HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources March 22 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
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
March 22, 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
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Absent:
Sam Crawford
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2005 -025)
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Phosphorus Ordinance
Sue Blake, Senior Planner, submitted an updated ordinance (on file) and
stated the ordinance will be in the Council packet for introduction at the March 29
County Council meeting. Think about whether this ordinance is what they want.
She looked at regulations from other jurisdictions in Minnesota and
Wisconsin. The proposal is to establish regulations for fertilizer application on
residential lawns and public properties in the Lake Whatcom watershed. It would
apply to the unincorporated area, not the city of Bellingham. They're looking at
commercial fertilizers in the definition in the State Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 15.54. It's very similar to the definition used in the language from the other
states. The only exemption for fertilizer use are those with zero percent
phosphorus, such as the Lake Whatcom blend.
Nelson stated phosphorus is also contained in certain cleaners and
detergents. Blake stated phosphorus is found in many things.
Nelson asked if fertilizer is the main culprit. Blake stated it's one of them.
Roy asked about not applying to newly established lawn areas during the
growing season. She asked the rationale. Newly established turf in lawn areas
sounds nebulous.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
Brenner stated she passed out a study that shows the highest amount of
phosphorus from urban lakes comes from lawn runoff.
Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated the exemption for newly
established turf is because the science shows that newly established turf has little
root system, and added phosphorus will help establish the root system and protect
the soil from erosion.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated newly established turf applies to the
first growing season.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree with MacConnell. She suggested adding
language to subsection 16.32.060, "...in their first growing season, provided that
the fertilizer is phosphorus- free." That will help the roots grow very well.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they would just remove the exemption.
MacConnell stated in other regulations, there may be an exemption if a
fertilizer test shows a need for adding phosphorus. Councilmember Brenner is
correct. New turf can be established without adding phosphorus in most cases.
However, the establishment may not be as rapid. He doesn't know if soil erosion
will result because of un- established turf.
Brenner stated if one can't get turf established without using phosphorus, the
resident should look at putting in native plants instead of lawn, anyway. She's seen
the phosphorus -free fertilizer work on new grass. She can't imagine where it
wouldn't work.
McShane stated there are instances where phosphorus -free fertilizer won't
work, depending on soil types. Sometimes, if the soil lacks nutrients, plants won't
establish, including native plants. Unless the Council want to ask people to perform
chemical analysis of their soils, it seems reasonable to allow phosphorus fertilizer
for a short time to get something established. If the concern is with lawn, in
general, a different approach may be to get people to reduce lawn areas versus
approving the ordinance regarding fertilizers. He defers to the expert.
Brenner stated she's seen plants with phosphorus -free fertilizers grown on
clay soils that don't have good nutrients. The fertilizer produced by Washington
State University (WSU) produced good grass.
MacConnell stated the biggest problem is with new houses being built, when
there is tremendous land disturbance including soil compaction and removal of
topsoil. One could have new turf on undisturbed soils, and the turf will, in most
cases, start well. The problem is when there is disturbed soils, new construction,
the overburden pushed aside, and other detrimental effects to the soil. He can
envision there will be times when the turf will not become established. There are
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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
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.
other ways to deal with that. For instance, some municipalities have required
restoring the soil when a project is done.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is concerned about getting the education
component out there. People tend to get into habits and affiliate with brands they
like. MacConnell stated this is a good opportunity for the building industry to
educate people in the industry on how to protect the soil so that it is restored and
remains in a productive state when construction is done.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she won't support Councilmember Brenner's
suggested amendment. A big part of phosphorus getting into the lake is from
sediment. If there aren't established root systems, that problem will accelerate.
Brenner stated they ought to add a section about restoration of natural soils.
Builders are supposed to do that now. They're supposed to put the soils aside and
restore the soils when construction is done. This is a way to further encourage the
construction industry to do this. It's a better way to go.
Roy asked if the County already has those requirements in its best
management practices (BMP's).
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated that requirement is in a provision under
the stormwater special district standards, to use soil amendments in certain
conditions. Item 14 talks about soil remediation as a low impact development
technique. The Council can consider including a requirement in this ordinance to
amend soils to avoid that first year use of phosphorus.
