HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole October 26 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
October 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 5:50 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
1. WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JEFF MONSEN
REPORTING TO COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF LOCAL SALMON
RECOVERY EFFORTS, THE FALL WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES MEETING, AND THE PUGET SOUND LEADER'S
WORKSHOP (AB99 -017)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he had a copy of a letter regarding
the Lummi water negotiations. It gives a summary of the status of the situation.
Also, in addition to the work being done on stormwater, the State Department of
Ecology (DOE), will begin a process to deal with stormwater management. He
distributed DOE's proposed stormwater standards. They also have the Non -Point
Pollution Control Plan. DOE is taking a more comprehensive look at non -point
stormwater issues.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated he has taken a cursory look at
the documents.
Brenner stated this information should be discussed in a work session.
Dawson stated they could schedule a work session during an off Tuesday.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag stated they could also schedule the item in Natural Resources
Committee. They have more time in Natural Resources Committee than in
Committee of the Whole.
Monsen stated he is willing to do either one.
Brown suggested a meeting during the evening on an off Tuesday.
Hoag stated she would schedule this item on the next Natural Resources
Committee agenda.
Monsen stated that local and statewide salmon recovery requires:
• Substantive programs and activities to protect the species
• Programs that put policies and financing in place and are certain to be
carried out
• Comprehensive monitoring to assess progress
The requirement under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is that they must
do all three. They can't write a plan that doesn't specify implementation or
funding.
Brenner questioned whether they have to have the money available before
they do anything. Monsen stated it is not clear from the State's perspective that all
three pieces are required. The State's document entitled Extinction Is Not An
Option is the substantive program. The "Early Action Plan" supplements the
document, and begins to discuss how they will implement the program. The report,
Salmon Recovery Balanced Scorecard Detail, outlines the State's monitoring goals.
He also distributed a memo to interested parties from the Salmon Recovery
Funding Board. It is the State's current effort to put money to activities. This is
not complete; it does not deal with financing of regulatory actions. It only deals
with financing the projects. This is how they are going to make decisions about
attaching the resources to the priorities.
Brenner stated this board was appointed in August of 1999, and they are
responsible for $7 million. That is fast. Monsen stated that amount is overstated.
That amount includes federal money that doesn't exist.
Brenner asked if there is going to be any federal money. Monsen stated the
current form of the bill suggests $18 million in federal funds. That is compared to
more than $20 million in the first effort.
Nelson stated they are going to look at a successful record of project
implementation when they designate funding for the projects through this board.
There is an impetus to begin this process, have projects going, and achieve some
successes. He questioned what the County proposes to achieve successes. Monsen
stated whatever projects are funded, either through the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board or other sources, have a monitoring requirement. One of the County's
challenges is to ensure the results of all the monitoring activities are combined to
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
show the big picture. Individual projects require an element of longevity to show
results.
Nelson questioned whether the monitoring is going to be the primary
objective at this time. Monsen stated longer -term monitoring is the critical
element. Everything to that point is approved by National Marine Fisheries Services
(NMFS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife, depending on the species. Until there are results
showing what they expect to occur, they don't know if the rules will continue or
change.
Monsen stated all the items he distributed, other than Extinction Is Not An
Option, are current drafts.
Brown questioned Monsen's immediate goals, plans, and his opinions of what
is going on. Monsen described what is happening now and what will happen next.
They have a standing habitat committee to solicit, review, and prioritize projects.
Roll stated they had a well- attended orientation meeting. A lot of the people
are involved with the Nooksack Recovery Team. There is a lot of experience at the
table. There is a sense of enthusiasm. During the next session, they are going to
talk about expanding the committee to include agriculture and fish representation.
Also, the Tribes need to be better represented.
Brenner questioned whether the Tribes want to be involved in this. Roll
stated they are very involved. They bought into doing the limiting factors work.
They seem to accept that needs to be done.
Sutter questioned whether they are open public meetings. Monsen stated
they are not closed, but they are not broadly advertised.
Brenner questioned whether the County has to do any advertising, by law.
Monsen stated they don't have to for a committee. They haven't done broad
advertisements for committees of this type.
Hoag stated a board or committee may be subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act, and the meetings have to be advertised. They don't have to widely
publicize it, but there may be a legal requirement to advertise it.
