HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources January 18 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
Special Work Session
January 18, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Connie Hoag
Dan McShane
Bob Imhof (arrived at 11:30 a.m.)
Barbara Brenner (arrived at 10:00 a.m.)
Sam Crawford (arrived at 11:00 a.m.)
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
(Clerk's Note: Much of the audiotape is inaudible. Minutes are taken from
the clerk's notes.)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they need to have the discussion
regarding the Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514) update at 11:00 a.m. when
all Councilmember are present. He also wanted to insert another agenda item to
discuss the land buyout program regarding flood hazard.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated the Executive would not be
present, but he actively supports the effort.
Monsen stated the first item would be taken out of order, and they would
discuss application review. He referenced the draft Chinook recovery plan (on file),
the SRFB Early 2000 Grant spreadsheet (on file), and a memo from him regarding
the 1999 Nooksack Salmon Recovery Enforcement Team summary (on file).
Steve Seymour, Whatcom County Fish Biologist, stated the deadline for
Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board grant applications was yesterday. They
have 15 applications countywide. They are unranked at this time. They have $3.5
million in projects asking for $1.5 million. The next step is to rank these
applications locally. There will be a joint ranking exercise by the Citizens Habitat
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Committee and the Technical Advisory Group. That process will take place on
January 20. He distributed the process to rank the projects (on file). For each
applicant, they will see how well they score for each criterion. It is not going to be
easy because the projects are different in scope. They will try to equalize the
projects so they can assign priority.
Dawson asked if there would be a need to distribute equally between fish
passage and riparian. Seymour stated each project will be ranked according to the
questions. On some questions, fish passage will rank higher than riparian, and vice
versa. They are trying to draw those things out of the application, to see how it
figures into the whole picture. An application with many partners will score higher.
Applications with a bigger match score higher. The grant application requires a
minimum 15 percent match.
McShane asked how much money would be available. Seymour stated $14
to $17 million. He thinks Whatcom County will be lucky to get $1 million. There are
two large land acquisition projects that have been submitted. Both are very sound
projects. Those two combined exceed a million dollars. What this process has
really done has been to pull everyone together to work on a common goal, and it
has not wasted anyone's time. There is a lot of money outside SRF Board funding
for a project to be completed. Most information from the grants can be inserted
into other grants.
Hoag questioned how land acquisition fits in. Seymour stated it would be
considered long -term protection.
Hoag asked if they could weight small projects in the process so not only big
projects get the funding. Seymour stated good projects would gain points. One
question is if they are cost effective. They may not capture funding on this round.
This has been a learning process in trying to develop a systematic approach. The
process has been very open and public.
Hoag asked if they could weight the ranking process to include short -term
and smaller projects. Seymour suggested they get through this process and see
what happens. The little projects pull in a lot of public money and volunteers.
There are going to be niches for those kinds of processes. For this process, they
didn't have time to get to that level.
John Thompson, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Coordinator, stated this
funding source isn't friendly to small projects. It gets the County to make a list of
projects, so when other more appropriate funding sources come up, that project
information will be available.
Nelson asked if they are co -oping the smaller projects that can be used in a
larger context. Seymour stated the people involved agree this has been a good
thing. That kind of networking is not going on anywhere else in the state.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Dawson asked when the selection would be done. Seymour stated Joint
Technical Advisory Group (JTAG) meeting was on the January 20. They will work
on the ranking on that day.
George Boggs, Conservation District (CD), stated one task of ESHB 2496 is
to identify multiple funding sources. The SRF Board is just one part. The
Conservation District was able to shift some applicants to the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP). That program is being extended.
Nelson asked about monitoring. Some projects are based upon assumptions.
He asked how they would determine whether the projects are successful in intent.
Seymour stated monitoring is a big piece. The applicant needs to explain how they
are going to do monitoring. Most applications have a monitoring component.
College students often provide that service.
Nelson questioned whether they would get data from the projects a year
after they are funded. Seymour stated that was correct. Most of the projects are
done by entities who all have monitoring components.
