HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 28 19982
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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
July 28, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Hoag announced that the tribes were not able to make it to the committee meeting so
agenda item #2 will be scheduled again in approximately one month.
UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE WATER GROUP REGARDING
CURRENT PLANNING AND PROGRESS ON WATER ISSUES (AB98 -303)
Barry Hill, Water Resources Coordinator, stated that there are a number of people in the
various County departments that have been involved in water issues. Some activities are
mandated, and some are for long -range planning. The Executive's office organized
representatives from different departments into a Water Team to coordinate efforts. The Water
Team has a number of functions. One function is to help coordinate efforts so that people in
different departments that are addressing the same general problem would be coordinated in their
activities. Another function is to anticipate needs and act proactively on issues such as mandated
issues, funding, or long -range planning. His position within the Executive's office is to
coordinated efforts of the Water Team.
Hill continued to say that one activity is developing a new management tool that is an
interactive database to enable the County to update on -going projects, track who is responsible
for each project, the resources being used, when projects are initiated or expired, and landmarks
and reporting dates. This tool will be an internal management tool to use resources efficiently
and also to do planning and prioritization; to assess the available resources, such as personnel.
The database will serve a tracking function, planning function, needs anticipation function, and a
method to do proactive, long -range planning.
In addition to projects initiated within or the responsibility of the different departments,
the County is now entering into agreements on larger planning issues that involve the County in
negotiations with tribes, state, and federal governments. This planning tool will coordinate those
efforts. Having someone in the Executive's office to assist with needs will keep things
organized and on- track. Many of these activities are relatively new commitments and functions
for the County to undertake. The County has been talking productively with people that will be
involved in the activities.
Sutter questioned what types of information will be tracked on the database. Hill
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
responded that individual projects that are a separate work unit for which there might be a lead
agency within the County. Projects include road projects, instream projects, and habitat
restoration projects. It is a comprehensive list of projects that address water issues.
Sutter questioned whether Hill had talked with the Nooksack Recovery Team about their
activities. They have a database of their own on CD -ROM. Hill responded that he has the
database and the map of their projects. He has attended their meetings. He is coordinating the
County's activities, to some extent, the their activities. He also has their Geographical
Information System (GIS) information.
Sutter questioned whether the information from the Nooksack Recovery Team could be
integrated into the County's database. Hill responded that the information may not be integrated
into the County database because they are not necessarily projects for which the County is the
lead agency or involved in. The database will only include County projects to track where
County resources are going.
Sutter stated that, in terms of planning, the County needs to coordinate what is happening
outside of County government as well. The database needs to include referential information of
activities all over the County. Hill concurred with Sutter and stated that it is the responsibility of
the planning units to coordinate things done by the County with other planning processes and
projects.
Sutter stated that she does not want to continue the problem of having many
uncoordinated water projects in the County. Hill responded that the County is making good
strides in creating a coordinating function by bringing together individuals from various agencies
that have been responsible for these projects.
Hoag questioned whether there are other activities the Water Team is doing at this point.
Hill responded that they are looking at resources available to take on upcoming responsibilities.
Some of the activities are in the early stages of planning.
Hoag stated that there were a number of activities in the past for which different
departments were responsible. She questioned if he has made any progress on organizing what
the different agencies are doing at this time. Hill responded that the Water Team is not
reorganizing efforts, but determining where the resources are being applied so efforts are not
duplicated. The Water Team's purpose is not to create new responsibilities and projects, but to
coordinate the activities and be aware of the things that need to be done in the long -range
planning basis.
Hoag questioned what water issues the County is addressing and how those issues are
being addressed. Brown stated that the issues seem very vague and he would like clarification.
Sutter suggested having a list of which departments are dealing with water issues, the
existing committees that deal with water issues, and what area of the water issues that each
department is working with, etc. She would like a general list of activities. The Water Team
needs to identify who in the community is doing what, not just within County government. Hill
responded that the function of the management tool is an integrated database.
Sutter questioned when the database is scheduled for completion or available for review.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
Hill responded that the database is being worked on.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the issue is how to deal with the
relationship between the different activities. That is when the concept of a database came up.
The intention is that the database will answer various questions about the activities and projects
taking place. A previous concept of a matrix has been abandoned because there wasn't
agreement as to the focus of the matrix. Also, other than trying to make sure there is
coordination between the departments, the meetings have been beneficial in making sure
departments are not duplicating efforts. The work is creating a list of things that need to be done
and are currently being done.