Roy stated that is what she would prefer. Anytime the Council discussed this
is in the past, the argument against was that they don't have the staff to enforce
regulations against using fertilizers with phosphorus. She asked for comment on
that issue.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he's working
with administration on improvement of enforcement of all ordinances. Now, he has
three full -time equivalent (FTE) positions for enforcement. One FTE is vacant
because the staff person is on military leave. Work for that person on
administrative approvals and zoning is backing up. One person can take the day -
to -day work. In October, a decision was made to concentrate the efforts of the
third person on nutrient management. The administration is desperately looking at
additional help needs. The wait time now at the front counter is so long that people
are beginning to build without permits. That's a concern. He has higher priorities
than this. He has to look at life safety first, then property values. They must
address the whole system, and add this as an additional item they're doing in the
watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this would be enforced by the Planning
Department. She thought it could be done by the Sheriff's Office. Blake stated the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
language in the ordinance comes from the Planning Department at this point. The
proposal now is that the logical department to do enforcement is the Planning
Department (PDS).
Caskey- Schreiber asked how PDS would enforce the ordinance. Hart stated
the City of Spokane did a ban at the point of sale. He's asking the Health
Department to find out if there is another way, their enforcement history in the
State of Washington, and if its been successful. He'll find out if there is an
alternative. Typically, the department tries to be corrective in the watershed. Staff
is a resource for people and offers alternatives to the way people are doing things.
The first step is public information and outreach.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are working with Bakerview Nursery and
other nurseries.
Brenner stated she's been told there is some kind of instrument that can go
into the soil to measure whether there is phosphorus in the soil. She envisions that
the process be complaint driven. Neighbors would complain when they see grass
that is very green.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed that is how the process will work in
reality, but she's worried that enforcement will only be complaint driven. Things in
the county are happening that shouldn't because no one complains.
Brenner stated don't impose the fine right away. She's in favor of education.
The problem is with someone who ignores the regulation. The County needs the
regulation to do enforcement with education. She doesn't expect this to be a high
priority, but done in conjunction with education.
McShane asked if there is a program in mind for annual review.
Roll stated they need a program to do review. The five -year work program
works with places such as Sudden Valley to come up with best management
practices. As the item in the work plan to work with Sudden Valley moves forward,
staff will have an idea of phosphorus production.
Brenner stated this is a perfect opportunity to work with the construction
industry. She really does want to work with them so they aren't shut down all the
time. If the County does something like this, then those in the industry will also
educate their people. Many people will initially not understand anything about
phosphorus -laden fertilizer. Education doesn't have to come just from County staff.
Baumgarten stated other ordinances delay implementation of the penalty.
For the first year, mail out a brochure to everyone in the watershed. Have it
available to all staff working in the watershed. When the County gets complaints,
staff could respond with educational material. Also, change the packaging of the
Lake Whatcom blend to make it very visible and distinct from other brands. There
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
is a lot of work being done in the state as a part of low impact development
practice on soil amendment. Requiring soil amendments is another level of
inspection.
Brenner stated it could create another layer of inspection, but the County is
not looking quick enough at low impact development practices to get it on the
books. When people have that information, many will do low impact development
voluntarily. If the County is going to mail out brochures, mail also to every
contractor in Whatcom County, to the Building Industry Association (BIA), and
Associated General Contractors (AGC). Contractors from outside Whatcom County
do work and need the information.
Blake stated the Lake Whatcom Friendly Program can be expanded to include
this type of thing. The Lake Whatcom Management Program can include some of
these suggestions.
Caskey stated work with the retailers. She likes the idea of making the
packaging very obvious.
McShane stated administration of the ordinance is challenging. He is
interested in a follow up discussion on the option of a point -of -sale ban, but not
necessarily in this ordinance. Other counties have banned the sale of mercury -
containing products. He is not willing to go that far, but an idea is to require those
who sell fertilizer within a certain distance of lake Whatcom to have available the
Lake Whatcom blend or equivalent. He's not sure if that is even legal, but explore
the suggestions.
Roy stated one option would be to have a day for people to bring in
phosphorus fertilizer and trade for phosphorus -free fertilizer.
Brenner moved to add language to subsection 16.32.060, "...in their first
growing season, provided that the fertilizer is phosphorus- free."
Roll stated this ordinance will come to the Council later. Save some of those
discussions for when the ordinance is introduced.