Sutter stated this is not a very well known item to the public. The Public
Information and Education (PIE) coordinator needs to look at including public
involvement for this. She questioned how they can facilitate doing that.
Brenner questioned who was the PIE coordinator. Monsen stated the person
is Scarlett Tang.
Roll stated he will introduce her to the Council at the next meeting. The ESA
position has also been hired, but the person won't begin until November 22.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Sutter stated this is important to the Council. The Council would like to know
who they are working with and have access to those people.
Hoag questioned what the Water Resources Division was looking for in terms
of review and policy direction. Monsen stated he is planning to send comments in
to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board regarding procedural items. If the Council
sees something in the documents that they believe the County should respond to,
then he could discuss that with them. He will be commenting on items that are
very administrative. He will provide a copy of his comments to the
councilmembers. The comments are due at the first of November. However,
depending on the Council's desire, he can make sure the testimony is delivered
prior to or during their November 17 meeting. They will accept testimony during
that meeting also. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board will move into a project
submittal /grant application process that will be done by early next year. The local
committee is going to start identifying projects right away. They need to make
sure they are soliciting Council activities.
Sutter stated the most recent Courthouse Journal said the board is still
struggling with procedural processes. She questioned how they are going to go
about ranking projects, and whether they will look for projects that are up and
running or are new.
Roll stated their memo seeks responses on those issues. There is a sense
they want to heavily weigh protection projects. He believed the land is already
protected under the Critical Areas Ordinance and by setbacks.
Sutter stated there was discussion about this at the Council of Natural
Resources. They depend on the jurisdiction. Some areas may not have anything
left to protect, so they need more money for restoration, whereas for other areas it
may be the opposite.
Hoag stated they've talked about doing things along the river, but she hasn't
seen any proposed projects.
Roll stated the Whatcom Land Trust is hosting a workshop to look at
identifying parcels of land that are key for eagles and salmon. They will have some
information tomorrow. There are a number of projects the Land Trust and the
coastal zone protection money will look at.
Hoag stated they weren't just interested in land acquisition.
Monsen stated the Salmon Recovery Fund (SURF) Board is only struggling
with whether they would be selecting projects or sending block grants to
watersheds to be distributed at the watershed level.
Nelson stated it looks like they will do some of each. Monsen stated they
would likely do both.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Sutter stated they should be flexible.
Monsen stated locally, they should have the draft Chinook Recovery Plan in
the next two weeks to two months. They are pressing to get that draft done. The
next item he distributed was a document entitled Managing Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery. It is a working paper put together as the context of the salmon leaders'
workshop. The primary focus of the workshop was to look at the issues this raised,
and to begin discussing how they would deal with the issues at the level of the
entire Puget Sound. This would ensure that what is happening in the entire Puget
Sound, as well as in each watershed, was consistent. Some kind of forum needs to
continue, so that individual watershed activities can be rolled into a Puget Sound
recovery. Those that have been successful in certain elements can share their
information, to eliminate re- inventing the wheel. Everyone at this forum has said
the real significant, coordinated effort has to occur at each watershed. At this
point, there isn't a need for a decision - making structure for the Puget Sound
Evolutionary Sensitive Unit (ESU) or any sub -unit of the Puget Sound ESU. The
watershed should coordinate the ESU.
Roll stated some people are talking about Chinook recovery and some people
are talking about watershed recovery. People didn't know that is two different
things.
Monsen stated most of the activities in the various watersheds are focused
on salmon.
Sutter stated that if they do well for the watershed, then they do well for the
fish.
Monsen stated he hasn't gotten anything from the Salmon Recovery Funding
(SRF) Board that would suggest they are looking only at listed species. They are
going to deal with salmon. They may do some prioritization if they have to choose
between projects.
Hoag stated she hopes they emphasize the listed species. Otherwise, it
would be that much longer before the areas would get off the listing. She
questioned whether there is a group set up specifically to prioritize grants and
funding. Monsen stated there is. It will be a process that will include the resource
agencies doing the science screening to make sure the projects have a good
scientific foundation and are in a good local watershed priority order.
Hoag questioned whether that involves the Council process at all. Monsen
stated the Council will be aware of the drafts that will come out, so they can see
the direction the County is heading. The bottom line is that the local prioritization
process will be done by a committee that gives the project applications the
authority to make a grant application. The Council will see the priority list before it
is finished, and as it is moving forward to the SRF Board.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag stated the Council previously was concerned with the priority of the
projects. She questioned whether that was addressed this time.
