HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 23 1999I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 March 23, 1999
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Kathy Sutter None
11 Tom Brown
12
13 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
14
15 1. STATUS REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JEFF MONSEN
16 REGARDING SALMON RECOVERY EFFORTS (AB99 -055)
17
18 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that he would discuss items that they would
19 be prioritizing. He would also discuss coordinating structure.
20
21 Nelson questioned whether there has been a financial assessment done on the project
22 proposals. Monsen stated that there has been.
23
24 Nelson questioned the consideration of what funding will be available and how it ties in
25 with the projects. Monsen stated that it may be valuable to go through the organizational
26 structures and the variety of water resource matters.
27
28 Chart #1
29 Monsen stated that there are a variety of water resource projects underway. They all
30 have administrative decision - making structure. The majority of processes are administrative in
31 nature. They are functioning within existing policy and resources. Anytime any decision -
32 making involves new policy or resources, it requires action outside of the structure.
33 Administratively, there are seated decision - makers that are the top executive officers of any of
34 the involved entities. There is also an administrative staff function that is either part of the
35 decision - making structure or in a supporting role. In most cases, there is also a committee
36 structure. Policy decisions refer to legislative bodies and/or federal agencies. When meeting
37 with the tribes, they need to know that the tribes use the term policy as the administrative
38 decision - makers. That is a term that they use.
39
40 Brown questioned whether reference to legislative bodies includes local, County
41 legislative bodies. Monsen stated that it does. Depending on the issue, the legislative body
42 could include city, county, state, or federal legislatures. Generally, state and federal agencies are
43 included because in certain cases they are the ones that set or change rules that are new policy.
44
45 Hoag asked for an example of existing policy that the administrative decision - makers
46 would handle and new policy that would require going outside of the structure. Monsen stated
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 1
I that one example is the idea of the critical areas ordinance. It is an established law. Changes to
2 the law must occur outside the structure. Procedurally, the dialogue has to involve the policy -
3 makers so that it is understood before it proceeds into the formal setting.
4
5 Sutter stated that the legislative bodies build the structure within which the administration
6 functions.
7
8 Hoag questioned where prioritizing projects falls in the structure. Monsen stated it is an
9 administrative function, especially regarding resources already dedicated. For the portion of the
10 salmon recovery projects that utilizes County resources that aren't set aside, prioritization must
11 occur outside of the structure.
12
13 Hoag questioned a scenario of State funds requiring the County match. That is outside
14 the structure and requires a policy decision. Monsen stated that is correct.
15
16 Hoag questioned whether that was the same if no match was required, such as when only
17 federal and state monies are available and it is required that priorities be set on how the money
18 will be spent. Monsen stated that it depends upon who is spending the money. If it is federal
19 money for the County to spend, then it falls into the Council's discretionary decision relative to
20 budgets. If it is money that the County receives as a pass - through to the recipient, it doesn't
21 require Council action. Some of that kind of money is involved. He must get Council approval
22 for spending any County money.
23
24 Sutter stated that the Council does not prioritize any pass - through money. Monsen stated
25 that the reason for establishing the priorities is that, in order to compete for grants, the
26 jurisdictions must agree on what the priorities are. The Council is being asked to approve other
27 jurisdictions' activities.
28
29 Sutter questioned whether it was appropriate for the County to prioritize a project that
30 utilizes pass - through funds above a project the County is responsible for funding.
31
32 Nelson stated, in business practices, they identify the goal or objective. They then
33 identify the priorities in achieving the objective. The legislative bodies would establish those
34 priorities in government. The administrative job is to take the priorities and seek funding to
35 achieve the objectives. Those priorities should then be achieved in that manner. They shouldn't
36 try to pick and choose the priorities, because that would disrupt the whole process.
37
38 Sutter stated that she was looking at it from the standpoint of having the money and then
39 prioritizing the projects. Administration is looking at it from the standpoint of prioritizing the
40 projects first, then going for the pot of money.
41
42 Brenner questioned whether the Council would decide how to prioritize projects and the
43 administration would find the money. Monsen stated that procedurally each process is different.
