HomeMy WebLinkAboutres1987-0550
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
INTRODUCED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY: Planning
DATE: September 3. 1987
RESOLUTION N0. 87 -55
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LA EB WHATCOM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN AMID
ADVISORY REPORT; THANKING THE LA1lE WHATCON WATERSHED ADVISORY
COPIC TIRE FOR THEIR EFFORTS; FORWARDING THE PLAN TO OTHER INVOLVED
AGENCIES; AND REQUESTING THE EXECUTIVE TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPLENENT THE
PLAN INCLUDING SOLICITING A PHASE II GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY.
WHEREAS, in 1982 the Whatcom County Council adopted a Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for the Lake Whatcom Subarea that recognized the importance of proper
management of the watershed, and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham agreed to cooperate in
studying the issues in Lake Whatcom Watershed by executing a Joint Powers
agreement, and
WHEREAS, in 1982 a Lake Whatcom watershed study was initiated with funds
from the Department of Ecology with the local match shared by the City and
County, and
WHEREAS, a Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee was established by
Ordinance 82 -108 in December 1982 to address the issues in the Lake Whatcom
Watershed and advise the Council and other policy making agencies, and
WHEREAS, the study was completed by a consulting firm in 1986 but lacked a
management plan, and
WHEREAS, the Institute for Watershed Studies was contracted to prepare the
management plan, and completed the plan in December 1986, incorporating the
previous study, and
r
WHEREAS, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee has had an active
role regarding various issues in the watershed, and in reviewing the original
study and the management plan which resulted in a revised plan issued in July
1987 and an advisory report from the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has been complied with
b a Determination of Nonsignficance having been issued on August 14, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council as follows:
SECTION 1
The Council accepts the Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan and the
advisory report from the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee.
SECTION 2
The Council thanks the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee for its
efforts over the past four and one -half years.
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
SECTION 3
The Council forwards the Plan to the Bellingham - Whatcom County Health
District, the City of Bellingham, and Water District 10, and recommends their
participation in the development of an overall management structure and their
determination of the Recommended Actions within their jurisdictions that they
could implement.
SECTION 4
The Council directs the County Executive to take the following actions:
A. Require the appropriate county departments investigate Recommended
Actions in Table A of the Plan that are within their jurisdiction and
propose implementing procedures. Major activities should be incorporated
in the 1989 and 1990 budgets; minor activities should be absorbed into the
normal work load beginning in 1988.
B. Initiate, working with the Council, interlocal agreements with other
governmental agencies having jurisdiction within the watersheds for the
purpose of implementing a management structure that can provide the
overall coordination and direction necessary to achieve the Plan's goal.
An essential part of the management structure will be the formation of
committees, technical or advisory, representing governmental agencies and
beneficial users.
C. Enter into discussion with the City of Bellingham, Water District 10, and
representatives of the other beneficial uses on funding sources for needed
actions. The cost of needed actions should be distributed to users in
proportion to their benefit, in so far as practicable.
D. Direct the Planning Department to apply for funds available from the
Department of Ecology for a Phase II Lake Restoration Grant including an
educational program and a comprehensive watershed inventory. The grant
proposal should provide that the management structure to be created will
implement the grant, if created in time.
PASSED this 19th day of November
ATTEST: /% L
Carol Ebergson
Clerk of the Council
AS TO
David Cottiagham
Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
1987.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COU , WA INGTON
Tom Burton
Council Chairman
ADVISORY REPORT ON THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
YH'TRODUCTION TO ADVISORY REPORT
The purpose of this report is to advise the Whatcom County Council with respect
to the Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan which was prepared by the Institute
for Watershed Studies at Western Washington University under contract to the
Whatcom County Planning Department and published July 1987.
This advisory report consists of four parts: Introduction, Analysis, Conclusions,
and Recommendations with the Analysis also being a condensation of the Lake
Whatcom Watershed Management Plan.
ANALYSIS OF THE LASE WHATCOM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan, as was required in the
Scope of Work, is to describe the circumstances that make management of the Lake
Whatcom watersheds necessary and the actions required for management to be
realized.
