HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources January 18 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
January 18, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:05
a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322
N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
Absent:
Sam Crawford
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2005 -025)
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Joint Resolution and Work Plan
Erika Stroebel, Senior Planner, stated the work plan was first introduced to
the Council on October 20. Previously, the Council Natural Resource Committee
talked about the highlights of the plan. At the October 20 joint meeting, councils
discussed the priorities for next one and five years. Staff produced a form for
public comments at that time. She submitted a summary of and response to those
comments (on file). This will come to the Council next Tuesday. All the comments
are addressed in the current work plan. Review and bring specific questions to her.
If there is a common concern amongst councilmembers, they can discuss it at the
next Council meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is a great idea. The Council will also get more
comments, and will have a public hearing.
Stroebel stated that two major comments regarded urban growth area (UGA)
boundaries in the watershed and other watershed protection activities. Task 3.4 in
the work plan addresses both of those comments. A question of the joint councils
was if they can take a look at lake management districts and other districts for the
Lake Whatcom watershed. Staff added task 11.8 in response to that question. To
add tasks, they had to evaluate staff resources and time to determine how they
affect other tasks recommended in the initial work plan. Some tasks were moved
to a lower priority and work on them will be delayed. They are tasks 1.1, 1.4, 9.1,
9.2, 9.3, 11.1, 11.3, and 11.6. They will be moved to a lower priority. The two
new tasks will take a lot of time.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The joint resolution will come to Council on January 25. It will also go to the
City and Water District at the same time. The resolution adopts the new version of
the work plan and timeline. There were concerns from the public about the way the
work plan was being presented. For folks not familiar with the Lake Whatcom
Management Program, it can be difficult to understand. Staff is in the process of
creating a community - friendly version of the program. It will be presented in a way
that describes the value and history of each program.
Nelson asked how the Lake Whatcom Management Committee ties in with
the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. The resolution refers to an interlocal
agreement. Stroebel stated the legislative bodies provide the guidance for the
work plan. Then, the management committee will work with staff to implement
that work plan.
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Staff Presentation on draft Watershed Manaaement Plan
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated this is the culmination of five years
worth of work. The Council has a unique roll in the adoption process. The Planning
Unit will make a recommendation to the County Council. The Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) says the County Council must have a public hearing then
approve or not approve the plan. It can't make changes to the plan. If the Council
doesn't approve the plan, it is supposed to provide recommendations to the
Planning Unit about the nature of what needs to change.
In a supplemental budget request that went forward last year, costs for
public outreach were approved to do at least one public forum on the heels of the
Planning Unit approval process. It will give the County Council another level of
comment from the general public in addition to the Council public hearing.
Roy asked if there will be two opportunities for the public to provide input.
Roll stated that there will be. He suggests the Council schedule a public hearing as
close as possible to the Planning Unit meeting, and hold it over if needed. Don't
drag it out.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they also need to push distribution to the public.
Sue Blake, Senior Planner, stated the decision on how to distribute the plan
to the public has yet to be made.
Roll stated there are copies at Copy Source for people to purchase, copies in
the library, and he gives out CD's with the plan for anyone who wants one.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Blake stated a copy of the plan is also at Henry Bierlink's office. Staff has
handed out a lot of CD's.
Roll stated Sue Blake and Becky Peterson also met with all caucuses to walk
them through the plan and address any comments. That's been very successful
and helpful in getting support.
Blake stated she met with the small cities mayors at their last meeting. They
wanted to get their councils together at a joint meeting, which was held last week.
She presented a Power Point presentation (on file). She read from the presentation
on the purpose of the presentation, materials provided to access the draft plan, and
the plan adoption schedule and process. She has asked all caucuses to provide any
significant comments by January 21, 2005. If she receives a lot of substantive
comments, which she doesn't expect to, there may be a Planning Unit meeting to
resolve those comments. If all goes well, Planning Unit approval is scheduled in
February. It will then go to the legislative bodies, including the County Council, for
approval.
Roll stated the legislation indicates that the Planning Unit can adopt portions
and sections of the plan, if not all of it.