44
45 Hoag stated that priorities are a reflection of policy, and should therefore come from the
46 Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 2
2 Chart #2
3 Monsen stated that the first chart regarded watershed planning under ESHB 2514. There
4 is either statutory ability or mutual agreement amongst parties to create an entity. Unless the
5 lead entity is a municipal corporation, they are formed under good faith because they don't have
6 any independent authority other than to work within the administrative structure. The City may
7 have administrative authority and, if the County doesn't have the same authority, then the mutual
8 entity cannot act. In this case the initiating governments for watershed planning include
9 Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, and the Public Utility
10 District (PUD) #1. They are the five entities that make up the initiating government (IG). Any
11 proposal that must move to one or more of the authorities cannot unless all five agree.
12
13 Brenner stated that the initiating governments have to do with the policy makers.
14 Monsen stated that the administrative decision - makers are executive officers operating within
15 existing authority. They cannot create authority. Everything he discusses from this point on is
16 inside the existing structure.
17
18 Monsen stated that with the Initiating Governments, there is a formal decision - making
19 process. The IG incorporates all of the legislative bodies for each entity. The initiating
20 government for Whatcom County is the County Executive with the County Council. The IG is a
21 concept that came about from the statute of ESHB 2514 and the Memorandum of Agreement
22 (MOA) that each of the IGs signed.
23
24 Brenner stated that it seems like the County is approving something that is too general.
25 She was concerned about how far out of the loop the Council is. Monsen stated that it needs to
26 be decided where in the processes the Council can inject themselves, either as a body or
27 individually.
28
29 Hoag asked how the five IGs get together. Monsen stated it is an administrative process
30 and when their schedules allow. Now the group includes staff plus a state agency representative
31 and a federal agency representative. The administrative decision - makers decide when the
32 legislative bodies can be included.
33
34 Nelson questioned whether it was correct that the administrative decision - makers for
35 each jurisdiction would have to bring policy changes to the IGs, who would then have to make
36 the policy change within their jurisdiction. Monsen stated that was correct.
37
38 Nelson questioned whether the IGs would continue with a policy if one of the
39 jurisdictions doesn't agree. Monsen stated that the underlying agreement was that those things
40 agreed on would move forward. That doesn't mean that any one of the entities couldn't move on
41 their own to implement within their jurisdictional boundaries.
42
43 Sutter questioned whether the administrative decision - makers are the same as those on
44 the staff team. Monsen stated that they are not the same individuals. There are times at the staff
45 meeting that a decision -maker will participate in the dialogue.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 3
I Sutter stated that the staff team is also on the planning unit. Monsen stated that is
2 probably true, but doesn't have to be the case.
3
4 Brown questioned whether the staff team includes a representative of the decision - makers
5 and one representative each from the federal government and state government. Monsen stated
6 that was correct.
7
8 Hoag questioned whether one jurisdiction could move forward independently and still
9 participate in the process if the other jurisdictions don't agree on a particular policy stance.
10 Monsen stated that it may cause problems in the process to move ahead and adopt something that
11 the other IG doesn't buy off on. From a legal standpoint, nothing stops that jurisdiction from
12 creating that policy. There needs to be discussion on items such as buffers in a public discussion
13 so it is clear that the overall County is taking a position on the matter, and it is not just from a
14 couple of individuals that work for the County.
15
16 Brenner stated that it is almost impossible for anything done from now on not to affect
17 this. As a group, it seems that the County Council is obsolete. From what she understands of
18 Monsen's comments, if the Council doesn't agree, then the process will dissolve. She
19 questioned how to maintain their individuality as a County Council without interfering with the
20 process. Monsen stated that he didn't know how to answer, but the IGs understand that the
21 County has an advantage in the process because they apply resources to these decisions.
22
23 Gibson stated that this is like learning how to dance. The success will depend on having
24 a good caller and having people pay attention to it.
25
26 Chart 3
27 Monsen continued to state that chart 3 is a description of the Memorandum of Agreement
28 (MOA) with the two local tribes regarding salmon recovery. It both does and does not have to
29 do with ESHB 2496. The MOA says that there is a decision - making process in which none of
30 the three parties will move ahead without consulting the other two parties. It doesn't prevent any
31 of the entities from moving their action items forward, but it may not be in partnership with the
32 other two. The administrative decision - makers in this case include three people: Whatcom
33 County, Lummi Nation, and Nooksack Tribe. Coincidentally, those three people are the same as
34 on the second chart, which includes two others. On this chart, the State Department of Fish and
35 Wildlife is added because they are a co- manager with the tribes. The City of Bellingham has
36 also been added because of their standing in the State of Washington, relative to the salmon
37 recovery efforts, and represents all of the cities in Whatcom County.