Roll stated there would be an effective science screening. The initial projects
had no science screening. These will be forced through a science screen of the
limiting factors. The limiting factors won't be completed until June 2000. It is their
hope to keep the Council well- informed of what is coming down the line so there
are no surprises.
Hoag questioned whether the science screening would take into account the
effect on the listed species, or just look at whether there is a scientific base. Roll
stated it would do both. He is pushing watershed process. When they look at
projects, it is difficult to say a project is good just for Chinook. If a project is good
for riparian areas, it is good for everything that uses the riparian area. They don't
know where juvenile Chinook live.
Hoag stated last time a lot of the money was directed toward the City of
Bellingham, who don't have Spring Chinook. Roll stated there will be a much better
project - filtering process.
Brenner questioned whether they will be sure any planning is going to be
comparable to other planning efforts.
Steve Seymour, fish biologist, stated they are establishing baseline
information.
Nelson stated it sounds as if a lot of money will be spent on monitoring and
establishing a baseline.
Monsen stated he distributed three additional items. The first is the
Proposed Recovery Process Habitat Actions and Plan. That is a reference item. It
describes a linear process of the rules. Procedurally, creating a plan approved by
NMFS takes about two years. Plan implementation, in this context, is for the entire
Puget Sound ESU that includes all the watersheds. NMFS is promising that the
basic recovery goals will be out in under a year. The catch -22 has been planning if
one doesn't know the goal. They still have to do something, and focus on things
that are most obviously necessary.
Sutter questioned whether the limiting factors get more specific when
addressing on- the - ground issues. Seymour stated the Tribes have done a fair
amount of road assessment work.
Brenner questioned whether nets in the river would be addressed. Seymour
stated that is the harvest issue. The County doesn't deal with harvest.
Brenner stated nets are in the habitat.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Monsen stated the question is how to get to prioritizing projects that provide
the biggest bang for the buck. Part of that is the evolution of the limiting factor
process, where they identify certain spawning areas or estuary areas. That will not
happen overnight.
Seymour stated everyone has looked at the limiting factors report for the
Stillaguamish. It is so general that it doesn't specify the categories. The projects
should be developed on more specific information, where they know there are real
problems.
Monsen stated the last item attached to the packet of documents deals with
watershed versus ESU versus State. The way salmon recovery is going on at the
State level at the moment, NMFS is approving plans. For instance, the Timber Fish
Plan was endorsed by the legislature during the last session. As long as the
participants in the plan implement the plan as it was adopted, they are protected
from "take" under the Endangered Species Act. The monitoring program that is
required will influence how the plan will change in the future. Right now, it is an
approved plan that provides major forestland owners protection from a third -party
lawsuit. There are three more elements that have to be addressed. They are
agriculture, urban, and a rural transition area that is not stormwater driven urban
and not agriculture practice. The work relative to stormwater standards,
stormwater management, and the Clean Water Act will drive salmon recovery in the
urban areas.
Regarding agriculture, there was a proposal in the early summer that said
people need to do a process with agricultural practices that is similar to what was
done with timber. The people who came to the table designed the process, which
deals primarily with irrigated land in Eastern Washington. It doesn't deal with
agricultural practices in Western Washington. Because of the criticisms that came
from this, they produced another comprehensive plan guideline development
process. The difference is that large irrigated agricultural land will have to have a
plan similar to a habitat conservation plan.
Sutter questioned whether that only applies to areas in Eastern Washington.
Monsen stated there are places in Western Washington in which that will apply.
Sutter stated they are setting criteria regarding size. Monsen stated that
was correct.
Monsen stated the focus of the process is to revise the Field Office Technical
Guides. The basis of farm plans is to go through those guides item by item and
make them fish - friendly.
Sutter questioned whether that will shield them from third -party lawsuits,
like the habitat conservation plans. Monsen stated it would, except it won't be a
comprehensive plan. It will be guidelines. If a farm plan is put together in the
context of the guidelines, then one will be protected. It is an additional step in the
process. The goal of both of these processes is to be completed in 18 months.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Seymour stated the big issue is the buffer widths.
Brenner questioned whether they can wipe out any effort the County makes
to protect the farmers and do a good job. Monsen stated they could.