McShane stated some of the same people doing the ranking are also
applicants. He asked how they are going to handle that. Seymour stated they will
have to see. People who rank their own projects are harder and more critical of
themselves. They are not sure how they are going to deal with it yet. There are 30
people involved in the ranking process, so that may be enough.
Monsen displayed a map showing the location of the CREP program.
Boggs stated they have ten contracts that they are going forward with. They
have eight miles of riparian area. There are 100 acres of buffer in that eight miles.
Small landowners have taken an interest. There is no paperwork involved. A
landowner has only to be eligible and sign the contract.
Nelson asked if they are meeting with each of the landowners in the
impacted areas. Boggs stated they are. They have worked with those landowners
before. The CD representative explains the benefits to the landowner, and
everything that is included in the program. It is a broader program for landowners
than the SRF Board program.
Hoag stated there are pros and cons of extending the CREP area to the lower
areas.
Thompson stated the original areas were based on the 1993 salmon and
steelhead stock inventory. They only identified spawning areas for the Spring
Chinook. They extended that to the area for the whole salmon life cycle.
Seymour distributed the culvert project summary. This culminated from the
work of a temporary worker in the department. He looked at culverts that were on
both the Fish and Wildlife data base and other databases. He tried to find the
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
47
48
culverts that offered more habitats upstream than others do. The County has
approximately 3,500 culverts in the road system. He stressed the need to continue
the culvert inventory process. They could contract another Washington
Conservation Corps crew of five to six individuals for a year. He talked to DOE
about this, and they would do it. He distributed the estimated cost for two years.
This is not a formal proposal. He didn't think they could do it any cheaper. The
road department developed a GIS layer of the road systems. They will determine
which way the water is flowing, to help the Water Resources Division in their
watershed delineation efforts. They will identify several pieces of information from
this action, besides identifying all the County pipes that block fish - bearing streams.
With that information, they will be able to prioritize where they put their energy in
replacing culverts.
Nelson asked if these would be done during the summer. Seymour stated it
is a year- around activity, for two years. Some streams are going to be dry during
the summer months.
Hoag asked if the Council ranked the County's applications for salmon
recovery. Seymour stated they did not. They got a list of projects from the
County's Operations and Maintenance (O &M) Division. The intern did habitat
assessments on those things, and this is the list of projects they came up with
based on fish criteria.
Monsen stated that as the ranking process is completed, they would still have
gone through the process of ranking even if they don't see much in the way of
grant funds in this round. They will know which ones are the highest priorities.
Seymour stated half the culverts on the list won't rank high on the salmon
recovery list. There are other opportunities for funding these projects.
Monsen stated supplemental information was sent in as a lead entity. At this
point, they are going through the ranking process. As the lead entity on the ESHB
2496 process, they compiled the information and forwarded the entire package to
the SRF Board. He asked if the Council has heard anything alarming, so they can
make any adjustments. They are also seeking Council support in moving forward
with any funds received.
Nelson stated he was concerned with projects not relating to salmon. He
would rank those higher. Seymour stated all are salmon bearing streams, but
some are outside the basins.
Nelson asked about Toad Creek. Seymour stated it is significant. It is
blocked in two places. It is good habitat. The salmon are stopped now at Dewey
Road. If Dewey Road and Britton Road were fixed there would be about a mile of
habitat.
have.
Hoag stated she wouldn't want to support Toad Creek with the budget they
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
48
Nelson said it is difficult for them to look at the dollar, and equate it to the
length of the river. Salmon are going to go where they want to go, regardless of
what they spend the money on or how much area the habitat restoration will allow.
They will have to use the natural resources personnel's good judgement.
Hoag asked what they want from the Council. Monsen stated he wanted to
know whether the County Council would have a problem with any projects on the
list, if one were ranked high and received funding.
Hoag stated she was only concerned with the Toad Creek project.
Desler asked the source of the County match. Monsen stated the source is
the road fund.
Nelson agreed with Hoag on Toad Creek. He wanted to focus on the
Nooksack basin first. The sooner they do that, the sooner they can evaluate the
effectiveness of the programs.
McShane stated they could go ahead with the Washington Conservation
Corps crew and do the Nooksack Basin first.