Analysis of the text is in the order of its presentation with the intent of
clarification through abbreviation and simplification.
BURODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pages i through vi)
The management goal of the Plan is essentially the same as the instruction given
to the. Planning Department by the Fake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee in
September 1986: "The goal of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan shall be
to maintain or improve water resource characteristics throughout the Lake Whatcom
watersheds while retaining the concept of multiple uses and minimizing conflicts
between those uses."
Conditions that establish the need for a plan are identified as "Bey Issues"
which have been summarized as follows:
1. Lake Whatcom watersheds are resources upon which an increasingly large
population is dependent.
2. There is no integrated governmental management structure.
3. Diversity of ownership, uses and governmental jurisdictions require public
awareness and involvement.
4. Increased and uncontrolled activities can be expected to degrade water
resources.
5. Existing regulations have not been developed in support of a water resource
management goal.
1
CHAPTER 1 - BENEFICIAL USES OF LAKE WHATCON (pages 1 through 4)
Beneficial uses were derived in an earlier study and remain identified as primary
categories of public needs that must continue to be served by Lake Whatcom
watersheds.
Because some beneficial uses cannot be maximized except at the expense of others,
ranking is necessary. Advisory Committee members ranked some uses lower than
others with the rationalization that protection of the higher ranked beneficial
uses should simultaneously protect those ranked lower. A reverse ranking from a
public opinion poll was seen to demonstrate differences in perception and
awareness.
CHAPTER 2 - PLANNING ISSUES (pages 5 through 40)
The Scope of Work required that specific matters, considered as those of current
prominence and thus identified as Planning Issues, be addressed. Solutions to
these problems are presented as options in Chapter 4.
Issue #1: Public Awareness and Perceptions (pages 5 through 8)
The introductory thought is critically accurate: "Success in managing the Lake
Whatcom watersheds will depend largely on the participation of an informed
population that is dependent upon and uses the water resource, whose activities
affect the water resource, whose contributions will fund management efforts, and
to whom government agencies are accountable." It should also be noted that
enforcement of our society's rules is largely dependent upon society's
surveillance and support.
A public opinion survey conducted by the Institute demonstrated that there are
misperceptions, and concerns of a social nature that are associated with
increased population and usage. This suggests that not only is there a need for
the public to become better informed but, because there are problems of a social
nature, the public must participate in their solution. Not all problems can be
solved by governmental agencies through the implementation of regulations.
Issue #2: Water Consumption and Supply (pages 9 through 11)
The earlier study concluded that the probability exists, and will increase as
population increases, for storage volume to be less than demand during a dry
season. Although additional water could possibly be diverted from the Nooksack
Middle Fork as was originally planned and at significant cost, notice must be
taken of affected interests such as the Lummi Indian Tribe that might today
exercise considerable constraint on that option. Alternatively, it must be
recognized that 80% of water consumption is by the Georgia- Pacific Corporation
whose demands can change and that the City of Bellingham does not provide an
incentive towards conservation through metered usage by residential users within
city limits.
A simple comparison of water demand, in millions of gallons per day, is as
follows:
Average Peak
Municipal withdrawal 10 24
Industrial (G -P) withdrawal 50 52
Other withdrawal 4 5
Totals 64 81
Issue #3: Flood Control (page 12)
The problem identified is that it is not possible to reliably predict and prepare
for the retention of rainfall so as to absolutely avoid flood damage along
Whatcom Creek or lake front properties without lowering the lake to a level that
then conflicts with other beneficial uses.
Issue 04: Water Quality (pages 13 through 17)
The discussion of water quality centers on the effects of four general
characteristics (turbidity, nutrients and algae, bacteria, and organics and
metals) on the four categories of water withdrawal (municipal, residential,
industrial, fish hatchery). Water quality, as measured by the described
characteristics, is considered very good but varies with location and sometimes
inexplicably.
Turbidity (suspended matter) is a natural condition arising mostly from the
erosion of soil by high rainfall rates on steep slopes which can be aggravated by
unwise land use practices.