Nelson asked if the County Council can do the same thing. Roll stated he'll
have to check on that. The RCW doesn't specify whether or not the Council can
approve portions of the plan.
Nelson asked what happens if the Council sends the plan back to the
Planning Unit, and the Planning Unit won't incorporate the Council's
recommendations. Roll stated the Council is only required to send
recommendations to the Planning Unit if it rejects the plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's why they've been going through this slowly
and with much involvement. She doesn't anticipate any problems.
Blake continued the presentation on the basis for changes between the March
2004 preliminary review draft and the December review draft, and written
comments and informal input. They met with many of the caucuses to better
understand their perspectives and try to understand what are the most important
things. They have to focus on high priority items because of limited resources.
They tried to reflect those high priority items in the current version.
Blake continued the presentation on known or likely potential funding. The
funding they have now is not anywhere near enough to take on implementation for
the 2005 -2006 strategy. There are recommendations for obtaining additional
funding.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Whatcom County is one of the first counties that is
approving a plan and getting ready for implementation. Blake stated Whatcom
County is one of the first counties.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the State has said anything about providing
implementation dollars. Blake stated it has not, that she's heard.
Brenner asked how other counties have funded implementation. Blake
stated she didn't know. Over the next couple of years, they will have to look at
funding options.
Brenner stated she'd like to see that information.
Nelson stated they have to be careful of comparing Whatcom County to other
counties. Each water resource inventory area (WRIA) has unique problems and
solutions.
Roll stated this invested a lot of money in technical information. Most other
WRIA plans are very general. They are much smaller in size than this. They are
specific to the individual WRIA's.
Brenner stated they can't talk about this without talking about other potential
costs, like Lake Whatcom. They can't really do this with significant requests from
the public or significant taxes without looking at the other things they need to do.
Make sure they consider other issues that are similarly, if not directly, related to
WRIA.
Blake continued the presentation on what resource considerations mean.
The current document scaled back so many recommendations by phasing and
creating smaller steps, due to resource limitations. If they aren't successful in
getting funding, they won't be able to implement the document as currently
written. For instance, there is currently no mechanism to continue Planning Unit
meetings in 2006. The document does not obligate the County for funding. It says
there will be discussions and actions to pursue additional funding over 2005 and
2006. A funding paper is being written and distributed. It identifies a need of
about $2 million annually to implement the plan as it was supposed to be
implemented.
She continued the presentation on the plan layout. The layout of the current
version is the same as the last version. Section 5 is a simple list of what there is to
do, who would do it, and the resource requirements.
Brenner stated adopting the plan implies that the County is obligated to
provide funding. Blake stated the County is not obligated to provide funding, as the
document is written now. The County has been clear that it doesn't have any
additional resources for implementation. The plan is written that way.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated the plan implies there will be future local funding. Roll stated
there won't be a shortage of people looking for funding. The staff doesn't suggest
or have guidance to play the role as the funding source that it has. The County
does need to look clearly at those elements of the plan it wants to influence and be
a part of. There is no shortage of people who think the County should continue it's
umbrella role, but that is extremely costly as they move into implementation.
Blake stated that if the County doesn't do all the work, including the
administrative stuff, the role will have to be filled by someone else.
Nelson stated the executive committee and Joint Board members are the
primary sources for funding, in terms of a tax authority. It would be good for that
group to propose recommendations. He preferred having that group propose
something, rather than the County come up with a plan itself.
Brenner stated their recommendation will be that the County continue its
current role.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Bertrand program developed the watershed
improvement district (WID), with state support. Ask them how badly they want the
County to put this plan to work. They're the one who wanted it.
Nelson moved to refer a request to the Joint Board. Roll stated that group
should morph, in terms of implementation. Any and all agreements moving
forward should be between the groups implementing an element of the plan. Look
at who the players are who are ready and willing to act, then create agreements. It
will be difficult to keep the same decision - making process.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Nelson implementation and funding are two different things. Implementation
is a legislative action requiring plan approval. Funding is an administrative process.
Roll stated they need to look at the issue of the Joint Board continuing role. He
doesn't agree that it should necessarily be the same body.
Nelson stated they can make recommendations for a funding mechanism.