38
39 Brenner questioned whether the Council members could attend the initiating governments
40 meeting. Monsen stated that he could not invite them.
41
42 Monsen stated that the three main committees within this structure include the land use
43 team (forum). There are enough issues to be dealt with that this forum needs to be seated. He
44 requested ideas of people to sit on the land use forum. He provided a copy of the draft outline of
45 the technical portion of salmon recovery, which is regarding harvest and hatchery.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 4
I Sutter questioned whether the land use forum results will come before the Council for
2 approval. Monsen stated that the forum will take the technical information and question how it
3 will apply to people. Balancing will occur before it moves through the decision process.
4
5 Monsen stated that ESHB 2496 was not a foundation of the MOA, which is broader in
6 scope. It looks for a way to seat a citizen committee that this body must confirm. As a lead
7 entity, the County Council needs to seat that committee. The committee would be advisory to
8 the County Council. The purpose of the MOA is to give the tribes a chance to comment and
9 react before sending it on to the State. The Conservation District is playing a key role in
10 ensuring that this will happen. The statute lists a number of interests that should be at the table.
11 Right now, the already established Nooksack Recovery Team (NRT) already incorporates a
12 number of those interests already at the table. There may be easy access to the balance of those
13 interests from various caucuses in the watershed planning process. Those caucuses could
14 nominate names as well. The thought is not to go through the advertisement process because the
15 committee has to have very specific membership regarding representation. However that comes
16 forward, he will suggest a make -up and request concurrence for that as well as the names. The
17 committee's purpose is to take information out of the watershed planning process, technical
18 review, and the land use committee and to recommend a prioritized order of the projects. The
19 question would be what the money would be spent on first. They are to prioritize potential
20 projects. Regarding approval of the priority order, only the entity that funds a project can
21 approve the project. Hopefully everyone will agree. If the priority order is not established on a
22 regional basis by the local entity, then the list is sent un- prioritized and the State will prioritize.
23 This region is Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #1. All of these organizational structures
24 deal with the WRIA. One of the struggles between the County and other entities is the difference
25 between salmon recovery as it relates to either Chinook or salmonid recovery. It is a broad
26 policy matter. The State's approach is on salmonid recovery. Most WRIAs are focused on
27 salmonid recovery. That distinction is dramatically different on how projects are prioritized.
28
29 Chart #4
30 Monsen stated that chart 4 is on Lake Whatcom stormwater management. Effort has
31 gone into each organizational structure to determine how to deal with narrow issues. The biggest
32 task is picking a timeline in which the activities are melded. Various parties are not at the point
33 yet to work on one structure. His goal is to ensure that each structure is not working on
34 background work and to ensure that there is coordination and opportunity for comment through
35 other areas. The stormwater program involves the County, City, and WD #10. There is a
36 management committee that is administrative in nature. Their purpose is to implement the Lake
37 Whatcom plans that each of the three legislative bodies have adopted. They do that by assigned
38 activities to committees.
39
40 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
41
42 Monsen continued to state that chart 4 is a similar structure to the others. However,
43 another entity, Water District #10, has been brought in. There is a direct relationship between
44 activities in this process and in- stream flows, because of Bellingham's Middle Fork diversion.
45 There are also water quality issues subject to in- stream flows and the Middle Fork diversion,
46 which begins to drive or eliminate some of the options.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 5
2 Chart #5
3 Monsen stated that chart #5 is the shellfish districts, for which the County Council is the
4 governing body. Support staff has been specifically hired to assist the districts. It is the advisory
5 committee's purpose to monitor the work plans, monitor the success, and get other entities
6 involved.
7
8 Chart #6
9 Monsen stated that chart #6 is similar to the shellfish district chart. The Flood Control
10 District is a body independent from the County Council, even though the same people are the
11 Board of Supervisors. In this case, the Flood Advisory Committee reports directly to the Board
12 of Supervisors, with a staff role in facilitating the process. They structured the creation of sub -
13 zones, which do their activity through the Countywide committee. The sub -zone is subservient
14 to the Countywide district.