The two most northerly basins are potential problem areas, particularly as
residential populations increase. They are relatively shallow, tend to accumulate
nutrient, and sometimes experience inadequate circulation. Occasionally high
bacteria levels in those basins and some major tributaries are a current health
hazard to those who may consume untreated water.
Although the presence of organics (synthetic or manufactured chemical compounds,
usually referred to as "toxic chemicals" and of which pesticides is a popular
categorization) has not been detected in water analyses, there is the
possibility of its occurrence in the absence of rigorous controls. The public
opinion poll did not yield evidence of popular concern but it is a matter of
great concern to some and the general public can be expected to be supportive.
The problem is regarded as a potential about which concern exists rather than a
present or necessarily predictable one of water degradation.
Any significant water degradation could increase treatment costs and some forms
of degradation such as might occur from synthetic chemical compounds could be
difficult to treat. Additionally, concerns have been expressed about the
consequences of treatment. These may be regarded as the more pragmatic reasons
for the management goal being that of maintaining or improving water resource
characteristics.
Issue #5: Recreational Use of Lake Whatcom (pages 18 and 19)
Occasionally high bacteria levels during the summer at the only designated public
recreation area (Bloedel Donovan Park) are the consequences of too many people in
one swimming area. The public opinion survey indicated a need for more public
recreation area and conflicts in power boat usage. Inability to verify concerns
3
expressed about the effects of boating (bottom paints, engine exhaust, human
waste) by water analyses does not lessen the concerns. These matters suggest a
need for improved recreation management but with public participation, possibly
preceded by an information effort.
Issue #6: Aesthetics (page 20)
Aesthetics is the scenic beauty of Lake Whatcom and its watersheds. Pursuit of
the management goal, i.e., "to maintain or improve water resource
characteristics," is considered a most practicable way of assuring satisfaction
of aesthetic values.
Issue : Wildlife and Fish Habitat (pages 21 and 22)
Fishing is a popular recreation but fish populations must be artificially
maintained. Debris floods have increased fisheries management problems. Other
forms of wildlife can be expected to change as the human population increases
unless management efforts are increased.
Issue #8: Land Use (pages 23 through 29)
Urban runoff, which is the surface flow of rainfall from an urban area, contains
more pollutants and is larger in volume and greater in flow rates than surface
flows from less populated non -urban areas. The consequences of greater flow rates
are erosion and subsequent sedimentation. Receiving waters can be severely
degraded unless control measures are instituted. More stringent control measures
than are generally necessary elsewhere in Whatcom County, particularly with
expected population increases, are required.
The presence of septic systems is always a matter of concern for the reason that,
even when properly designed and constructed, they can fail if improperly
maintained. Although the majority of residences within the watersheds are on
sewer systems and septic system regulations for the Lake Whatcom Watersheds are
stringent and have been in effect since 1968, the operating condition of existing
septic systems is unknown.
Forest management comprises more than 83% of the land use in the Lake Whatcom
watershed and in the watershed above the diversion dam on the Middle Fork of the
Nooksack. The major concerns related to forestry practices are effects on peak
stream flows and mass erosion.
The contribution of pollutants by solid waste landfills located within the Lake
Whatcom Watershed that are now terminated or used only for the disposal of
demolition materials is undetermined.
Issue #9: Middle Fork of the Nooksack Diversion (page 30)
Water diverted from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River during the period April
to November supplies eighty percent of the water withdrawn from Lake Whatcom
during that period and is believed to have a significant if undetermined effect
upon water quality. Its watershed is greater in area than that surrounding Lake
Whatcom but ownership and uses are far less diverse.
4
Issue #10: Hazardous Materials (pages 31 through 34)
As indicated earlier in the discussion on water quality, water analyses have not
indicated the presence of hazardous materials such as pesticides, fertilizers,
petroleum products, or other chemical compounds. Careless practices in other more
populous areas, however, have created perilous situations for ground and surface
water supplies that have been costly to revise. The purpose of the discussion is
to suggest consideration be given to ways by which those problems can be avoided.
The major concerns are the transport and storage of petroleum products, the use
of manufactured chemical compounds, and the disposal of unused quantities and
emptied containers.