Nelson stated the State of Minnesota exempted licensed golf courses. He
asked if staff has talked to Sudden Valley. Blake stated she has talked to Sudden
Valley. Sudden Valley is to work on best management practices and come up with
a plan. To move this forward quickly, the community doesn't have those
mechanisms in place. There is no such thing as a license fertilizer applicator here
in this area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's worried about implementation. This ordinance
won't be adopted by April 1. Blake stated they'll have to change the date.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
MacConnell stated he will get phone calls as a result of this. Add to the
definitions "commercial lawn fertilizer." Subsection .050 talks about commercial
lawn fertilizer.
Roll stated he would work on that definition.
Brenner stated she would like to be a proposer with Executive Kremen.
Hart stated he has to work with staff to make sure the map is consistent with
other maps they've adopted.
Roll stated this is the most accurate map of the drainages, from a scientific
perspective.
Fleetwood stated people have expressed a concern that pesticides are also a
problem. He asked if there is any effort or intention to include pesticides. Roll
stated there isn't.
Brenner stated pesticides are not a large source of phosphorus. Phosphorus
is the issue, but she's interested in whatever they want to bring forward.
McShane asked about iron phosphate. MacConnell stated it is used as one
method for moss control.
McShane stated a draft of the proposed pesticide ordinance exempted the
use of iron phosphate.
2. SALMON RECOVERY
Caskey- Schreiber stated Bellingham City Council Member John Watts
submitted the latest committee report for management recommendations for
watershed protection properties (on file).
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated it is the final
recommendations the City Council approved by resolution. The recommendations
are now the City's policy for taking care of financial requirements.
Caskey- Schreiber asked for an update on the agenda for tomorrow night's
Lake Whatcom Management Committee Joint Council Meeting. Roll stated the
agenda includes discussion of a five -year work plan and a 30 minute update. There
will also be discussion about phosphorus reduction, stormwater, and land clearing.
The third item is for the councils to talk about common threads of implementation.
Item four is a public comment period.
Salmon Recovery Plan Update
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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
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 water resource inventory area (WRIA) plan is to be approved
by the Planning Unit this week. The County Council will receive it for formal
adoption. At the same time, the Salmon Recovery Plan will be submitted in April.
These are two huge events. The two plans are a culmination of work for the past
five to seven years. The entire community worked to come up with strategies for
managing water resources and salmon recovery. The Salmon Recovery Plan is
integrated as much as possible. The co- managers and others wanted the Salmon
Recovery Plan handled separately from WRIA, but that doesn't mean it was
developed in a vacuum from the WRIA plan. The same people developed both
plans. Therefore, WRIA plan implementation pieces are in the Salmon Recovery
Plan, and vice versa.
The County has an opportunity to develop a locally developed Salmon
Recovery Plan for listed species that will ultimately go to the federal agencies as the
County's local plan. This has huge ramifications in terms of having a road map of
where the community will spend its time and energy on salmon recovery over the
next several years. Also, it gives the County opportunity to vie for more salmon
recovery grant funds. The plan will give assurances to community organizations
that salmon recovery will occur.
The County has always looked at multi- species. Staff looked at the limiting
factors, technical data, and threats to existing stocks in terms of all salmon species
in the basin. Other participants see the listed species as a priority.
John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated this plan isn't done at the end of April
or June. This is the beginning of long -term implementation. Adaptive management
is an important factor of the plan. The dates in the packet have been revised. He
submitted a new time frame (on file). By the end of April, the organization called
Shared Strategy needs to have the technical document that provides the scientific
basis for the actions that need to be done to recover salmon in WRIA 1.
Roy asked what is Shared Strategy. Thompson stated Shared Strategy is the
nonprofit organization coordinating the plans.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Thompson continued to state that Shared Strategy will compile all local plans
into a single recovery plan and submit the single recovery plan to the federal
government. Each area will have a chapter in the final plan. The single recovery
plan is to cover the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) for Chinook.
Brenner asked if Shared Strategy would look at what all the counties did and
then require elements from one area to another area. Thompson stated Shared
Strategy would comment on whether the plans meet federal requirements.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
Roll stated Shared Strategy will come back to the local areas and provide
input to get the package ready for state review. There is a back - and -forth dialog
with Shared Strategy.
McShane stated what goes on in one county might have a significant effect
on fish that Whatcom County is trying to protect because the fish use nearshore
habitat in other counties. When all the plans come together, there may be an
emphasis on areas where the greater, large plan needs to concentrate. Thompson
stated the Whatcom County plan will have a nearshore and estuarine component.