15
16 Chart #7
17 Monsen stated that chart #7 is a list of who is in the lead position to make decisions on
18 certain issues. This list is long, so not everyone is listed. There are significant things going on at
19 the State and federal levels. The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
20 Development (CTED) has done rulemaking on the best available science. It also drives the
21 parameters to make project decisions. There may not be anything going on with the Growth
22 Management Act (GMA) at this time.
23
24 Gibson stated that there will be updates relating to shorelines and critical areas regarding
25 GMA, but it is a 3 or 4 year timeline.
26
27 Monsen stated that State Department of Ecology (DOE) is a source of potential
28 regulatory change. They are in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
29 regarding how the State shall deal with the Clean Water Act and in the context of endangered
30 species. The Governor's position is marrying the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
31 Act (ESA) regarding salmon recovery. DOE is the regulator of water rights. Something will
32 come out of the legislature regarding water rights as they relate to transfers. The EPA asked the
33 State why they are not doing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and establishing
34 controls. Lake Whatcom is one of those areas that needs to be addressed. No one knows how
35 aggressively the State will address that. A driver of water rights is in- stream flow, which will be
36 the next step in the watershed planning process. DOE is still interested in that notion and will
37 not hesitate to exercise that notion.
38
39 Gibson stated that the success of ESHB 2514 is critical if the County wants to avoid DOE
40 asserting itself more strongly.
41
42 Monsen stated that the fisheries co- managers, Fish & Wildlife and Tribes, are working
43 independently from these processes dealing with the salmon recovery plan. One advantage
44 locally is that the tribes, through the MOA, have assured that they will invite the County in to
45 review and comment and allow the County biologist to sit at the table while their work is being
46 done. That focus is harvest and hatchery. He set up a meeting with National Marine Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 6
I Services (NMFS) and with the City of Bellingham for the next day to become sure of their
2 expectations. This will not be an open meeting.
3
4 Brenner and Hoag stated that they should be at that meeting. Monsen stated that his
5 purpose to set up the meeting was not to set the boundaries, but identify the options. He is
6 meeting with Elizabeth Babcock. The biggest challenge is to understand where NMFS will be in
7 regards to what must be done and what can be done. Recent information from NMFS said they
8 will not at this time make any attempt to write a complex 4(d) rule, but instead will work site by
9 site and program by program through Habitat Conservation Plans. One other item that has
10 significant impacts is the results of the Lummi Water Negotiations and will adjust parameters of
11 how the County can make decisions.
12
13 Brown stated that in the future he would like to have a discussion about the difference
14 between Lummi water rights and Nooksack water rights. Monsen stated that they should have
15 someone well versed in water rights law to describe that information. Regarding the Lummi
16 Water Negotiations, the earliest efforts were specifically relating to groundwater on the
17 reservation. The conclusion was made that there was no reason to fight over the limited amount
18 of groundwater on the reservation, and that to solve the problem they had to go off - reservation.
19 Because water rights involve the middle fork and the main stem of the Nooksack River, both
20 Bellingham and the Nooksack Tribe have been brought to the table because it has direct
21 implications on their rights. They were invited in because of that expansion.
22
23 Hoag questioned whether the salmon recovery /ESA MOA was no longer specifically
24 about ESHB 2496, why instead it has been relegated to a citizen committee and who decided that
25 this would be the structure for salmon recovery under ESA. Monsen stated that the early drafts
26 of the MOA envisioned that the State structure would be the local structure. Both tribes rejected
27 that memorandum and they took out any reference to the Conservation District and ESHB 2496.
28
29 Hoag asked what type of feedback on the Land Use Forum membership he would be
30 looking for and how he anticipated getting that feedback. Monsen stated that there was a belief
31 that the watershed planning process would be further along than it is, so coming to the table they
32 could also talk about salmon recovery. He didn't see that the Forum is moving fast enough.
33 They need to have specific salmon recovery dialogue prior to the watershed process being up and
34 functioning. He was looking for broad representation to have a serious dialogue about salmon
35 recovery and land use.
36
37 Sutter questioned if this will be a citizen, staff, or technical committee. Monsen stated it
38 would be a citizen committee with staff support. It will not be a staff committee.
39
40 Brenner stated that she wanted a public advertisement for committee members. They
41 should also get the media involved to do a press release. The Council can establish the
42 representative categories. There are a lot of people out there that don't have any idea that they
43 can be involved. Monsen stated that he will put together a summary of the interests that must be
44 on the committee. Doing an advertisement is okay.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 7
I Sutter stated that she was appointed to an Intergovernmental Tribal Committee, but
2 wasn't aware of what that committee is. Neither do the tribal members.