Brown stated that he is not clear on what activities are being done. As far as he knows,
the Team is still only discussing what to do. Monsen replied that, given a topic, the members
could describe generally what is going on.
Hoag stated she asked Monsen to the meeting because he has been attending the Water
Team meetings and is aware of what is going on. However, the Council cannot attend and is the
responsible body to take care of the County's water problems. The committee wants to know
what the problems are, who is responsible for dealing with the problem, and activities taking
place to deal with the problems. The committee and Council needs feedback.
Monsen stated that he can speak generally to the issues of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) listing, the status of the Flood Hazard Management Plan, and the status of the Lake
Whatcom Stormwater Management Plan. Hill stated that it would be easy to develop a list of
projects that are underway. The matrix does not simply list what is going on, but it is a
management tool.
Brown stated that the committee and Council need to know what is going on.
Sutter stated that the Council only gets pieces of information such as policy or regulation,
but does not have the big picture of what is going on. The Council needs a list of groups dealing
with water issues.
Hoag stated she supported the integrated database, but that is only one issue. She
explained the Council prohibition from having a quorum of committee or Council members at an
un- advertised location. That restriction is the reason the committees and the Council rely on
information that is brought forward to them during official meetings.
Monsen addressed the ESA. (Handout on file.) He discussed a flow chart that matches
what is in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The bottom portion of the chart lists the
things the County needs to take care of. Regarding the fisheries division, which is more
established at this point, there is a draft plant being finalized by the co- managers at the state and
the tribes. County needs to organize the land use element regarding the ESA and then bring the
fisheries and the land use sections together. Also, a meeting is set up with the Governor's
salmon office to determine what is going on at the state level compared to the activities of the
various counties in the state. The County is waiting to see if federal money could be applied to
implementation of the plan and project list. The application that went to the state to deal with
Endangered Species contained a short list of projects supplied by all the counties and other
interests. That application requested approximately $80 million. The congressional delegation
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
directed the counties to not submit a request for more than $25 million, and they could hopefully
acquire $15 million. That was what was submitted and therefore the list had to be pared down.
From the Nooksack Basin, Water Resource Inventory Area #1 (WRIA 1) area, the County
submitted a request for approximately $8 million dollars. There is $2.5 million in the package
that was received. That list was based upon activities and tasks to be accomplished during
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1999. This money will be received only if something else in the
federal budget is cut.
Monsen also stated that he is prepared to go forward with a joint resolution between the
County, tribes, and all of the cities for designation of lead agency for Engrossed Substitute
House Bill (ESHB) 2496. There needs to be one or two more meetings with the tribes to
determine whether the County will request lead agency status or the County will be have joint
lead agency status under the MOA. The Council will need to approve a resolution that would
state what actions to happen to comply with ESHB2496 and who will be designated as the lead
agency.
Hoag requested an opportunity for Council input on determining the lead agency status.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the County administration's intent to
designate the County as the lead agency in the process, but the Council has the final say.
Monsen stated that the County proposes asking the tribes whether they have a concern
about the County's designation as lead agency. A meeting must be called to determine who will
be on the land use team.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that he will call a
meeting with the folks outlined in the MOA to begin the developing the Land Use Management
Team.
Monsen stated that his role at this point is administrative oversight and coordination. It
has been an ad hoc committee that has been meeting for the last few times. It needs to get
formalized.
Wareing stated that the Executive is in the process of making sure these activities are
happening. He is directly involved in the process. He will determine who should be assigned to
the Land Use Management Team and then bring that to the Council. That would be the same
procedure for the Land Use Technical Team.
Hoag questioned who is on the Oversight Committee. Monsen responded that the ad hoc
committee is the same people that developed the MOA. Once the Land Use Management Team
members and the Fisheries Management Team members are formalized, representatives from
those teams form the Oversight Committee and the ad hoc committee would be discontinued.
The County is a few months away from formalizing a project list to submit to the state as
required by ESHB 2496. January 1St and July 1St are the dates to submit lists. It is a good idea to
move as quickly as possible so that there is a chance to get involved in the legislative session.
Hoag questioned whether the Conservation District would take lead status in this process.
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, responded that the District initially saw
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
the legislation and that it required a joint resolution by the cities, the County, and the tribes to
have a lead entity designated. The District encouraged the Council to go forward with that
resolution. The District offered to take on the lead agency status. The legislation states that the
function of the lead agency is only as an administrative body to develop project lists, call
meetings, etc. The District offered to take on that role on the basis that the District would be
acceptable to the tribes, the County, and the cities without getting into issues of jurisdiction. The
County has since signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding dividing up
labors and responsibilities. He has attended the ad hoc committee and he provided information
and updates to the committee with regard to what resources may be available.
