to not have that information out there. The only way to identify a current water right holder is to identify where the point of withdrawal was for the original right, relate it to an existing parcel, and take the parcel to the existing ownership. The proposal has been out since June. He received a limited amount of feedback in July and August. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 17 1 They modified the proposal a bit and received additional feedback in September. 2 He was not opposed to making additional changes now if that's what people want. 3 The Planning Unit has seen this. There were concerns raised, but not so much 4 about the content of the proposal. The work session last week raised more specific 5 questions than the Planning Unit meeting. He was open to specific suggestions for 6 changes. 7 8 Nelson questioned where the PUD gets it water. Anderson stated the PUD 9 gets it water from the Nooksack River. It has three water rights to the river. There 10 is a right for both of its original pump stations at Pioneer Park and Trigg Road. The 11 Tosco refinery turned over its original intake and rights from 1952 to the PUD about 12 ten years ago. 13 14 Nelson questioned what percentage of the PUD rights are used. Anderson 15 stated they've used them all. They currently, on occasion, pump the instantaneous 16 withdrawal amounts to put them to beneficial use. Their current actual annual 17 volume is about 60 percent of their total annual volume. They hold contracts for 18 almost the entire water rights at the current time. The City of Ferndale, for 19 instance, has a contract with the PUD for 4.5 mgd, even though they only use 1.5. 20 Intalco has a contract for 10 mgd and uses about seven. 21 22 Nelson stated a question will come up about whether there is a conflict of 23 interest with the PUD doing this study. The amount of water rights available could 24 be a benefit for the PUD to ascertain and acquire unused rights. Anderson stated 25 he wouldn't agree that there is a conflict of interest, but would agree that the PUD 26 has a substantial interest in what water is available. That interest primarily comes 27 from their involvement eight years ago with the Coordinated Water System Plan 28 and their discussions with a significant number of small water systems in the 29 county. The number one problem they identified at that time with the small water 30 systems was a lack of water rights. One of the solutions for the small water 31 systems' problems, private owners' problems, and industrial problems is the 32 possibility of transferring rights. But, they can't transfer rights until they know 33 what rights are valid and available and what rights would be impacted. One of his 34 frustrations with DOE was that their database and files are such a mess that one 35 can't get transfers processed. He is very interested in getting their database 36 caught up -to -date and identifying what's available. That's going to be the best way 37 to solve water system problems, the small cities' problems, and potentially some of 38 the PUD problems. The PUD does not currently have a demand for additional 39 water. If a large new industry showed up at Cherry Point, for instance, he would 40 have to look for additional water. The only place he would find that volume of 41 water would be to take it out of the river. Technically, the PUD could get additional 42 water rights from the river. They would be subject to instream flows so the PUD 43 would have to build storage. They've already done several preliminary studies 44 looking at that and have a sense of what the costs are. They've identified some 45 areas to do it in. For the kind of volume the PUD would need for a substantial 46 industrial expansion, that would be their direction to go. They won't find existing 47 rights with those kinds of volumes in the county. 48 Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 48 Nelson questioned whether the defunct rights would be identified by parcel. Anderson stated they would because they will have to identify the current owner of the parcel where the original point of withdrawal is. They will go out and meet with the current owner. If the current owner says he or she is not planning to ever use it, then he will give the owner the paperwork needed to voluntarily relinquish the right if he or she chooses. Nelson questioned whether the right would have value if the owner voluntarily relinquish it. Anderson stated the value is that it takes the allocation off the table and makes it theoretically possible for someone else to maybe get a water right if DOE determines that water is available. The water right has no value because it can't be transferred. Nelson stated that once the right is relinquished, it does have value potentially. Anderson stated it just disappears. Under the "use it or lose it" provision, the owner doesn't have anything. It is going to exist in the database until it is relinquished. Nelson questioned the water right owner's incentive to relinquish it. Anderson stated there is no incentive. The only incentive is that if the owner doesn't relinquish the right and there is adjudication, the owner will have to go to court and relinquish it at that point. Their effort has no regulatory authority. If the property owner wants to exercise its right, he or she may do that. Nelson asked about an individual that may be currently using water without a water right. Anderson stated stage two doesn't anticipate uncovering many of those. For those that they do uncover, they are not going to do anything about it until stage three. The Freedom of Information Act in this state is pretty strong. The best policy is to not collect the information if they don't want it to be public information. Nelson asked how they are going to do that if the PUD is going to the owner's door. Anderson stated that if he goes to someone's door, he is going to tell that water user that watershed planning is