Issue #11: Watershed Information (pages 35 through 37)
An analysis of information flows by some governmental agencies having
jurisdiction within the watersheds is provided. It discusses the methods by which
information is accumulated, stored and transmitted. Difficulties exist in the
development and sharing of information but the lack of a common watershed
management goal and supportive management structure may be the more important
cause.
Issue #12: Watershed Administration (pages 38 through 40)
The management goal is the maintenance and improvement of water resource
characteristics while supporting the concept of multiple uses and minimizing
conflict between them. Watershed geographical boundaries, however, do not
correspond with political jurisdictional boundaries and many government agencies
have jurisdiction within the watersheds which creates the problem of coordination
in the development and implementation of control activities supporting a common
watershed management goal.
Additionally, and because of the interest of the citizenry in benefiting from the
watersheds and their concerns with respect to both real and perceived problems,
there is a requirement for public involvement as well as representation.
Finally, there remains the ultimate conflict between activities as individual
rights and their control in the public interest, and the means of most equitably
funding those control costs.
A management structure is required by which these problems can be better
resolved.
CHAPTER 3 — SURYSf OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TBCHMQDBS (pages 41 through 45)
Watershed management techniques are methods commonly employed elsewhere to
improve water resource characteristics and which might have application in the
Lake Whatcom watersheds.
Stormwater Diversion
The purpose of diversion is to direct nutrient and sediment enriched surface
runoff occurring after a heavy rainfall either away from the body of water that
would normally receive it or to a treatment site beforehand.
5
Stormwater Detention
The purpose of detention is to decrease surface runoff rate and sediment load
occurring after a heavy rainfall by means of temporary storage and subsequent
slow release.
Drainage Ditch Design
Drainage ditches can be designed and constructed to limit flow rates and to
withstand the abrasion of high flow rates for the purpose of reducing erosion and
subsequent sedimentation.
Land Use Policies
Land use policies for the purposes of reducing pollution and sedimentation can
require regulations controlling such things as dwelling density, permissible
percentage impervious surfacing, septic systems, livestock management, the
transportation, storage and use of hazardous materials, and the disposal of
wastes.
Construction Practices
Reducing the area of disturbed soils, using vegetation, mulches, and check dams,
and the timing of construction, can reduce the amount of sedimentation in surface
runoff.
Constraints on Impermeable Surfaces
Relatively porous surfaces such as gravel and perforated concrete block can
absorb some surface runoff as can dry wells serving downspouts from roof gutters,
thereby reducing runoff rates and volumes and their effects upon erosion and
sedimentation.
Hazardous Materials Policies
The risk of contaminating underground and surface waters by hazardous materials
can be reduced by a combination of land use policies, design standards, and
public education.
Dilution and Flushing
Dilution and flushing of Lake Whatcom, as a means of reducing pollutant loading,
is impractical but currently occurs to some extent through the diversion of water
from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Recreational Policies
The kinds of watercraft and the circumstances of their use, as they are perceived
to affect water quality, can be regulated.
N
CHAPTER 4 - RECONNMZD MANAWRENT OPTIONS (pages 46 through 71)
Introduction
Actions appropriate to the specific matters identified as Planning Issues in
Chapter 2 are presented as optional choices in 13 categories.
1. Recommended Options for Administration of the Lake Whatcom Watershed
pages 47 and 48 (Planning Issue #12, Watershed Administration, pages 38
through 40)
Although not specifically stated in the text, a management structure developed
through interlocal agreement should satisfy the following criteria:
1. Recognition and maintenance of current governmental jurisdictions
2. Elected representation
3. Agency participation
4. Public participation
5. Funding by beneficiaries
6. Coordinated effort of the following activities:
a. Development of policies, plans, and regulations supporting
management goals
b. Monitoring and evaluating water resource characteristics
c. Planning and initiating corrective actions
d. Public education
The options presented are illustrative but not necessarily comprehensive.