Chapter 15 of the Shared Strategy plan is the nearshore chapter that does what
Councilmember McShane describes. Shared Strategy will geographically knit
together all the plans.
Brenner asked if it's more likely that the fish come from north. Because of
all the work those in Whatcom County have done on WRIA, it's more likely that
what Whatcom County does will have to be absorbed by other counties. She asked
if any salmon come from other counties to the south. Thompson stated they do,
but they don't have good information on the precise origin. It depends on the
stock. There are different species with different life histories and different life
stages. The currents may move the fish along to Samish Bay. In addition, the fish
move to habitats with the right food source and water quality.
Fleetwood stated the lack of snow and glaciers in the mountains has an
impact on salmon. He asked if the Council's review of the final summary draft on
June 1 will be the final work that the Council will do on the plan strategy.
Thompson stated the technical document is the science on limiting factors,
management strategies, and actions. The summary document compiles all those
actions and spells out the commitments, commissions, and resources. He
anticipates that the technical document won't change much because it's already in
the review process by Shared Strategy. The June 1 review would be a good
opportunity for the Council to clarify commitments and conditions.
Fleetwood stated the Council already blessed the eight action items. He
asked if they haven't changed and won't change between now and June. Thompson
stated they won't change, but they'll be more detailed.
Fleetwood asked if the Council's work for Shared Strategy is effectively done,
with the exception of responding to final summary things that might come forward.
Thompson stated they're getting close.
Roll stated the struggle in working with Shared Strategy is understanding
where things start and where things end. There is always a loop of review. He
hopes the core course for the next ten years is agreed upon. The approach to
those main courses may change. The core data is there. Shared Strategy will
make sure there is a level of buy off and support from the local governments before
the plan goes to the federal government. That's why he engages the County
Council and all the small cities so the entire community is included. An advantage
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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
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.
is that WRIA 1 has an established, clear salmon recovery board that includes
everyone in plan development and implementation. This advantage will make
WRIA 1 more competitive for future monies. As an incentive, the Salmon Recovery
Funding (SRF) Board is considering creating block grants for areas such as WRIA 1
where there are clearly defined plans and actions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she really likes the plan. It's well thought out and
includes an amazing amount of research. The plan is very thorough. She asked
about the section on achieving recovery. One objective is to restore historic
channel patterns. She asked how staff quantifies the historic channel pattern and
to what historic timeframe will fish be restored. That is a question many have
asked and will continue to ask. Include that information in the section on policies
for achieving recovery. She asked if they can expect to get federal financial help
with achieving recovery. Roll stated they will, hopefully. There is a group he will
be a part of that will package the federal request from Puget Sound.
Roy stated this is one of the best documents she's every read. It's very
thorough and answered many questions. Roll stated John Thompson and Scarlet
Tang single - handedly developed the document. The technical document was so
large and difficult to follow. Through Mr. Thompson's and Ms. Tang's efforts', they
came up with something that is readable by everyone in the community.
Thompson stated the technical information is being revised so it is more
accessible. That is the purpose of this summary document, also.
The technical answer to Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's question about
achieving goals is that they have good historical data that Brian Collins compiled as
the template. The ecosystem diagnosis and treatment model used for evaluating
Chinook habitat is called a patient and template model. The historical conditions
from historical accounts in Mr. Collins' work becomes the template. The recovery
goals and targets for fish numbers aren't based on the conditions and survey done
in 1850 or 1880. It's more about properly functioning conditions. There are small
parts of the Nooksack River that are pristine. There are other areas where they
hope to get back to pristine condition. Over the long term, there are areas where
they can't get back to pristine condition. As they develop more detailed restoration
strategies for the forks, the main stem, and the tributaries, they will know more
about how much they can improve fish functions, where they are at, and where
they need to go to get recovery. The plan's commitments and conditions are fairly
flexible. As the plan undergoes adaptive management, the Council will see these
items in various departmental budgets, grant requests, and other information from
different agencies. It will be very important to engage the community as they
develop the detail for specific geographic areas.