Seymour stated they need to know information about every pipe the County
is responsible for. Because they don't have the right information, people install
more blockages upstream. They have to get a handle on that countywide and basin
wide. If all County pipes are inventoried, then they could focus on particular
basins.
Hoag asked who makes the decision on culvert size for a development.
Seymour stated ultimately the Department of Fisheries, but the County had been
getting calls. It is really inconsistent.
Nelson asked if the Technical Advisory Committee has been reviewing those.
There are many ways of addressing culvert problem solving.
Bruce Mills stated Fisheries has been dictating to them the size that the
culverts will be.
Seymour stated they have in -house ability to do detailed modeling.
Thompson addressed the 1999 Nooksack Salmon Recovery Enforcement
Team Summary Report (on file). The State Fish and Wildlife enforcement officer
and other officers worked to beef up enforcement on the Nooksack. The intent was
to reduce illegal taking of fish, including poaching and nets. The Nooksack Tribe
supported the effort, but couldn't free up an officer. Their funding contribution was
to fund an additional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) officer.
The objectives of the project were to coordinate the enforcement between agencies,
which is a landmark situation where there is this level of cooperation. Another
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
objective was to ensure compliance with all the existing environmental regulations,
including the hydraulics code and the hydraulic project approval (HPA) permit that
the Engineering Division uses. That is one of the things that has been
inconsistently enforced. A third objective was to target known areas where
regulations were frequently violated. These officers were assigned to this
enforcement as their primary duty. Another objective was to educate the public on
environmental resources regulations.
The outcomes include a collaborative working relationship between Lummi
Nation, Nooksack Tribe, and WDFW. It was a very productive effort this past year.
They were able to provide three full -time officers to provide essential resource
oriented enforcement and education. They provided coordination with other
agencies on enforcement issues. They identified several major illegal harvests in
which the perpetrators were arrested and prosecuted. They continued the patrols
after the rest, and there was very little to no activity. The word got out that the
river was being patrolled. They identified numerous HPA violations. There were a
number of water code violations reported to DOE. They worked on a partnership
with Crown Pacific to place educational signs at the upper South Fork. Most
importantly, they had numerous contacts with the community, especially the
agriculture community. This resulted in a very successful change of information for
both sides. The officers were able to convey the regulatory message, and they also
got feedback from the landowners about what they know of the waterways.
It has been a successful year. On the list of projects submitted this year,
number two and others are enforcement packages to continue this effort by
obtaining SRF Board funding. This is a process that they would like to see continue.
They would ask the Council if this is a program they would like to see continue,
based on its success so far.
Nelson stated he would support that program. The concern he had was that
there be someway the education process could be emphasized more. They need to
get the message out that illegal actions will be enforced.
Hoag questioned whether the nets of the illegal poachers disappeared after
the arrests. Seymour stated the enforcement officers had a great presence on the
river, which was new. Approximately 20 nets were pulled during their first sweep
along the river. After that, the word was out.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Thompson stated the physical act of having the enforcers pick up and move
the nets was powerful.
Hoag questioned whether the same people were being picked up and
whether that solved the problem. Seymour stated the same people were not being
picked up. Once the word got out and the Lummi Nation made initial arrests, most
of the activity stopped.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Hoag asked if there was enough of a presence during the spring spawning.
Thompson stated the program didn't start until May, after the spawning time.
Hoag asked if the end of the Spring Chinook run is the end of September.
Seymour stated was correct. They were patrolling at that time, but there wasn't
anyone out there to talk to because the fishing season wasn't open yet.
Hoag asked about commercial fishers on the river.
Nelson stated tribal commercial fishers are on the river.
Thompson stated the idea is that they only open it up after the Spring
Chinook have moved through and are no longer in that region.
Hoag asked what kind of violation they would see if the Spring Chinook are
gone. Thompson stated some of that would be in the form of a tribal fisherman
who didn't have a valid fishing license.
Dawson asked the percentage of violators that were found in the dark.
Thompson stated quite a few. The enforcers try to target the areas and times of
day they would most likely find violators. A number of the activities took place at
night.