Blake stated how they work together is the package of decisions that will need to
be made in the coming year.
Nelson asked if they would rather wait through a longer process to determine
the funding mechanism. He doesn't want to make a decision without the support of
the community, through the Planning Unit or Joint Board. Blake stated one purpose
of the funding papers was to shop it around to get a sense of whether people care
about this matter. Staff asked people whether they should move forward and if
there is general support to take to the next step.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked if the $2 million is a real estimate. Roll stated it depends on
the priorities from the public.
Nelson stated they need to think about how they are going to fund it.
Roy stated that if the State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is going to
contribute money, it may have more to say about implementation than in the past.
Roll stated that is a possibility.
Roy stated she's afraid that the Council will be responsible for coming up with
implementation funding because it approved the plan.
Brenner stated she agreed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked for a part of the plan to address funding feasibility.
Blake stated they will do the 2005 and 2006 activities based on existing resources
and obtaining money from Ecology for specifically identified actions. That takes
them through 2005 and 2006, but it doesn't take them through the vision of the
plan. People want to see that money is spent on important things, and they're not
just spinning their wheels. However, there is also a concern that it won't be
implemented since they've spent a lot of money in plan development. The Council
will get involved in difficult discussions. It may be said that lack of Council approval
puts the plan in a bind, but they're already there.
Brenner stated they haven't approved the plan, so they're not already there.
The Council can approve the plan with the caveat that the State and federal
government will provide funding.
Roll stated implementation is happening whether or not the plan is adopted.
They're working on the Bertrand watershed, instream flow, and land use pieces.
The struggle is understanding the Council's priorities. Then, it will be easier for
staff to ask Council about future financing.
Brenner stated they didn't need to get into as much of the detail as they did.
Other counties developed more general plans. She's not concerned about taking
blame if they don't move ahead. The money has to be there. They can't keep
going to the public.
Nelson stated there is a disconnect between funding and implementation. He
hoped to rectify the disconnect. It's stupid to approve a plan for which they have
no resources. Have an ability for someone to look at resources.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson continued to state that after looking at the available resources, then
create priorities.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated he'll be glad when this process is over. Once the plan is
approved, they are going to prioritize the County's tasks. They are not going to
spend money ridiculously (inaudible). Other people may fund implementation items
that are important to them. This plan reflects that there is no County commitment
for funding. People have heard the County's message loud and clear. They don't
want to commit money the County doesn't have.
Blake stated the plan, as it is written now, doesn't go away. It is a roadmap
for how the community manages its resources based on the idea they can manage
resources better when they work together as a group. The Planning Unit and all the
other bodies still exists. When they look at the 2005 and 2006 implementation
plan, it's just like the Lake Whatcom plan. It's the vision for the rest of the county,
in terms of larger water resources management.
Brenner asked if the County will be subject to a legal challenge if it picks and
chooses.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they do that with everything they do.
Brenner stated she wants an answer from legal counsel that the County
won't be held liable for not implementing elements of the plan.
Blake continued the presentation on the general overview of changes.
Brenner asked if funding for 2005 and 2006 is defined. Blake stated it is,
and depends on getting the $100,000 funding from Ecology or elsewhere.
Blake continued the presentation on the general overview of changes.
Approving the plan doesn't mean they are approving the specific details of an item.
Instream flow is the single biggest piece of the plan. It is the most important to
keep moving forward on.
Brenner asked if Utah State University (USU) is working on WRIA. Blake
stated USU is completing technical work for instream flow and other things related
to WRIA. That will not be the end of the technical information needed to manage
the resources, but it will be the end of USU's involvement.
Blake continued the presentation on the overview of major changes and how
the changes address comments from the County.
Brenner asked about the development community coming up with a low
impact experimental project. Blake stated they couldn't come up with one, so that
section in the plan had to be rewritten.
way.
Roll stated the idea didn't get developed any further when Pat Jones passed
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Blake stated there are low impact development projects happening in the
community, just not specifically for this plan.
Brenner asked why they can't use low impact development that is already
out there, rather than using something new. Blake stated the idea has been
retained, but it won't be done in 2005 and 2006. They want to encourage the use
of low impact development practices, see why they don't have more of them, and
find out how to encourage people to use them. The project will include a look at
who is already doing what.