Option 1.1 Using Existing Structures Only
No structural change is proposed. Current governmental jurisdictions would not be
revised. The newer activities of monitoring and education would be assumed by
existing agencies and composition of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory
Committee would continue to serve the purposes of agency and public
participation. Funding would be from existing agency budgets. The coordination of
activities would probably not improve.
Option 1.2 Authority Delegated as in 911 Structure
A Watershed Management Board comprised of elected representatives of Bellingham
City and Whatcom County Councils, and Water District 10 Board of Commissioners,
would be created. It would select a program manager from existing agencies which
would then contract to assume the responsibilities for coordinating the develop-
ment of policies, plans and regulations supporting a watershed management goal,
monitoring and evaluating water resource characteristics, planning and initiating
corrective actions, and public education. A Watershed Technical Committee,
comprised of representatives of involved local agencies, would be established
advisory to the selected program manager. Funding of program costs would be
proportioned among agencies.
This arrangement constitutes a structural change through creation of a new
managing board but would not impinge upon current jurisdictions. Public partici-
pation would be lessened by restriction of advisory committee membership to
7
agency representation. Funding would not be by beneficiaries only. The chosen
agency might have difficulties reconciling its responsibilities with those of
watershed administration.
Option 1.3 Authority Delegated to Existing Multi - jurisdictional Agency (COG)
This arrangement is much the same as Option 1.2 except that the Council of
Governments would be managing the board and the COG Director could be the program
manager. Problems would also be the same as for Option 1.2 except the advisory
committee would include public representatives.
Option 1.4 Authority Delegated as with Department of Emergency Services
This arrangement is much the same as Option 1.2 except that a new agency would be
created solely for the purpose of performing Lake Whatcom watersheds
administrative functions.
Summary of Options Relative to Criteria
Criteria
1. Maintenance of current jurisdictions
2. Elected representation
3. Agency participation
4. Public participation
5. Funding by beneficiaries
6a. Coordinated determination of controls
6b. Coordinated monitoring and evaluation
6c. Coordinated corrective action
6d. Coordinated public education
Options
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
From this tabulation, it appears that no management structure meeting all of the
criteria is proposed. A viable funding mechanism has not been presented. The
adequacy of public participation is judged only on the basis of public membership
in an advisory committee.
2. Recommended Options for Water Quality Monitoring Program
page 53 (Planning Issue #4, Water Quality, pages 13 through 17)
Only one option is presented: a water monitoring program must be developed and
operated continuously for the purpose of facilitating management decisions
ensuring goal attainment.
3. Recommended Options for Public Education (and Involvement)
pages 54 and 55 (Planning Issue #1, Public Awareness and Perception,
pages 5 through 8)
The purpose of a public education and involvement program would be to develop
awareness and participation by the public so as to engender support for a
management program and to discourage activities having a negative effect. A
number of actions are listed as options. All and more could be implemented
simultaneously.
0
4. Recommended Options for Septic System Management
pages 56 and 57 (Planning Issue #8, Land Use, pages 26 and 27)
One option is presented that consists primarily of recording the location of all
septic systems, certifying their operability at fixed intervals, and requiring
that failed systems within 200 feet of public sewer systems be connected. The
Department of Health or a public utility district can perform these activities.
(The Board of Health revised its Sewage Control Rules and Regulations on March
18, 1987 to require that failed septic systems within 200 feet of public sewerage
be connected.)
5. Recommended Options for Urban Runoff Management
pages 58 through 60 (Planning Issue #8, Land Use, pages 24 through 26)
The Plan recommends that County Planning Department policies and Public Works
Department regulations be amplified to include special provisions for the Lake
Whatcom watersheds.
The Comprehensive Plan for the Lake Whatcom Subarea should be amended to state
that the policy will be to not increase areas of medium and high density resi-
dential development and the Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Management Act,
and the SEPA process should be used as a basis for developing improved urban
runoff controls.
The County's Development Standards should be amended as applied to the Lake
Whatcom Watersheds to require that runoff control policy be designed to prevent
water quality degradation as well as require consideration of downstream drainage
facilities, that plans for controlling runoff be required of all permitted land
development actions, and that performance standards replace discretionary
standards whenever possible.