Sutter stated the County needs to have enough people involved in that
process.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen stated the focus of agriculture in Whatcom County needs to have the
berry and dairy associations at the table. The field guides are more for
performance standards. Development of the site - specific farm plan is still the
guiding document.
Sutter stated it seems as if what the County has already done should
demonstrate effectiveness.
Monsen stated Skagit County Commissioners asked the Whatcom County
Council to look at an ordinance they just adopted that deals with agricultural
buffers and critical areas. The agricultural community in Skagit County was
reluctant to allow the buffers. In order to convince the tribes and meet the
standards that would meet any resource agency test, they limited the buffers to 25
feet plus another 25 feet and committed to re- vegetating the first 25 feet.
However, they don't have tribal buy -in on that ordinance.
Brenner questioned whether Skagit County is the only county besides
Whatcom that has a critical areas ordinance. Monsen stated the majority of the
counties have them. They are not consistent.
Brenner questioned whether there are any counties with tribes who have
agreed to the county's critical areas ordinance. Monsen stated he did not know.
Robin Dexter, citizen, stated there is a lot the Council can do. They can
anticipate a battle about the buffers. Based on the experiences with the CAO, a lot
of the problems come from the lack of coordination between jurisdictions such as
cities and counties. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for Lake
Whatcom is pretty lame. It is not going to be used. He suggested that the
watershed process is the place to start badgering the cities for some relief on the
buffer issues and water issues. The TDR program was hamstrung by the fact there
are no receiving areas.
Dawson stated that is the cities' problem. Dexter stated it is, but the County
has no formal agreement with the cities. It is appropriate for the County to start
hammering on the cities to create receiving areas.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, Page 8
1 Monsen stated next they need to ensure there is good local representation on
2 the field guide process. He will stay in touch with the Association of Counties and
3 the State Department of Agriculture to make sure that happens. He will be shifting
4 his focus to stormwater in the urbanized areas of the future. They will also make
5 sure the project selection process is viable and defensible so they can aggressively
6 seek funds. Every time a new thought comes up, the County should be flexible
7 enough to react.
8
9 Sutter stated there is a gap that lacks any specificity. The County can take
10 advantage of that gap to do some things and demonstrate what works in Whatcom
11 County. Seymour stated there are some projects with the drainage districts that
12 will provide a good sense of what is practical. There is an engineered logjam that
13 will go in the South Fork Nooksack next summer.
14
15 Brenner questioned whether he has any feel of what the State will allow the
16 County if they get projects done before they come up with the planning. Seymour
17 stated he didn't.
18
19 Monsen stated NMFS will set those standards and goals. The County doesn't
20 know, and won't know for awhile, the recovery goal for Puget Sound and how the
21 Nooksack watershed fits into that recovery goal. The second significant issue is
22 that those goals will be to sustain the species. That is not a harvestable level. The
23 goal worked on at the State and watershed level will be a harvestable level.
24
25 Nelson stated that they know the funding will be more difficult and the
26 County will be hit with greater impacts from NMFS if they don't do anything else.
27 Obviously, the things the County is doing now would be looked at in a positive light
28 in consideration of additional funding for the future projects that come forward, as
29 well as regulatory impacts that may be imposed. He is optimistic that the steps
30 they are taking and the money that is allocated now will ensure Whatcom County is
31 well ahead of the curve.
32
33 Hoag stated she would like to see some managed buffers in agricultural
34 areas. The Ag Extension Service or the Conservation District should manage the
35 buffers. They could test different buffer widths, vegetation types, and different
36 things to accomplish different functions. The reason they should be managed is to
37 make sure people are observing the buffer. She questioned whether there is any
38 money for something like that. Seymour stated they are working with Washington
39 State University (WSU) on a piece of that. Also, the Conservation District is looking
40 at good projects that are already on the ground and can demonstrate they can
41 provide canopy with a pretty small buffer. Someone in the district is working on
42 the filter strip idea.
43
44 Hoag stated another idea is to just create a canopy on the south and west
45 sides, so they can get to the other sides for cleaning ditches. Seymour stated that
46 is a drainage district issue. They have examples of canopies on one side and on
47 both sides. He promotes having canopies on both sides of small ditches. Canary
48 grass doesn't go away unless there is a full canopy.
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, 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
Monsen stated part of the goal of this process is that they can quickly speak
from an ESU perspective, rather than just a Whatcom County perspective.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 25 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 10/26/99, Page 10