Hoag questioned whether the Conservation District would have more access to funds.
Boggs stated that, during the last legislative session, the Conservation Commission had a higher
profile and had been given substantial resources to provide a support role to ESHB 2496 and to
manage other activities.
Hoag questioned whether it would make a difference regarding acquisition of funding if
the District were established as lead agency or if the County were established as lead agency.
Boggs responded that he didn't know if it would make a difference with grant opportunities.
There are difficulties with the County sharing lead agency status with the tribes. Hoag stated
that there is concern in the County about having a co -lead status. She would not support that
concept because the tribes do not have control over County land use. Boggs stated that the
distinction of ESHB 2496 issues the project bill. The lead status designates who would be
administrator, not who would set policy. Policy is not being set through the ESHB 2496 process.
This process should be moving forward because one window of opportunity to acquire funding
for ESHB 2496 has expired. There were only five applicants throughout the state that have
designated themselves as lead agencies.
Kathy Bovenkamp, Building Industry Association, questioned whether this issue pertains
to ESHB 2514 or ESHB 2496. Monsen responded that this pertains to Endangered Species.
ESHB 2496 could be viewed as a task. It has nothing to do with ESHB 2514. Structurally they
may be similar, but they don't relate at all. She further questioned whether the planning process
would run parallel with the planning unit as established by ESHB 2514, and if the County is
going to have a Land Use Team and a Fisheries Management Team alongside the ESHB 2514
process that will have the same sort of entities. Monsen stated that generally, yes.
Bovenkamp stated that the County has an ad hoc that is developing the administrative
committee that going to develop the Land Use Management Team and the Land Use Technical
Team. She questioned who is on the ad -hoc committee. Monsen stated that the ad hoc
committee is comprised of the same individuals that negotiated the original MOA. That includes
the Lummi representatives, Nooksack representatives, Monsen, the County Executive, George
Boggs from the Whatcom Conservation District has attended a few meetings, representatives
from Fisheries, and Bob Mitchell. The agreement is to facilitate a process that the Land Use
Team and the Fisheries Team is formalized then let them create the administrative Oversight
Committee.
Bovenkamp questioned whether Council would approve membership on the Land Use
Management Team. Wareing responded that the Executive should discuss this with the Council
to reach agreement.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
Brown stated that there are too many entities being formed. Monsen stated that the
County needs to make headway on the task issues and make sure there is an element of
coordination created for the processes.
Hill spoke regarding the issue of the independent planning units. It is a task of the ESHB
2514 planning unit to coordinate efforts with ESHB 2496 and salmon recovery.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Hoag stated that, in the beginning, this was something that was going forward. It seems
as if the County is taking a step backward. She believed that everything was set up. Monsen
stated that original version of the MOA accomplished both the creation of this kind of
administrative decision making structure as well as specifically dealing with ESHB 2496 and
designating the Conservation District as lead agency. That language regarding ESHB 2496
specifically and the Conservation District was removed before approval of the MOA.
Sutter stated that there are different pieces of legislation and different organizations to
deal with different aspects of some of the same problems. Some aspects overlap. There are
project issues, policy issues, and assessment issues. She is confused about how all aspects,
policy, project, and assessment fit together. Which body coordinates everything. There are
habitat issues, ESA, and ESHB 2496, which also may deal with habitat but is not clear whether it
is project or policy oriented.
Boggs stated that ESHB 2514 would be the top priority, then ESA issues would be next
in priority, then ESHB 2496 would be the third layer. ESHB 2496 is a project level that states
money will be given to get started and develop a list and rudimentary assessments as to what the
limiting factors are. Project lists are due January 1St to be looked at the next legislative session.
The legislature will scrutinize and rank activities and make decisions.
Sutter questioned what would happen if the County began projects and then, through the
assessment of ESHB 2514, determined that those projects should never have been done. It
seems that the County is working backwards,
Boggs stated that the Conservation Commission will hire seven people, one who would
come to this area to work with Whatcom County and with the limiting factors. There will be
some ranking of activities. The County must recognize that not all projects will be funded and
there is scientific scrutiny to the projects. The downside is that they may not have the best
effect. With limited funding and time, they shouldn't expect too much to be done that would go
down the wrong path.