Blake continued and completed the presentation on County comments on
water use tracking, trans -basin importation, and other issues.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff has direction to move forward according to
their schedule presented.
The Council concurred.
Roll stated the staff direction is to move forward with this plan in February by
seeking approval of the Planning Unit. The Council wants to have a public hearing
on the version put forward by the Planning Unit.
Brenner stated they should include the concern about the funding.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it will be added to the last chapter of work, which is
yet to be done. Blake stated it exists for 2005 and 2006. In addition, a funding
paper on that issue is coming out.
3. SAMISH BASIN INSTREAM FLOWS
Draft Instream Flow Rule for the Samish Basin
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated there is a new draft dated December
16, 2004. The State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is asking for comments by
January 21. He will forward Council's and staff's concerns. The new draft will go to
a public hearing.
Brenner asked if they are dealing with exempt wells. Roll stated they are.
This draft treats an exempt well as though it is part of the surface water inventory
and in hydraulic continuity with the surface water. Ecology's reference to closing
down a drainage area means that the drainage area is closed to future surface and
groundwater withdrawals.
Brenner asked if existing exempt wells will be treated as if there are water
rights. Roll stated it depends on the priority dates.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated the first area is the Lake Samish Basin, known as the Lake
Samish Management Unit. If the Lake Management District continues to manage
the lake flows at two cubic feet per second (cfs) during critical periods of the year,
Ecology will continue to allow future appropriations. The district has been
maintaining two cfs since about 1992. At that time, the County established a Lake
Management District with the sole purpose of regulating the flow at two cfs. They
do that through Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Originally,
fees to fund the district were charged in the early 1990's. Those fees have been
funding that activity. Those funds will be completely expended in a year or two. It
is not a lot of money. The district spends about $1,800 per year.
Fleetwood asked who enforces if the flow drops below two cfs. Roll stated
Ecology enforces that level, in theory.
Fleetwood asked who monitors the level. Roll stated Ecology monitors
periodically. Ecology will not shut people off automatically if the flow level falls.
It's not a big issue. There hasn't been a time when they haven't been able to have
that level.
Brenner asked if there is a process for getting compliance. Roll stated he will
get to that question.
Other drainages include the lower part of the county in the Friday Creek
drainage, the Silver Creek drainage, and the Samish River north drainages.
Ecology is proposing to close these drainages. They would be closed to future
withdrawals when the instream flow rule is enacted. One couldn't withdraw water.
However, one key provision is for future appropriations. One cfs will be available
for future appropriations, held in reserve by Ecology. It will allow some level of
growth into the future, until the reservation is used. One would apply for an
exempt well and be given a 350 gallon per day, which would be counted against the
reservation. That would continue throughout the Samish basin until the reserved
amount is exhausted. At that point, no water would be available. They'd have to
consider alternatives, such as a public water supply or another source.
Page 32 of the Council's meeting packet talks about future withdrawals.
Keep in mind that any time a rule is established, it's not for an existing exempt well
or existing water right. When a rule is established, it's only applies to withdraws
that happen after a certain priority date that Ecology establishes in the rule.
His first question is with Washington Administrative Code 173 -503A- 050(2),
regarding the priority date. Ecology proposes a priority date of June 12, 2000.
However, that contradicts the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) quoted for
establishing those instream flows. The RCW says that they have two years to
establish instream flows. And, if at the end of two years instream flows are not
established, then Ecology can do its rule- making. Ecology decided to go ahead with
its rule- making process. They're no longer working under RCW 90.82, but it is
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
using the RCW for rule- making. Any linkages to the WRIA process are non-
existent.
He's concerned also about setting a priority date of June 12, 2000 because it
means that anyone who developed a well after that date would be subject to the
rule. The start of the reservation in 2000 would leave them with fewer gallons
reserved than if the date were set when the actual rule is established. If this
moves forward, they should stamp the priority date when approved, in 2005 or
2006.