Hoag asked if this is scheduled to continue. Seymour stated that there is no
money earmarked to continue. The co- managers and ]TAG agree this needs to
continue. The proposal deals with funding, but it doesn't deal with programmatic
issues. It probably won't get funded during this round.
Hoag asked how it was funded last year. Seymour stated that last year it
came out of the governor's salmon recovery fund.
Monsen stated they are looking to the Council for support to look for funds
and, if funds are not found, to supplement with County funds.
Nelson stated the enforcement has to go together with any type of
enhancement program. The proposal for a five -year program has some merit.
They need to have longevity so people understand the County is committed. He
wanted to see a budget proposal. It is important to regain the citizen trust and that
salmon get upstream.
McShane stated the net issue is one they hear about all the time. Whether
or not it is a problem, there is a public perception problem. The results of this
program are incredible.
Hoag stated she was not comfortable with providing five years of funding,
but she supported the program.
The Council concurred.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
McShane asked about a HPA violation and its status. Seymour stated the
Department of Fish and Wildlife would know the outcome.
Desler asked about the impact to the Prosecutor's Office and court time
regarding this enforcement. Seymour stated one concern was that Fisheries
needed to get together with the Prosecutor's Office on these issues more
frequently.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated these would be handled in
District Court as misdemeanors. The District Court justice system has a massive
volume. The HPA violation is dealt with along with thousands of other cases. In
terms of a significant commitment of resources, it is just part of the mill. It is an
unusual part of the mill. The preparation for such a case would be more intensive.
McShane asked if lack of prosecution becomes a liability. Gibson stated it is
something that can be addressed in part at the County level. If there is adequate
enforcement, another avenue to prosecute is through the Attorney General's (AG)
office.
Brenner asked why they just couldn't get it through District Court.
Hoag stated they don't want to micromanage the Prosecutor, but questioned
whether one person could become familiar with them and prosecute them. Gibson
stated that could be considered.
Hoag asked about the other avenues that Gibson referenced. Gibson stated
it would be an agency violation, and the question arises where the primary
enforcement comes from. A driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge takes up the
most time and attention. The Prosecutor looks at the issue holistically, from a
broader perspective.
Hoag asked if the state agency could pursue prosecution through the AG's
office. Gibson stated it is conceivable. It should be considered systematically.
Brenner asked if they are just passing the buck doing that. Gibson stated he
was only saying that, considering the various enforcement options, it is helpful to
take a closer look and then consider an array of options that are available.
Brenner stated her concern was that they should have already considered
those questions. They should be making a decision now. She questioned how long
they are going to take to come up with a decision. She asked if they want the
Council to make that decision. One of the questions is if there is a problem.
Brenner stated there is a problem if she doesn't know what is happening with
a particular violation.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Monsen stated he is hearing support from the Council for the project and that
they make sure to pursue the prosecution options. He will come back with
information.
McShane asked if the State has listed Spring Chinook. Seymour stated he
didn't know.
McShane stated that the last he heard, the State hadn't listed it, even though
the federal government had.
Monsen stated they were waiting to see what would come of the 4(d) rule.
That becomes a trigger for a number of things to occur.
Gibson stated he supplied a copy of the proposed 4(d) rule to the Council
office. Most of it is preamble that summarizes what is going on. The actual
proposed rule changes are on the last six pages. The preamble is helpful in
explaining what is happening. This is a proposed rule. The comment period is open
until March 3 at 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time. It is available on the internet. It
is at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.
There are a series of public meetings. The one closest to Whatcom County will be
held on January 31 in Anacortes, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Dawson asked if anyone from the County would attend. Monsen stated he
would attend. He didn't know if they would be ready to make a comment. He
wanted support from the Council be fore making comments. They met with the
City of Bellingham to ensure they understand their comments, and so they could
consolidate the consistent points regarding the Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA).
Gibson stated this is a proposed rule for the Spring Chinook listing by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). There is another listing of Bull Trout
administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Their operation does not require 4(d) to
enforce the take portion of section nine. The real focus of the endangered species
activity seems to be concentrating on Chinook salmon. The proposed rule lists 13
exceptions to the take prohibition of section 9. Section 9 provides a blank
prohibition of a take. There are 13 exceptions proposed in the 4(d) rule. They are
summarized on page 171 of the document. He read them into the record.