Hoag asked about the funding that was missed. Boggs stated that there was some
funding available through Fish and Wildlife to assist in ESHB 2496. That funding was missed
because there must be a lead entity before an application can be made.
Hoag questioned whether the County was aware that this funding was available and that
there must be a lead agency.
Monsen stated that he may have been aware of it before the deadline, but he was told
verbally from a fisheries person a few days before the deadline. A lot of things came out of the
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
legislation session at the time. Even the agencies that were directed to initiate the programs were
confused as far as what their directive was. The County did make an application jointly with the
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) and the Conservation District for some
fish passage barrier removal planning. The County should begin to work as fast as possible to
establish a land use management team.
Hoag stated that Council should have approval of the list of members of that team.
Brown asked where the $250,000 expenditure fits into any of this. Hoag responded that
it is for ESHB 2514.
Wareing stated he will discuss the Council's involvement in selecting the team members
with the Executive and he may address this issue with the Council at the evening meeting.
Bob Andersen, R.S. Andersen Design and Planning, stated that he wanted to bring up an
old action item of mitigation banking. The proposal for mitigation banking in the County has
languished. It may be a tool to maximize how to deal with recovery plans. He is willing to
revamp the proposal and have it as a discussion item.
Boggs stated that the County has a contract with a consultant for mitigation banking. It is
not languishing. He is gathering resources to address that.
Goodwin stated that they are getting close to having a final draft of a program for
mitigation banking. If it is done by the next meeting, then they will request scheduling for the
next meeting. The Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) says that they can have a mitigation banking
program. The need to move forward with that by hiring Dave Evans and Associates. Once they
get the program done as far as how the program would work, then they still need to identify the
sites.
Monsen discussed the stormwater management plan. He is not directly involved with
parallel activities in the watershed. He is involved in administering the process to select
consultant and do the comprehensive plan for the watershed. He received eight responses to the
request for qualifications (RFQ). They narrowed it to short list of five. It is a joint decision by
Water District #10, the City of Bellingham, and the County. They will draft criteria for the firms
to address. The management committee agreed the selection criteria to. They will narrow the
field of five to three for the interview process. Proposals come in the third week of August and
interviews will be in early September.
Monsen discussed the flood hazard management plan. The environmental impact
statement (EIS) is out for review. Sometime this fall, the environmental review and the flood
hazard plan will be before the Board of Supervisors for adoption. He will also bring forward the
internal audit on the flood hazard program. Some of the findings address what needs to be taken
into account regarding the flood district, decision - making, protocol, and organizational structure.
It needs to be taken care of at the same time as implementing the plan. That is coming forward
in the same timeframe.
Brown questioned whether the audit was available.
Hoag questioned the make -up of the sub - districts.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Monsen stated that the items up for action are directly under statute. They would decide
the priorities of the districts and formalize a relationship between the flood district and the
County. They need to be different.
Hill stated that to provide a specific report, they need to talk more specifically ahead of
time about the information that the committee wants and how they want it organized. The team
would need lead time to provide that information and specific direction. He could see that
discussing any issue can be complex and interrelated to other issues. He would like to make the
information specific to their issue.
Hoag stated that they are looking for an update on water issues and what is happening
with those issues. Different departments are dealing with different information.
Brown stated he would like groupings of quality, assessment, habitat, and that it be
organized by topic.
Hoag stated that a format that talks about the specific issue would work best.
Hill stated that information can be handled on a one -to -one basis and he is available to
discuss issues at any time.
Brenner stated that one -to -one doesn't work because not everyone gets equal
information. Also, hearing the questions asked by others would be beneficial.
Hoag stated that the public cannot sit in on a one -to -one conversation.
Marian Beddill, Water Advisory Council, made suggestions regarding the database. 1. It
should be structured in the style of the database done by the Nooksack Advisory Team with
entries flagged by categories and interest areas. A query could be done to get specific responses.
2. There are a number of on -going contracts between the County, consultants, and service
organizations. It would be useful to everyone to have a consolidation of on -going contracts, with
keywords of scope and timeframe. 3. She wanted abstracts to be available on the website. 4.
She invited the committee to a discussion of groundwater hydrology in Whatcom County at 6
p.m. at 1708 "I" Street in Bellingham. It is a spin off of the Water Advisory Council.
Goodwin suggested the committee have an update on coordinated water system plan and
an update on the transfer of development rights (TDR) program at a future meeting. Sutter stated
that should be in Planning Committee.