Roy asked if they would backdate the criteria if they backdate the reservation
date. Roll stated the basin would start with a debit on the account. They would
take all of the people who have established a withdrawal since the reservation date
and their withdrawals would be counted against the reservation. The priority date
should be established according to the RCW.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the recommendation is to establish a priority date
when the rule is adopted. Roll stated that is his recommendation.
The Council concurred with the recommendation.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the reservation is for 640,000 gallons. The platted
lots out there would consume 400,000 of those gallons. They'd hit that limit
quickly. It's a good idea to push that date forward.
Roll stated staff the growth in that area according to the current zoning. If
they use the recommended 350 gallons per unit, then the total would be about
400,000 gallons being needed for 1,139 homes.
Brenner asked if the gallons would be metered and would go back to people
who put their wells in during 2000. Roll stated the rule can't go back before the
priority date. The rule only goes forward from the priority date. Language that
says if necessary at a future date, Ecology may ask for metering.
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated one of the concerns
with the 2000 date is that it does require (inaudible). The County already approved
water availability applications. There would have to be retroactive restrictions.
McShane stated Ecology can go after retroactive restrictions, but he doesn't
think Ecology has ever done it. Roll stated this rule ties the priority date to the
planning process.
McShane stated he's worried about setting the priority date. Ecology is
caving in by allowing a lot more potential exempt wells in the watershed. Ecology
is allowing harm to occur. If the priority date is current, it will allow over 1,000
homes in an area where they already say they have a problem. Ecology is being
too optimistic about the amount of water the rural lots will use, especially in the
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
summertime. Ecology thinks there is more water out there than there really is,
especially in Skagit County. The idea that, on these types of lots, people will use
that little amount of water is wrong. It would be smarter to back -date the date.
Roy stated she wants to hear both sides of the issue. If the priority date of
2000 is necessary to preserve more water for fish, she would like to hear that side
of the argument. Roll asked it depends the level of growth they want in those
areas. If the level of growth isn't wanted, the County can deal with it through
zoning to insure there is sufficient water and resources. If the Council hasn't
zoned the area the way it wants the area to develop, there is an assumption people
can build. His question is why the zoning is the way it is if there is now water.
Nelson stated Ecology is proposing a process to address that very concern.
If water resource instream flow isn't there, Ecology may push to metering or other
measures. Recognize that people (inaudible). If it still results in the diminishment
of those flows, they will have to do other measures.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it does change the future viability of water
availability to do development if they adopt the 2000 priority date. She asked how
much of the reservation amount would be taken up by what has occurred in the last
five years.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated not a lot has happened.
There have been maybe 200 houses at the most in the Cain and Reed Lakes area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they have used up 500,000 gallons already from
reservation amount. Roll stated the amount is not that many.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the incongruence between current zoning and what
water would be available. Goodwin stated the remaining capacity is in the rural,
one unit per two acres (R2A) area in the Silver Creek watershed. All lots at Cain
and Reed lakes are platted and developed. There is not a lot of development in the
Silver Creek area. If the Council is concerned about too much development
potential in that area, staff can look at that zoning. It's zoned R2A, outside of an
urban growth area, and largely undeveloped.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would have to fix the zoning in that area if
they adopt the 2000 priority date to address the reservoir goals.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson asked if they understand the hydrogeology of this area.
McShane stated Skagit County's critical areas ordinance requires that
someone getting a building permit for that area must also demonstrate a lack of
hydrologic continuity. That's very unlikely to happen.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated they need to know how dense the area can become and where
the flows are.
Roll suggested that he ask for clarification on how much water the DOE
anticipates being used.
The Council concurred.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't want to overtax this watershed. If
moving the date to 2005 would do that, she wouldn't be in favor of it. However,
make sure they have a realistic idea of how much water would be used.
Chudek stated another question is if the expectation is (inaudible).
McShane asked if the estimate is realistic or optimistic. Chudek stated 350
gallons per day very reasonable if people don't use water outside. He doesn't know
about 175 gallons per day.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they won't request a later reservation date until
they know more.
Roll stated there is an issue about the County's role to date. If someone
comes in, the County has to issue a water availability permit. Beyond that, the
County would also require conservation measures and restrictions.