Brenner asked about the development exemption in urban areas. She was
concerned. Gibson stated each is more fully explained in the document. NMFS
emphasizes that the limits are not prescriptive regulations. If there was a variance
away from an approved maintenance plan, one wouldn't necessarily be in violation.
Also, the exceptions do not relieve federal agencies of their duty under section
seven to consult with NMFS. To the extent that they are seeking federal funds or
permit, even if the activity falls under the exemption, one would be mandated to
consult. The consultation process would be much simpler because of the fact that
the activity has been identified as an exception to a take.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
47
Hoag asked if the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) road
maintenance plan referred to road maintenance in Oregon or by the State of
Oregon. Gibson stated that was a good question. On a practical basis, it means
that the ODOT plan provides a good template for the activity Washington State
pursues to obtain a maximum level of protection.
Hoag questioned whether Washington State would they be exempt if it does
something exactly like the Oregon plan.
Brenner questioned why they didn't identify the Washington DOT.
Hoag stated the Oregon plan was approved.
Gibson stated the Oregon plan is state -of- the -art regarding road
maintenance activities. Washington has been using it as a legislative template.
Hoag questioned whether Washington State could move ahead with projects
designed according to the ODOT manual. Gibson stated the consultation
requirement would continue to be in place. During consultation, one will bring
forward the program the plan to comply with the consultation requirements. The
Oregon program may go a long way in satisfying the federal government. Last
year, there was a reluctance to do anything because of the lack of clarity. With the
rule, they may see the log jam break a bit.
Hog asked if the 13 exceptions still need consultation. Gibson stated they
do, but he expected the process would be simplified.
Monsen stated routine road maintenance that historically has not needed a
permit is what they are talking about. Anything that requires a permit will not have
any changes.
Gibson stated most are without the federal permit or without federal funding.
In those cases, where they are not consulting, they would do a local translation of
an ODOT standard. If they do enforcement priorities, they will likely not have
trouble from agencies. NMFS also identified three levels of enforcement priorities
on page 172 -173. It indicates six different activities where they will be
concentrating their enforcement.
Hoag asked where contamination leaves farmers if manure is going into the
water. She asked if there would be a threshold. Gibson stated discharge of sewage
seems to be a point discharge in close relationship to the supporting habitat. It is
addressed at every level of priority, which delineates the thresholds.
Gibson stated NMFS says that, if engaged in the process, they will develop an
idea of what they should do. The kind of discussion happening today is the kind of
discussion NMFS is hoping for. He did not sense that NMFS is going to be the worst
enemy.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Hoag asked about what is happening in other areas. Gibson stated there was
an area in northern California.
Boggs stated rivers are subject to federal reclamation projects. If there is no
local action, the federal government can easily shut the water off. The federal
government expects prompt action by the Conservation District and the road
projects. They expect the farmers to curtail activities also.
Dawson asked if the biggest threats are the third -party lawsuits. Gibson
stated they might be over time. This provides an idea of what will be in the 4(d)
rule. The next step in the local response is to resemble the 4(d) regulations that
are adopted. Oregon has responded by creating "1010 plans." They deal with
agriculture in a wet area. They are not listed as an exception, but they expect that
Oregon may be able to gain coverage of the 1010 plan in the 4(d). That would be
an avenue for additional coverage for Washington. How the wind blows in Oregon is
indicative of how the wind blows in Washington.
McShane asked about a large HCP. Gibson stated they are points of attack.
They serve as a bellwether.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Gibson stated that, strategically, a small farmer would not be the focus.
Monsen talked about the recovery plan process from this point on to the next
six to eight months. They have a copy of the early December version of the draft
Chinook recovery plan. The next work session will talk about that more specifically
and to talk about recommendations and comments regarding 4(d) rules, and to
finalize activities that must occur prior to adoption of the recovery plan. The
recovery plan is general in nature, but strong enough that it provides an internal
road map of the direction they are heading, and it sends a message to NMFS that
they are serious about recovery. The vast majority of the work in the document
has been harvest to hatchery because the Lummi Tribe prepared it with review by
the Nooksack Tribe. The habitat section is in an extreme draft form. They will
begin to look at the County's role.