Brenner stated this document was very interesting to read. She referenced
page 14 and asked who from the local governments is on the Salmon Recovery
Board. Roll stated the County approved the Salmon Recovery Board through an
interlocal agreement that includes two caucuses. The land use land managers is
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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
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.
one caucus that includes all the mayors of the cities and the County Executive. The
co- manager caucus is the two tribes and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Brenner referenced page 17 and asked if they're talking about recovering
non -local stocks. Thompson stated the late -time Chinook is another name for fall
Chinook. The fall Chinook in the basin now are primarily Green River origin, going
back 100 years. They know, based on similar basins with better documentation,
the fall Chinook fill an ecological niche. The early, spring Chinook come into the
river now, move their way upstream, and spawn farther upstream in the basin. The
fall Chinook overlap the spring Chinook geographically and in spawning timing. The
fall Chinook tend to spawn in the lower sections of the rivers. With this plan, they
don't want to do any harm to those fall Chinook, but the priority is doing benefit to
the native, spring Chinook. They will evaluate the fall Chinook. There may be a
native component of the fall Chinook that they don't recognize because they
haven't done the genetic work. They haven't gotten a straight answer yet if they
have to recover fall Chinook. Filling all the niches is part of the federal population
diversity and spatial structure goals.
Roy asked if the county originally had a native fall Chinook species.
Thompson stated it's likely they did. They don't have good data on it. The
Nooksack Tribal elders feel strongly they did, but the Lummi Tribe isn't as confident
that they did. Ecologically it makes sense, and there is some anecdotal information
that supports the assumption.
Brenner thanked the staff for exploring the potential of dredging river gravel.
She asked what "redd" is. Thompson stated redd is the nest in which salmon lay
their eggs.
Brenner referenced page 23 and asked the hatchery legacy effects on salmon
that are no longer being conducted. Thompson stated an example are the fall
Chinook that the Kendall Hatchery produced for years. A large number of fall
Chinook originated at the hatchery, and then returned to that system for spawning.
The fall Chinook begin to spawn the last few weeks that the early, spring Chinook
spawn. The falls compete with the springs for habitat and food sources. In
addition, the bigger Coho that are released from the hatchery will eat the smaller
native species. Hatchery plans identify and try to avoid those effects.
McShane stated he likes the action items. The language in the section about
hatcheries should be harder. Be clear that the hatcheries did cause harm. They
should talk about the fact that hatchery programs can be very detrimental.
Fleetwood stated they need to underscore that success will be found in
implementation. He's excited about this plan. He asked if this plan will be used
primarily for the purpose of lobbying the federal government for funding, or if the
County will commit its own resources to implementation. Thompson stated both
sources of funding need to be committed. The County must determine its needs.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, 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.
It would be best if they can identify local sources to match federal resources.
Clearly they don't have local resources to do everything in the plan.
Nelson stated the County will primarily do work on land use issues in the
plan. He asked when the Council will begin to see the regulatory practices
necessary to achieve the water quantity and water quality levels outlined in the
document. He asked if staff has a perspective on where the County is now with its
regulatory practices. Thompson stated the primary regulatory piece identified in
these actions is the critical areas ordinance and shorelines update. Those two
ordinances alone are not sufficient to achieve recovery. Their mandated objective
is no net loss of existing function. Recovery will take more than that. Other
regulatory pieces include the State and federal governments. The water quantity
piece will be achieved through the instream flow action item, number six. The
County does not have regulatory responsibility for enforcing instream flow. The
County will make sure the flows established will meet ecological and community
needs. The State Department of Ecology will enforce the flow levels.
Nelson stated they need to look at all areas of the county, not just one area.
There will be other requirements from the federal government. He asked what and
where the County needs to look at. Thompson stated they need to provide
specificity.
Brenner referenced page 25. She attended the annual meeting of the
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association and listened to the guest speaker, Tom
Quinton. Everything the speaker said was that salmon are cyclical. She asked if
they are screwing around with the natural cycles by having specific dates with
specific goals. According to the speaker, some of the cycles are 50 or 60 years.
Thompson stated the specific goals are averages over time that take the
cycles into account. The data goes back to the 1970's. They want to establish a
general, upward trend.
Brenner stated the speaker surprised her when he said some of the cycles
are very long. Information from the 1970's may not reflect the cycle. Thompson
stated the staff is highly certain that they're not seeing a cyclic low level. There is
very good evidence related to habitat conditions and that they need habitat
changes. The cycles will affect the rate at which they achieve their goals.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to support the document generally.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Fleetwood out of the room.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on April 12 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 3/22/2005, Page 12