3
4 Dawson stated that the Council sent letters to the Nooksack Tribe and Lummi Nation that
5 stated that the County will appoint two people as representatives and asked for two other
6 representative from each tribe. It was a separate committee. Monsen stated that it was a forum
7 for better communication between the three.
8
9 Brown stated that a pet peeve was about river mile markers and where projects occur. He
10 has had promises from both Tribes and other people that were to send him information about
11 where in the river listings and projects were happening. He asked for a map that shows river
12 mile markers. Also Bull Trout and other species are going to be listed. He questioned whether
13 Monsen anticipated those coming listings to encompass areas not covered in the Chinook listing.
14 Monsen stated that he does anticipate new areas. That is a question he will pose to NMFS during
15 their meeting the next day. All the dialogue to this point is about the requirements relative to
16 NMFS. Bull Trout is a relationship with USF &W. It is a different entity and different process.
17 It may involve the balance of the lowland streams.
18
19 Brown asked for a brief explanation of the agencies, instead of acronyms, on the flow
20 chart.
21
22 Brown questioned whether the Board of Supervisors has to be County Council or if it
23 could be another elected body. Gibson stated that it must be the Council.
24
25 Monsen stated that a summary on the water rights will be from a certain point of view.
26
27 Dawson stated that the Nooksack Tribe and Lummi Nation are both involved in the in-
28 stream flow, because it relates to fish habitat. Then there are water rights for land use, which is
29 based on the purpose for which the reservation was drawn up. Usually they look at the
30 agricultural land base and how much water is needed to develop agricultural land. Because the
31 Nooksack Tribe does not have a land base, they are not involved in that aspect.
32
33 Monsen stated that it is important to understand the distinction between in- stream flow
34 issues relative to fisheries, as well as access to water for consumptive purposes.
35
36 Hoag stated that they should stay away from a structure similar to that of the Water
37 Advisory Committee (WAC), which was bogged down because it was open to everyone and
38 operated strictly on consensus. They should advertise the vacancies and ensure broad
39 representation, but operate on a majority /minority system. Also, she asked the difference
40 between the Land Use Forum and the Citizen Committee. Monsen stated that the Citizen
41 Committee looks at technical issue and prioritizes resources for recovery efforts. The Land Use
42 Forum will try to apply the implication of a protection program, such as setting buffers and
43 harvest/hatchery programs, and how those things affect people practically. The Citizen
44 Committee is supposed to apply science to project prioritization.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 8
I Brenner stated that she would rather see a citizen committee divided into a land use
2 forum, application, etc. It is too confusing to have two separate committees. A lot of what they
3 would do will overlap. Monsen stated that it can be as Brenner suggested.
4
5 Hoag questioned whether the requirements of ESHB 2496 defined the structure of such
6 committees. Monsen stated that the Joint Technical Advisory Group (JTAG) is specified. They
7 look at limiting factors and the foundation issues of what is or is not good science. They are
8 specifically technical oriented. Since they are in the room and have a technical expertise, there is
9 no reason to not use that entity to assist all of the charts.
10
11 Brenner questioned if the State would prioritize projects if the IG can't agree on the
12 priority. Monsen stated that, as lead entity, the County can still forward a list of projects. Once
13 a list is sent to the State, they can't change the priority order.
14
15 Brenner questioned whether the MOA commits the County to prioritize by consensus.
16 Monsen stated that it does. In all of the structure, every entity retains its authority to act in its
17 best interest. The issue there is that the County's ability to be effective is greatly diminished if
18 they don't have the support of the tribes.
19
20 Gibson stated that consensus was the term used in statute. In the MOA, consensus was
21 defined as unanimity.
22
23 Hoag stated that is at the decision - maker, IG level. The Citizen Committee does not have
24 to have consensus. Monsen and Gibson agreed.
25
26 Brenner questioned who in the State would prioritize if the IG doesn't. Monsen stated
27 that the interagency review teams, made up of several agencies, would do that prioritizing. Their
28 purpose is to look at projects from a scientific standpoint.
29
30 Brenner questioned whether the County could lose out if someone at the State doesn't
31 agree with the County's good science. Monsen stated that they could.