Dawson asked about their level of input. Monsen stated the tribes handed
the document to the County for their input on the habitat element. That element
needs the greatest attention at this point. He proposed to finalize a draft recovery
plan by the end of April that can go into two months of public review and an
educational process. At the end of June, they would look for joint adoption with all
the local entities so they are heading on a similar course.
Hoag asked about the options in the enforcement document. Monsen stated
he was open to receiving individual comments from councilmembers. He wanted to
put off the discussion until the end, so they can talk about how to schedule
meetings. They are moving into areas in which staff needs to understand Council
direction.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
(Clerk's Note: A ten - minute break was taken at 10 :55 a.m.)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, introduced the
Comprehensive Water Resource Plan 2000 Update. They will have a formal
presentation at the next work session. The are five elements in the original plan,
which he read. On page 30 are additional needs that will be discussed in future
work sessions.
Brenner asked if they would have a hearing on this document. They need to
include the public.
Hoag suggested it be run through the WRIA process. Roll stated WRIA is one
piece of it. This plan includes all the issues in Whatcom County. They will see that
they break down each issue in the work sessions. It is a complex document that is
becoming more complex. The plan is the County's response to coordinate the
issues. What the public is thinking will come up as they have the sessions in which
they talk about salmon. They will move on to get an update on Lake Whatcom
management. As they move forward, the public concerns will be there. He would
be concerned that the plan would be so large and the issues so numerous if they
tried to present a public meeting.
Brenner stated this is a lot of information that involves several segments of
the community. She wanted the public to know about the document and that there
will be a public hearing or meeting at some point.
Hoag stated they don't hear much discussion on groundwater. She asked
who does the planning and about the guidelines of how water is allocated and how
growth is planned based on use. Roll stated the plan identifies a county lead for
each section. This would be the point person. The Water Team will be working on
the coordination of the groundwater with the other pieces.
Dawson asked if it is a state law.
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District, discussed water rights.
Roll asked that they have a session in which the Water Team will present the
plan. He wanted to hear points about coordination.
Dawson asked if hydraulic continuity was the only thing. Anderson stated
DOE still has to jump through hoops to issue a water right. There are four
statutory departments.
Roll stated the plan is a supplement to the existing plan.
Roll stated the next piece was the Marine Resource Committee. Whatcom
County, under the Northwest Straits Commission established the committee.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Roll stated there will be a shoreline audit of Whatcom County for the purpose
of identifying high - priority areas, to fill in data gaps, and to create a single source
of existing shoreline information that can be used in prioritizing efforts. Task one
will be the data compilation. This is where they look for data gaps in the existing
data. The Bellingham Pilot Study is one example of a lot of data that was compiled
on shoreline habitat. There is also data from state agencies, universities, and
federal agencies on shoreline information. The second portion is the developed
criteria for prioritization of habitat protection and restoration opportunities and
recommendations for prioritized projects. They will identify areas and coastlines for
early action. The third task will be the shoreline inventory. Some of the items that
will be collected include the types of substrate, vegetation, existing sea grass beds,
bank characterization, and many others. The fourth task is a public outreach.
There will be an open house as well as information disseminated through the
Municipal Research Center homepage. There are matching funds from the pilot
project.
McShane questioned whether the Planning and Development Department was
aware of the plan. Roll stated they are. He had a meeting with them the week
prior. That is part of the coordination. He also met with the State Department of
Ecology (DOE).
Hoag questioned whether there is an ex officio from the Planning Department
on the Marine Resources Committee. Roll stated they don't now, but they can do
that.
Monsen stated procedurally on the grant, they are looking for any concerns
they may have for formal approval process in the future. They would rather know
now if there are reservations for moving ahead on these projects.
Roll gave an update on ESHB 2514. When this process started, there was no
public involvement and education (PIE) coordinator in the county. The County
sought an outside contractor. Over the last couple of months they've hired a new
PIE coordinator. They are still maintaining the unbiased third party facilitation.