Chudek stated the County is in a pretty good position. It already has a
system for approving water availability to require people to submit and record
documents. In addition, all the areas would have to identified somehow. Staff
would have to have an easy way to pull out those water availability applications
that come in and subject them to this kind of review. They don't have that yet.
They are doing some things in -house to identify that information. Once the
application is signed and recorded, staff can proceed with the actual application.
Staff can do that with some help. They don't have the capacity to follow up on
enforcement of the regulations.
Roll stated the conditions for use of the reservation water are listed at the
bottom of packet page 38. Subsection (e) on packet page 39 assumes that water
will be available for reservation for future use.
Nelson asked if Skagit County is incorporating a public water system into
their area.
McShane stated Skagit County has been requiring people to agree that if
public water becomes available, they will hook up to it. He's concerned that the
estimate of buildable units isn't correct.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated the Council will have to adopt an ordinance that incorporates
these subsections in it. The County has to have some way to track this and make it
a part of the permitting process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is doable. Chudek stated it is, but they don't
have a system in place to do it right now.
Roy asked if it is doable, but that they don't have the staff to do
enforcement. Enforcement would require additional staff. Chudek stated the
County's job is not to allow water availability to be approved unless an applicant
meets all the conditions. When all the conditions are met, he doesn't see anything
where the County has to do enforcement. They have to be really careful that
Ecology will not put that responsibility on the County.
Goodwin stated she is concerned that subsection (e) says there will be a
County ordinance. One requirement is for no outdoor irrigation and another
condition is that the department reserves the right to require source metering
recording of water use. It doesn't say if Ecology is reserving the right to make the
County set up and read meters. The County isn't set up for meter reading. It
would be very expensive. County enforcement officials aren't monitoring lawn
watering in this part of the county.
Nelson stated Ecology can do enforcement. He needs clarification on who
would do enforcement and, if the County must do enforcement, how the County is
to fund enforcement.
McShane stated the County is supposed to have an ordinance that lists these
conditions of water availability. It would be easy to get someone to sign off on the
conditions. However, if a homeowner begins to irrigate a lot on a two- or five -acre
parcel, and the neighbor's well goes dry, Ecology may require that they begin
metering. Everyone in the neighborhood will point to the person who watered his
lawn. There is some risk there. It goes back to the whole flaw of exempt wells,
which is monitoring.
Nelson stated there is no provision for providing benefits for water
conservation. They should allow that opportunity.
Roll stated he will ask questions about the impacts on how far back to go for
the priority date, what the expectations are for enforcement if the County adopts
an ordinance, and he will also make a comment about funding for the Lake Samish
Lake Management District.
Nelson asked if senior water rights mean anything for exempt wells. Roll
stated senior water rights will be seen as a priority. One would be given a priority
date and a certain amount of water.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Chudek stated the landowners won't have to go through the water right
application process to use that small amount of water. It is an exempt right.
Nelson stated that to get a permit, one has to demonstrate mitigation if not
enough water is available. He asked what that means in terms of water rights that
already exist. He asked if those can be used in the mitigation process.
Roll asked who Skagit County would have to seek approval from if it wanted
to extend water to Lake Samish.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it could be the Boundary
Review Board, but the Growth Management Act prohibits public water outside an
urban growth area (UGA) unless there is a human health issue.
Chudek stated they may not be able to extend urban levels of service to a
rural area (inaudible).
Caskey- Schreiber asked if existing county residents would be required to
hook up to public water if Skagit County extends public water to Lake Samish. That
is something else they need clarified from Ecology.
Roy asked if the residents have signed anything saying they will hook up to
public water if it becomes available, and if another jurisdiction can force that
change. Chudek stated the rule is clear. If public water is available, some people
have signed saying they would hook up if public water becomes available. Others
have signed (inaudible).
Nelson stated there is an exception for storage capacity. He asked if one
would have to store water themselves. Roll stated that's what it says.
Nelson stated the community could get together to develop a water storage
area. He asked who would permit that. That is another question to ask.
Roll stated the Council will see this more as it deals with instream flows in
WRIA 1. This is a nice test case before that happens.