happening, within the next five to six years there is going to be enforcement of those issues, the user without a water right has a problem, and he doesn't want to know about it. His goal at that point is to educate people about what is happening and what the risks are down the road. He is not a regulator and is not interested in regulating. Nelson questioned his interest in going to that property. Anderson stated he wouldn't even go to that property in stage two. In stage two, he's only going to the properties that have a permit, certificate, or selective claim that is identified with that parcel. The goal of stage three is to talk to those people, but not until the watershed planning effort has produced alternatives, if they exist. In some case, there will be alternatives. In some cases, there won't. Dawson questioned whether Mr. Anderson would feel comfortable signing an affidavit saying the PUD would not accept anyone's water right. Anderson stated Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 people couldn't transfer them anyway. He wouldn't seek any additional water rights. When they did the Coordinated Water System Plan eight years ago, several small systems requested that the PUD take over their systems. He would have been happy to take them over, but it would have raised water rates and they could not do that anyway until the water rights are straightened out. He helped one of those systems file a change application to straighten out their water right, which was never granted. If a water association got its change application done, and hopefully the Conservancy Board will get going soon, he would accept that water right because he would use it to serve that water association. From the PUD's perspective, it is not interested in trying to acquire rights and transfer them to its intake for use. It is not a realistic endeavor. They are looking at storage to solve future problems at Cherry Point, due to the volume issue. He anticipated that some of the small systems would request that the PUD take over their systems. In that case, they will need to have the rights transferred. Kathy Bovencamp, Land Development Caucus, asked if an existing water right that hasn't been used in five years is gone. Anderson stated the problem is that state law says the water is subject to relinquishment if it is not put to beneficial use every five years. Relinquishment means that the state has to go through a process where it meets with the owner. There are appeal rights to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The owner can fight the relinquishment. The right isn't really gone until it's relinquished. That is the reason it creates a problem when it shows up in the database. Until they are relinquished, the Department of Ecology has to keep them on the books. The reality of what happens is dependent on what the court decides when it does adjudication. Nelson questioned who could ask for that adjudication. Anderson stated anyone could ask for that adjudication. It's up to the Department of Ecology to trigger it. There has been a request for adjudication of this basin for six or seven years by the Sandy Point Improvement Company. Nelson stated that people who have not been using their water rights, but do not want to lose them, are not in a position of answering the PUD's stage two question of whether or not they are using their water rights. That information would provide the PUD with information to take them to court. Anderson stated that is why the proposal has always said that providing that information is voluntary. Nelson questioned whether the PUD would tell the people that providing the information is voluntary. Anderson stated he would tell the owner up front. Bovencamp stated that was the concern of the Land Development Caucus. They want to know that in the stage two process, the PUD is advising the owners of the consequences of divulging information regarding their usage. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 Anderson stated that was his goal. One thing they haven't done yet is to meet with the Agriculture Caucus, the Land Development Caucus, and other interested caucuses to go through those scenarios and the paperwork to make sure everyone is comfortable with what is going to be said and asked. The proposal says that the stage two water contractor will provide additional details and specifics in the field verification method for review and approval by the Water Quality Technical Team. The reason that statement was put in there was to meet with the caucuses, work through those details, develop the forms, and take it back to the technical team. They have not done that yet. That is the first piece of the process for stage two. Nelson stated that if they approve stage two, there is no assurance that the caucuses will have input. Anderson stated that if people want to do this in two pieces, that is fine. Stage two A would be to develop all of this, meet with the caucuses, and develop the paperwork. Then it could come back and be approved. Nelson stated he would be more comfortable with that. McShane questioned whether the Council could direct Mr. Roll to take a position on this at the Planning Unit in favor of it. If there are any caucus members who can't tolerate stage two, they can decline at that time. Anderson stated that was correct. Nelson stated the problem is not the perception of whether the PUD would or would not take advantage of the situation, but the Council has to give the perception that it has addressed concerns that can be raised. They are legitimate concerns and fears. Anderson stated his goal with stage two was to take a positive step in building that trust and first go to the people who have rights, particularly the rights that are being used. They need to protect the water that is allocated for use or else they will have problems down the road. There is so much misunderstanding on the local level about what the law says. Bovencamp stated the idea of approval in two stages is a good idea. Her caucus will probably say something about this at the Planning Unit meeting. They need to talk about how they are going to do this before they start doing it. She questioned whether a water right holder is going to be asked to relinquish the unused portion. Anderson stated he would not ask anyone to relinquish anything. Bovencamp stated she was clear that only the Department of Ecology has authority to regulate water in the State of Washington. She questioned what to do when they get to that gray area if people are only using part of their right. Dawson stated the water right holder has a right to not answer how much they are taking. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 21 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 Anderson stated that stage two is not going to produce that information. He will not collect that data in stage two. Bovencamp stated it is logical that people who don't answer have water rights they are not using or who don't have any water rights. She assumed that list of people would be targeted in stage three. She questioned why the Department of Ecology is not funding this totally, since they are the agency that has the total responsibility for it. Nelson stated the Department of Ecology is not spending the money because it knows it doesn't have to. McShane stated they have to talk to the state legislature about that. Bovencamp stated the Department of Ecology is sitting at the table. She wanted to see pressure applied to them to do their job and use state monies to do it. She questioned what happens in stage three, and whether the County is going to enforce the water laws. McShane stated that is a conversation the Planning Unit would have at its meeting the next night. The Planning Unit and caucuses are going to drive these decisions more than anyone else will. Today, the Council needs to give its position to Mr. Roll. Roll suggested that they take a few moments to define the County's conditions for approving stage two. The County wants to work at aggregation of data so the process does not to expose people prior to developing management plan options that would bring forward options for the different stakeholders in this issue. A second condition is how the data is presented and reported, keeping it in a form that provides the needed information for planning purposes and sub -basin planning. A third condition was that the people communicating with the community have a good understanding of the legal implications and roles of the process regarding water rights information. He asked for a condition of proceeding with stage two. Nelson stated the Council would give approval to the initial development of stage two, allow caucuses to voice their concerns, and develop how to proceed with phase two of stage two, which is the on- the - ground work. Roll asked specifically what they want to accomplish during stage two A. Dawson asked for a letter from the PUD clarifying that their goal is storage for the Cherry Point area and something to alleviate the concern that the PUD is gunning for water rights. Nelson stated the PUD would make the proposal to caucuses. In that regard, the PUD could specify the two goals of stage two: taking off defunct paper and Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 22 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 educating the community. They want to have a good trusting relationship developed early on. Phase A of stage two is to develop how to approach the people on getting the defunct paper and in educating the people. The first objective of phase A would be to come back with the coordinated plan to be implemented in phase B of stage two. The staff effort would be to work with the caucuses and PUD to ensure that what is proposed in phase A is acceptable to all. Anderson stated they could rewrite all of the proposal so there are two distinct pieces, or insert an approval language in the middle of the document. That would be easier than separating the proposal into two parts. A condition already in the document is that, before the PUD proceeds with fieldwork, the PUD must provide details of field verification methods for review and approval prior to proceeding with that fieldwork. Since the PUD does all the prep work, it will meet with the Planning Unit and technical team for approval. If the Planning Unit and techical team don't approve the field verification methods, the PUD would have to rework them. McShane stated that the stage two process overall is a great idea. He was comfortable with it. Some caucuses clearly have concerns. The Council should defer to those caucuses to work out just how the PUD is going to present the data. He was okay with whatever that is. This doesn't need to come back to the County Council and the Council should not stipulate what that should be at this point. Roll stated the County Council is a part of the caucus and would be informed as they craft this strategy. He would come to the County Council at its monthly meeting to report on and get input about the strategy. McShane stated that at that point, the County Council could put the brakes on it. Nelson stated the difference is that that language has to be clarified in the document. Anderson stated that was no problem. McShane questioned whether this is clear direction for Mr. Roll to take to the Planning Unit. Roll stated this is going before the Council of the Whole this evening. He hoped this committee would provide a recommendation to the Committee of the Whole. What they've discussed is exactly the kind of direction he needed. Nelson stated he agreed with that direction. Anderson stated he would provide a marked up version of the proposal that addresses those specifics as they were discussed. Dawson stated she saw the concern about he PUD getting involved in stage three. At each stage, they are recognizing the PUD's experience and staff, but the fear at stage three will be that the PUD is after people's water. That concern needs to be alleviated up front. Anderson stated he didn't have a problem with writing a letter to that affect. Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 23 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 there are two issues. One issue is what stage two is. The next issue is who would do stage two. The second issue gets into Councilmember Dawson's questions about the PUD's role. He wanted to close on the discussion of what stage two is to do, and move into a discussion of who would do stage two. McShane agreed. Roll stated he came before the Council and the Planning Unit to create a series of technical teams that would be the interface between the work happening on the ground and the Planning Unit and involved governments. A key role of the technical teams is, as work evolves, to recommend to the Planning Unit who should do the work. In this case, the Groundwater Quantity Team recommended proceeding with the PUD in stage two. Two people were hired a year ago and sent through training through the Department of Ecology and other agencies. Those people are currently in place. This group advocates that the two staff members continue the process in stage two. The technical team recommends them as the proposed contractor for stage two. At the upcoming Planning Unit meeting, the members will discuss that recommendation. The issue on the table is whether or not the County, and the Planning Unit, supports going forward with stage two. Nelson stated the PUD is currently paying these two individuals. Roll stated that was correct. The staff is housed in offices at the City of Bellingham. Nelson questioned whether the staff works individually or with other members of the PUD. Roll stated they work with a variety of people, including the technical teams and others. Nelson questioned who pays their salary. Roll stated the salary comes from the Water Resources process. It was a contract that was set up through the County and the Joint Board. Those monies have been allocated through the Water Resource fund. Nelson stated that if the County continues contracting in that fashion, then they are not working directly with the PUD. Monsen stated they are employees of the PUD. Nelson stated that is where the conflict comes in. He asked if they have to be employees of the PUD. Roll stated they don't have to be. Nelson asked if the caucuses could work out a recommendation and get consensus agreement on who should be the employer. He would be comfortable with the caucuses' recommendation. Roll stated that is what is going to happen at the Planning Unit meeting the next night. There will be a proposal on the table from the Water Quantity Technical Team about the contractor for this. Consensus Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 24 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 means that everyone agrees with moving forward with this group as the contractor for stage two. Nelson stated that if the caucuses are uncomfortable, then they could determine who should be the employer for these two staff members instead of the PUD. The County is already the funding source. Nelson questioned whether Mr. Anderson had an opinion on whom the two staff people are contracted through. Anderson stated he didn't have an opinion. In fact, his commission would prefer that the PUD didn't do it. The PUD originally did it as a convenience for the County. Nelson asked why this is an issue that the County is addressing instead of the caucuses. Anderson stated the Planning Unit process has already addressed it. The Planning Unit asked the technical team to make a recommendation. The technical team recommendation that the PUD continue as the overseer. The caucuses were there and supported that recommendation. The recommendation goes to the Planning Unit tomorrow night. Some of the caucus representatives can change their minds. Roll asked how the County wants him to vote at the Planning Unit meeting, and whether the Council supports the proposal. If one of the caucuses does not support the proposal, it will go back through the process. Nelson stated the Council of the Whole would decide on that guidance. McShane moved to recommend that the Committee of the Whole give guidance to Mr. Roll to approve the proposal for the stage two water rights review process. Nelson asked if the motion is only to approve the proposal or if the proposal could be amended at the Planning Unit. Roll stated the proposal could be amended. Nelson stated he would support the motion to approve the proposal unless concerns are stated. Give the Planning Unit choices if it is not acceptable to other caucuses. Roll stated that if the proposal is not acceptable to the Planning Unit, then it goes back to the Quantity Technical Team to come back with a proposal that will get through by consensus. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Roll stated he is the County's representative at the Planning Unit and would take the Council's direction. The Council could suggest amendments. McShane withdrew his motion. Nelson moved to recommend that the Committee of the Whole direct the representative to approve the motion to approve the stage two water rights review Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 25 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 proposal, unless there is a concern raised by the caucuses. If there are concerns about the PUD being the employer of the two employees, who are paid by County funds, then the County would move to work on finding an alternative employer. He would like to see the caucuses work out who the employer would be. McShane asked if Councilmember Nelson would accept whatever employer the caucuses recommend. Nelson stated yes. Motion carried unanimously. McShane announced that Councilmember Connie Hoag was not present due to a family emergency. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 11/28/2000, Page 26