6. Recommended Options for Hazardous Materials Management
pages 61 through 62 (Planning Issue #10, Hazardous Materials,
pages 31 through 34)
The Plan recommends that a documentary control system be exercised over vehicles
transporting hazardous materials; that institutions using pesticides on rights -
of -way, forested areas and golf courses establish policies discouraging their
use; that the underground storage of hazardous materials be discouraged and
design, construction and maintenance standards be developed and enforced that
will ensure containment; and that a hazardous waste collection system be
developed.
7. Recommended Options for Development on Potentially Hazardous Sites
page 63 (Unrelated to an identified Planning Issue)
The problem not earlier identified is that of construction in naturally hazardous
areas such as on or at the foot of unstable slopes and on the banks and deltas of
high gradient tributaries. The options proposed are those of classifying
hazardous areas, prohibitions of construction within specified bounds, and
removing from the market place by public acquisition lands subject to damage by
natural forces.
9
8. Recommended Options for Landfill Management
page 64 (Planning Issue #8, Land Use, page 29)
The Plan recommends that a previous solid waste landfill, currently used for the
disposal of demolition materials, be limited to that purpose until closed, runoff
be controlled, and a program of monitoring groundwater in its vicinity be
instituted.
9. Recommended Options for Recreation
page 65 (Planning Issue #5, Recreational Use
of Lake Whatcom, pages 18 and 19)
Recreationists use the watersheds' waters, roadways, and public and private lands
but only one intensively used waterfront park exists. The Plan proposes that
additional public recreational areas be provided.
10. Recommended Options for Forest Practices
pages 66 and 76 (Planning Issue #8, Land Use, page 27 through 29)
The Plan recommends that the Forest Practice Act (FPA).be strictly enforced.
There is the possibility through forthcoming Timber /Fish /Wildlife (TFW) agreement
and legislation that the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County may have the
opportunity to develop site - specific agreements in the watersheds. The Plan
further recommends that the need for the negotiation of a herbicide use plan,
more restrictive than required by the FPA, be researched.
11. Recommended Options for Management of Boating
page 68 (Planning Issue #5, Recreational Use of
Lake Whatcom, pages 18 and 19)
The Plan's proposed options are to develop power boat fueling regulations,
include hydrocarbon analysis in the water monitoring program, and analyze power
boat usage.
12. Recommended Options for Construction of a Hydrologic Budget
for Lake Whatcom and Minimization of Supply Shortfalls
pages 69 and 70 (Planning Issue #2, Water Consumption and Supply,
pages 9 through 11, and Planning Issue #3, Flood Control, page 12)
The Plan's proposed options are to more accurately quantify the watershed's
system of water circulation, better assess possible shortfalls and solutions, and
use actual stream flow values as bases for flood control.
13. Recommended Options Related to Wildlife and Fish Habitat
page 71 (Planning Issue #7, Wildlife and Fish Habitat, pages 21 and 22)
The Plan's proposed options are interpreted as suggesting that a wildlife (fish
and animal) management program should be developed consistent with the watershed
management goal.
CUPTBR 5 - RNCMUMRD LAKE MUTCOM VATMMM MNAGEMT PLAN (pages 77 - 82)
The circumstances that make management of the Lake Whatcom watersheds difficult
and necessary are summarized:
10
• There is no integrated governmental management structure.
• Watershed management will require an informed and supportive public.
• Increased residential population within the watersheds will necessitate
controls to prevent water resource degradation.
• More than eighty -three percent of the watershed areas are used for
commercial forestry, and forest practices will require modification.
• Non -point source controls must be implemented to decrease unnecessary
sedimentation, nutrient loading, hydrocarbon and synthetic chemical compound
levels.
• Septic systems must be controlled.
• The transport and storage of hazardous materials, and the disposal of unused
quantities and containers, must be controlled.
• Recreational services are inadequate and management is required.
• The water resource circulation system is inadequately understood for optimum
management purposes.
• A wildlife program must be developed consistent with watershed management
goals.