They are bringing a proposal to the Council and will ultimately take it to the
initiating governments (IG) in the form of a contract proposal to support their
efforts for the next five to six months. He provided the analysis they did to ensure
they weren't duplicating efforts. There are more PIE needs than what one person
can do.
Brenner asked what on the handout is the responsibility of the coordinator.
Roll stated watershed education is the responsibility of the PIE coordinator. The
contractor will do the meeting facilitation. Several of the administrative efforts are
more cost - effective to be done in- house.
Monsen stated they are not talking about hiring new people. They are
determining which activities each position will do to see if they should continue the
contract.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Roll stated he was seeking the Council's approval to set up the process.
Nelson asked about the amount of the contract. Roll stated the preliminary
contract is just under $15,000. He plans to take the contract through the Council
so the IG can go through their planning process.
Monsen stated everything they've talked about during this meeting has been
informal discussion that will lead to contract approval.
Roll stated he wanted an extension of the contract.
Imhof asked how long the $15,000 would last. Roll stated it would last five
months.
Nelson asked what they could accomplish in five months. Roll stated they
would continue to facilitate the monthly meetings. They are going to see a scope of
work that defines the four elements of the WRIA planning project in two to three
months, and then defined scopes of work will be developed. The scope of work will
tie into the Planning Unit process.
Nelson stated he was comfortable with what he was trying to do. The
hardest part is to identify the scope and solutions. They need a facilitator. They
need to identify the product. He questioned whether the scope of work for the
WRIA process would be the accomplishment. Roll stated it would.
Anderson stated the IG are requesting the facilitators.
Nelson stated he wanted to know what they are getting for it. Anderson
stated they are getting well run meetings and communication between the
governments between meetings.
McShane asked if that includes all the caucuses. Roll stated it does.
McShane stated it would be helpful to have a vote of consensus from the
governments.
Nelson moved to give direction to continue with the facilitator.
Monsen stated that when they talk about these kinds of matters during the
work session, if the matter is budgeted, it would be the only formal action that will
come up on the Council agenda if there is concurrence and budget direction to act.
Dawson asked if there was consensus to go forward with this.
Brenner stated she wanted benchmarks, not products. This not is a product -
producing position. She wanted to know ahead of time where they expect them to
be.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Hoag stated she wanted to make sure they properly staff the group.
The Council concurred to give direction to go forward with the contract.
Roll provided a draft from Dr. Hardy as a result of the in- stream flow
conference. One of the elements of WRIA is in- stream flow. It is a draft conceptual
road map for addressing in- stream flows. He prepared it as a result of conference
with the twelve in- stream flow experts. This is a compilation of what they felt
should be the conceptual framework for looking at in- stream flows. On February
17, Dr. Hardy will provide a formal presentation. The Planning Unit will be
reviewing it. There will be a final document and then the IG will want to act.
Brenner asked about the February 17 meeting. Roll stated he would let the
Council know.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Anderson discussed the water rights analysis. The PUD signed an interlocal to
do water rights analysis. They have hired two people and have started that work.
The first task was sub -basin delineation. They need to prioritize what area they
work in and lump water rights and review into those areas. He provided an
example of one of the maps. They've delineated six or eight existing sub - basins.
Hoag asked what constitutes a sub - basin. Anderson stated that is debatable.
A technical team was formed and has met twice. One question was how big or small
a sub -basin is. It is a physical thing defined as where the water flows to a
particular point. The United States Geological Service (USGS) is working on
delineation for modeling purposes, but it will be small. Those delineations will be
aggregated to create sub - basins. The actual units they will be working with will be
smaller than that.
Nelson asked if the boundaries were surface water boundaries. Anderson
stated they are.
Nelson asked why the boundaries aren't based on topography. Anderson
stated they are.