4. SALMON RECOVERY
Preliminary Draft WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan
John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated he would provide an update on
developing the recovery plan, describe the elements of the plan, and go over the
timelines. The County, small cities, Bellingham, tribes, and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) form the board that becomes the lead
entity for salmon recovery in water resources inventory area (WRIA) 1. They have
three objectives: to oversee completion of the plan, to oversee plan
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
implementation, and to provide coordination for the salmon grant process. The
board had its first meeting this morning.
He handed out an outline for the summary of the salmon recovery plan. It
will be the primary tool for working with the community and policy documents.
There will be a more substantial technical document available also. The summary
will be about key actions for the next five to ten years, focusing on Chinook. The
technical document will go into detail for other species.
Brenner asked if Chinook and bull trout are in the south fork. Thompson
stated two separate populations of Chinook are in the south fork.
Brenner stated Acme Flood Sub -Zone residents are extremely concerned that
the work going on now will create flooding on their properties and create a hazard.
Until recently, she hasn't heard anything about this problem. She asked what they
are doing to balance the restoration of fish stocks with people's safety. Thompson
stated that project has multiple funding sources, none of which want to put people
in jeopardy. Those residents are already at some risk. The lower Hutchison Creek
project is going through a revised design process to look at existing hazards and
risks to adjacent landowners, then will decide how the project can be structured to
be hazard - neutral or lessen the risk to people. They are working out that concern.
That is a good example of one of the County's challenges.
Thompson continued to state that one action item is to develop detailed
restoration plans for the river forks and main stem for Chinook and bull trout.
(Inaudible) As they move into more populated areas, they will experience more of
these concerns. A part of the recovery strategy is to integrate flood hazard
management with salmon recovery.
Roy stated the tribes are also involved in this plan, which complicates
communication between the County and major players. She asked if they are
meeting with the tribes this week, and if they will have more information.
Thompson stated that is correct. The Sub -Zone Committee has been meeting with
a variety of people to gather information.
Thompson continued to state that the timeline is not yet complete. Staff has
identified other dates that will be included in the timeline. Summary Draft 2 is the
first draft that has all the elements. It's a staff -level working draft. Summary Draft
3 is the version that will be complete enough for people to review. By the end of
April, they want to have a draft that is complete enough to send out to Shared
Strategy, with a disclaimer that it is not yet approved.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it will include measures that need to be taken to
address flood concerns, which would avoid a future rush of people concerned about
flooding. Thompson stated it is in the plan. One question is how to get feedback
about concerns early on.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they could incorporate a process for (inaudible).
Thompson stated there will be some open houses to talk with the residents.
Roy asked about the public open houses. Thompson stated they haven't
gotten into the details yet. The timelines are tight. Staff welcomes feedback about
scheduling the open houses.
From June to the end of the year, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Division will write a recovery plan. If the councils
produce something that isn't acceptable or don't approve anything, NOAA Fisheries
will write a plan. NOAA Fisheries is under a fair amount of pressure.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Nelson asked how to develop two habitats for two distinct and different
species. Thompson stated there are actions in place that are integrated. They
integrated harvest, hatchery, and habitat. Integrate those factors for Chinook and
other species.
Nelson asked if the strategy will go forward if there is no integration. Roll
stated integration is required.
Nelson asked if the habitats for the two are similar. Thompson stated they
are trying to focus on the limits working against the species and the impaired
processes that they need to fix. Create a system that is self- sustaining. That will
create a benefit for other species. The summary document will focus on Chinook,
but they are trying to think long -term about actions that benefit other species. A
presentation on the harvest and hatchery components is available.
Brenner stated she likes presentations, but has a problem with getting only
part of the story from someone who has his or her own agenda. She's concerned.
When they get presentations, get them from all involved parties. Get all the
conflicting viewpoints.
Roll stated the summary is that there actions going forward that will come to
the Council again in February. The Council will need to approve or not approve
them. Between March and June, they will need to agree and commit resources to
updating the critical areas and shoreline updates so they are in line with the salmon
recovery effort.
Roy stated coordinate salmon recovery with critical areas, shoreline, and
everything else. The County must integrate salmon recovery into its approach to
critical areas.
ADJOURN
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on February 8 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 1/18/2005, Page 17