Strategy for Implementation
The Plan's proposed method of implementing a watershed management plan is com-
prised of two parts: governmental management structuring; and the implementation
of recommended actions (Tables A and B), some of which (Table B) may not be acted
upon until the form of management structure is resolved.
The Plan proposes that the County Council adopt the Plan by resolution, which is
a way of formally endorsing the concept of a management plan while allowing
further consideration and development of recommended actions. Included in the
resolution would be requirements for the arrangement by local governments to
support the plan and create a management structure.
Recommended Actions
Recommendations are an abbreviated listing of options presented in Chapter 4
which are to be reviewed for further consideration and development by appropriate
agencies.
ADVISORY BMRT
The Plan accomplishes the objectives defined for it as provided in the Scope of
Work. It discusses the issues in the watershed that make further actions and
development of a management structure necessary. It proposes actions to deal
11
with all of the issues raised. And finally, it suggests alternatives for a
management structure to oversee implementation of these actions.
Development of an integrated management structure needs further consideration. A
funding mechanism needs to be developed to cover the additional direct costs of
new activities (monitoring, investigating, educating, coordinating) and the
indirect but additional costs of implementing and enforcing additional regula-
tions. There also needs to be further consideration of how the various jurisdic-
tional agencies and citizen representatives of those who benefit from use of the
watershed will be involved. Full representation could lead to unwieldy advisory
or technical committees; inadequate representation could seriously inhibit
successful implementation.
Many of the actions recommended in the Plan may be difficult to implement because
of cost and controversy. Some recommended actions will require further refinement
or redirection to be acceptable and accomplish the intended objectives.
If no action is taken in many of the areas suggested by the Plan, then a serious
reduction in beneficial uses is the probable result. This is especially true
should a management structure with the ability to follow through on plan imple-
mentation not be adopted. Rehabilitation to restore lost beneficial uses would be
more costly than prevention and, in the long run, some beneficial uses would
probably be irretrievably lost.
ADVISORY REPORT RECOMMATIONS
The Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Committee accepts and generally endorses the
Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan.
The Committee recommends that the County Council endorse the Plan and proceed
with its implementation by:
1. Forwarding the Plan to the Bellingham- Whatcom County Health District, the
City of Bellingham, and Water District 10, and recommending their
participation in the development of an overall management structure and
their determination of the Recommended Actions within their jurisdictions
that they could implement.
The Committee recommends that authority be delegated to an existing multi -
jurisdictional agency with elected representation in a management capacity
such as the Council of Governments. Because of the specificity of the issue -
-Lake Whatcom Watersheds - -and to avoid conflict with possibly competing
objectives of other programs with which the agency might be involved,
employment of a watershed management coordinator should be investigated.
2. Directing the County Executive to take the following actions:
A. Require the appropriate county departments investigate Recommended
Actions in Table A of the Plan that are within their jurisdiction and
propose implementing procedures. Major activities should be incor-
porated in the 1989 and 1990 budgets; minor activities should be
absorbed into the normal work load.
12
B. Initiate, with the County Council, interlocal agreements with other
governmental agencies having jurisdiction within the watersheds for the
purpose of implementing a management structure that can provide the
overall coordination and direction necessary to achieve the Plan's
goal. An essential part of the management structure will be the
formation of committees, technical or advisory, representing govern-
mental agencies and beneficial users.
C. Enter into discussion with the City of Bellingham, Water District 10,
and representatives of the other beneficial uses on funding sources
for needed actions. The Committee recommends that the cost of needed
actions be distributed to users in proportion to their benefit, in so
far as practicable.
D. Direct the Planning Department to apply for funds available from the
Department of Ecology for an educational program. The grant proposal
should provide that the management structure to be created will imple-
ment the grant, if created in time. The Committee make this recommenda-
tion with knowledge that funds are presently available and the oppor-
tunity for their acquisition should be utilized. The Committee also
recognizes the need to maintain momentum and that education is prere-
quisite to accomplishing many of the other objectives. It must be
emphasized, however, that long range implementation of the Plan cannot
be dependent on grant funds and that this grant is an interim oppor-
tunity, not a permanent or reliable future funding source.
13