32
33 Brown questioned whether their definition of good science has to be followed or just
34 considered. Monsen stated that he believed the Interagency Review Team basis is whether the
35 County used any good science, not necessarily their good science. There must be a
36 demonstration that good science has been applied. He understood that they will respect that.
37
38 Hoag questioned whether Monsen could check a couple of things during his meeting with
39 NMFS. One is whether marine mammals will be addressed and what the County can do about
40 that. They want to make sure that what the County does is effective. Also, she would like him
41 to question how the Council is supposed to communicate with NMFS.
42
43 Hoag asked for clarification on actions by the existing entities of the Shellfish Protection
44 Districts. Monsen stated that the shellfish plans have action items to be accomplished by
45 responsible entities, such as the City of Blaine. Part of the committee role is to remind Blaine to
46 take care of their responsibility and to report back that it has been done.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 9
2 Hoag stated that she was bothered about ESHB 2496 in the MOA. She questioned why
3 the Council wasn't made aware that ESHB 2496 was removed prior to signing. Monsen stated
4 that the MOA signed was a short one -page document, compared to the three pages of the original
5 version. The discussions that the County Council participated in were regarding the original
6 MOA and the foundation premise was based on ESHB 2496. Later in the summer, the Tribes
7 stated that ESHB 2496 was too narrow. They were not willing to accept the notion that the
8 County was following a State structure. They did not accept the notion of being pigeon -holed
9 into a State structure instead of as a regional structure. ESHB 2496 was still an intended activity
10 within the MOA, but was not the basis for the MOA. He believed that there was a discussion
11 about that with the County council.
12
13 Hoag asked about the place of the Council, if the administrative decision - makers are the
14 top level. Monsen stated that the administrative decision - makers balance the activity of the
15 various governments involved, within an existing authority. They don't make the final decision.
16
17 Hoag stated that she heard Monsen say that the Land Use Forum would consider policy
18 and the impacts of the policy. He also talked about prioritizing projects. All of those are policy
19 decisions that are things outside of the structure. If those are all feeding into this process, and the
20 process ends with administrative decision - makers, then she questioned how to get outside the
21 structure. Monsen stated that new resources, a changing of policy, and adopting new policy must
22 go through the legislative and policy- makers. Each chart goes within the administrative
23 structure. The legislative authorities are above the structure in every case.
24
25 Sutter stated that the Government Council for Natural Resources is proposing a regional
26 forum.
27
28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B,)
29
30 Sutter continued to state that it would be similar to the Tri- Counties area. They tried to
31 make the point that it should be an option to apply the structure only where it is appropriate. The
32 Nooksack watershed is not interjurisdictional. Curt Smitch wants the regional councils set up.
33 They need to convince these people that Whatcom County doesn't fit into the mold. Also, there
34 may not be enough funding. One issue is whether those allocating the funds are doing a cost -
35 benefit analysis. They need to insist that the analysis is done before the allocation. They must
36 pay attention to those issues.
37
38 Brenner questioned whether the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should be
39 a player because of the logging issue. Also, when Monsen talks to NMFS, she wants him to ask
40 what agreements they are working out with Canada.
41
42 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that he has a
43 database of fish habitat. It is from a variety of sources. It shows a variety of species, and their
44 location.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, 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
Brown stated that he has seen a portion of the map previously and it was not accurate.
Knapp stated that it is all that they have available. The majority of them are accurate.
Monsen handed out information including improved SB 5289, the Governor's Water Bill.
It is only one page. He also handed out a summary of 4(d) rules and what they mean, a map
regarding most recent listing activity, an excerpt of the most recent Washington State
Association of Counties (WSAC) legislative bulletin, a draft WSAC document that lists all of the
various water related authorities that the counties have, an expanded description of the first two
projects in the packet, and other handouts.
Hoag asked about the project regarding the South Fork dike removal. Monsen stated that
it is downstream from the Potter Road bridge on the South Fork left bank. The project is not far
along enough to determine what will or won't change in flood characteristics.
Brenner asked the Conservation Reserve something Program (CREP)
Hoag asked about status of legislative bills.
Gibson stated that he has limited his research to what is available through Internet. HB
2187 remains in House Rules Committee according to the information on the Internet.
Monsen stated that people on the Public Works staff are trying to identify departments,
activities, and policies that have an impact on salmon.
Brenner suggested a workshop to update the Council. Monsen stated that he will
schedule it.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a. in.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/99, Page 11