Goodwin stated that it could be early in September in either committee. Also, the
Planning Commission is working on Lake Whatcom development regulations, but won't get to it
until November. They want more guidance on how to tie it in with water quality and other
things. They feel they're limited in information on what everyone else is doing and what their
role is.
Hoag requested an update with Bob Mitchell on negotiations with the Tribe and an update
with Regina Delahunt on groundwater.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
49
Mitchell stated that the meetings with the Tribes have been very positive and they are
participating. A source of conversation is not getting caught up in projects too quickly. Their
contention is that there will be money available to them and money available to the best plan.
Projects will grow out of the plan. Planning goes before the projects. A lot of talk and
consensus agreement is required. The County and Tribes are not familiar with how the other
works. They are trying to find a common ground to go forward.
Knapp stated that they are making progress in understanding tribal planning. There have
been short courses in tribal planning.
Hoag stated that they should try to have the Tribes in a month.
Delahunt stated that the north county sampling efforts by DOE is that they have
completed phase I sampling and received good participation from residents in the area. The
Department of Health received data on the Bact T (bacterial analysis, or coliform) samples they
collected. It will be another month before they receive the organic analysis. Nitrate data has
either been received or will be soon. Information will be provided only to the residents. The
aggregate information will be made public. The coliform data is as expected. They are high.
60 -65% of the tests were coliform positive. They are all large diameter wells that are not
properly sealed and constructed. They informed property owners of the remedies. She hasn't
seen the nitrate results. Pesticide information will be done in a month or two. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hoped to do sampling by now. They requested access
to 80 landowners, but only received permission from 20 residents. Berry growers denied them
access. EPA is pursuing other options such as court orders or search warrants. The sampling
effort will be delayed for some time.
The United States Geological Service (USGS) study has information that the County
provided on well logs in the north county area and people who have volunteered to have their
well sampled. They are working toward the outline to study design. Sampling should be done in
October and the study design should be ready by September.
The State Department of Health (DOH) has additional funding to fill in the gaps. There
are some areas for which they need more information. They are looking for volunteers to allow
sampling of the wells. That will take place in early fall.
They are working with DOH to make sure all public supplies are in compliance. DOH
sent out letters to public water supplies that are required to sample notifying that sampling is
required by the end of the year. Some public systems are not required to sample, depending on
the size. There are two sizes, group A and group B. Under those are community, non -
community, transient, and non - transient groupings. A small percentage of the population is
served by systems that are not required to sample. The Health Department may require
sampling, but don't want to put financial burden on those small suppliers. They may use DOH
money.
DOH takes into consideration the vulnerability of the source and location of the water
supply and activities going on around the water supply.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that a small supply would
require a local decision to require testing.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, 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
48
49
Sutter questioned whether there is an expectation that there is a difference in the test
results. Delahunt clarified that different agencies are not testing the same wells.
Brenner stated that the confusion is about using different methods. Delahunt stated that
they are not all using the same methods because that is not possible. It is important to establish
which methods have been used. DOE has worked out the collection issues.
Hoag questioned whether, going into phase II, there will be a design up front. Delahunt
stated that they will.
Delahunt stated that the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
final report should be out shortly. They did a health consultation related to whether there are
health problems related to dermal absorption and inhalation of the pesticides in the groundwater.
Health comments on the draft report were to their recommendations. There are a lot of ways to
reach the same end result. Recommendations should be generalized more so that results could
be achieved in different ways. They are working with ATSDR and DOH to put out a public
advisory regarding that report, which would be sent to all people in the north County.
Benjamin clarified that was the form of communication preferred by the residents.
Delahunt stated that DOH finished with the interviews for the leukemia study.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner questioned whether folks with other health problems could be included in the
leukemia study. Benjamin responded that the leukemia is specific even to the type of leukemia.
One can get a diagnosis from a physician and see if there have been other diagnoses in the same
area.
Brown stated that the upcoming manure ordinance must be advertised in the Lynden
tribune.
Sutter questioned whether the DOH was working with Children's Hospital on the
leukemia study. Benjamin stated that this is a comprehensive investigation and many agencies
are involved, including Children's Hospital.
Hoag questioned whether ATSDR needs to be notified of the brain tumor information.
Benjamin stated that he will notify them.
2. UPDATE ON THE COUNTY /TRIBES ESA PLANNING (AB98 -101)
This item was rescheduled.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 7/28/98, Page 11