Brenner asked if it was possible that some of the sub - basins will not be
perfect. Anderson stated they would take the sub -basin delineation and send a
ground crew to go look at certain areas. They have to get the different delineations
to agree. In terms of water rights, they are primarily going after the data they
need to start looking at them. They have run into some problems. For instance,
DOE changed their database and the new format is not user friendly. At this point,
they are on the verge of starting to do the water rights analysis. Before they get
too far, they need to push the delineation forward.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Brenner stated the PUD has a vested interest in the results. Anderson stated
it goes to the Planning Unit for review and approval. They represent all the different
interests.
McShane asked how they are going to coordinate groundwater aquifers with
the basins. Anderson stated that is for the future. They initially recognized that
only in limited cases is there enough data on groundwater aquifers to delineate
them. They don't expect to have enough data to delineate groundwater aquifers.
Monsen stated the agreement with the PUD only financed a short period of
time, while it addressed a long -term relationship. They will ask for specific
direction as to whether or not the agreement with the PUD should be continued.
The original approval was for the balance of 1999. Because the PUD hasn't finished
the work, they continued the authority. The Council has not approved financing of
additional work beyond the next couple of months.
Brenner questioned whether they are already working with the people who
have that information. Anderson stated they are.
Brenner stated that if the information is already there, it would streamline
the process. Anderson stated they have every intention of doing that. The first
phase is to look at the paper and make a determination of the paper file from DOE
on the most likely status of a right. It takes about 30 minutes to go through a
water right file. There are 4,800 claims and 3,100 certificates, applications, and
permits. The water rights process involves first an application to the State. The
State issues a permit. After a timeframe, the permit is converted to a certificate.
The claims were created in 1967 to get all the people with pre -dated claims to file a
claim so there was a record on file to document their use. There was a lot of
confusion, and the majority of the claims are invalid. During the first phase they
only focus on the certificates, applications, and permits. He is working on a budget
for the next time period.
Brenner asked if the certificates, applications, and permits will go quicker
than the claims. Anderson stated the claims will go quicker because they are only
one page long and take five minutes to review. The majority of them don't predate
the code. Unless they pre -date the statute, they are not valid. The date is 1917
for surface water and 1945 for groundwater.
Brenner asked if an invalid claim would be in another group. Anderson
stated that legally it would not exist. They have to find out if the same person still
owns the property and if the property still exists as it did back then.
Nelson stated there are certificates that are not being used. They have to
sort everything out first.
Hoag stated they are looking at what is out there. She asked if they have
any legal authority when reviewing the claims. Anderson stated they don't.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, 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
Roll asked for direction on the scope of work.
Sue Blake, Water Resources Planner, stated the scope of work has been out
for many months. They received comments from the Planning Unit and others.
They decided to make changes to the scope of work. They formed a technical team
composed of participants from the IG and the Planning Unit. They are revising the
scope of work from the one that existed last year. It will be more comprehensive.
They are not going to see actual numbers attached because it establishes the
framework, such as the teams who will work on more comprehensive programs.
This is the big picture. They will distribute the document next week, at the same
time that Planning Unit will receive it.
Nelson left the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Monsen discussed the draft buy -out program to be discussed at the next
meeting.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated this is part of the
Comprehensive Plan. She met with the advisory land use subcommittee, and
Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) has contacted her. They may have some
extra hazard mitigation grant money available soon. They are interested in helping
the County kick -off a buyout program. There are some properties they are
interested in. They should find out if the property owners are interested before
continuing with FEMA.
Monsen stated they want to make sure the Council is comfortable with this
opportunity.
The Council concurred it was a good idea.
Hoag stated she hoped it would be used as an opportunity to create habitat.
Cooper stated there is a good opportunity for that.
Monsen asked for a critique of these meeting and to set the future meetings.
They will provide clearer information about due dates and the comments that are
needed.
The Council scheduled future meeting times, dates, and location.
Dawson stated they should discuss enforcement at the next meeting.
Dawson asked about funding the enforcement.
Thompson questioned whether it was possible for the Council to put up the
money this year for continued enforcement on the Nooksack, in case the grant
doesn't come through.
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Brenner stated she wanted the administration to talk to the Council about
where the $150,000 would come from.
The Council concurred to have work sessions once a month, mid - month.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 22 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special Council Work Session - Water Resources, 1/18/2000, Page 18