HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources April 13 20041
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
April 13, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N.
Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Flood Control Maintenance Program
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the packet includes
information she won't go through in detail. However, the decision matrix in the
packet worked well for the advisory committee to minimize the need for in -depth
discussion after they toured all the project sites.
There are three projects listed in the handout. They are three projects where
dikes failed and where the Army Corps of Engineers will fix, charging the County 20
percent of the cost. There was no risk to life and limb, but those projects are
number one priorities because the Corps covered 80 percent of the cost, which the
County wanted to take advantage of. The Corps went through cost - benefit analysis
for each of these projects, and benefits outweighed the costs.
The first project is the Riverberry bank stabilization repair. There's no levee
along the river. The project was constructed in 1997. The County tried three
different types of deflective structures. This is a high priority project they will move
forward with this summer.
The Saxon emergency repair project is another project. It is in the South
Fork Valley. During the October floods, the lower third of the revetment started to
unravel because a cedar tree fell into the river during the flood.
A third project is the Williams emergency repair near Deming. Bare bank is
in need of maintenance work. They were starting to negotiate with the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife on the mitigation necessary when the October
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
floods happened and washed everything away. It became a cooperative project
between the Corps and County. They will rebuild it so it has more integrity.
The next project is the Ritter Road emergency levee repair on a portion of
the levee set back from the river. The levee failed during the October flood. The
Corps did an emergency repair project to prevent water on Ritter Road. The Corps
will come back this summer and finish work.
The Bertrand Creek levee repairs are to five different holes on the levees.
The project will keep the spring waters on the Nooksack from backing up onto the
fields. There is lots of agricultural land. Water flows over the levees and often
causes damages. They are starting to use hydrologic models to look at alternatives
for the Bertrand system that will work better for Nooksack flood flows and will
require less repair in the future. The Corps is going to repair all five holes. The
work protects agricultural land.
The Hovander park levee backslope repair is another project. The levee runs
through Hovander Park. When the river overtops the levee, water gets to Slater
Road from above. It gets huge volumes of water that lets the water out on the left
bank and flows to the wetland area between Marine Drive and Slater Road. The
levees must stay in place so water can access the left bank storage to take
pressure off the right bank. It worked great during the floods. Staff worked with
the Parks Department manager to do some sand bagging on the levee, which
worked for the second October flood and November flood. There were no failures
out there, but there are spots where they need to clean up and create a flatter
backslope. She submitted a handout of current cost estimates (on file), which are
subject to change still. The Parks Department would be the local sponsor for the
Hovander project. Their budget is limited. They will use staff and equipment to
help with work on the levee as their local match.
McShane asked if this project is to make sure there is over - topping in this
location. Cooper stated that if this failed, there would be overtopping on Slater
Road more often and for a longer duration.
There are a lot of levees throughout the system participating in the levee
vegetation maintenance program. There is a cost share program for brushing,
mowing, and spraying. Some districts are better than others at taking advantage
of this program. Getting those levees into the Corps program pays off in the long
run.
The next topic is the flood hazard reduction program. The First project in
that program is the Canyon Creek acquisition and demolition. They are finishing
final negotiation for purchase of the final property. If the negotiation goes well,
they will have a demolition project soon.
The Johnson Creek flood hazard reduction is another project. They cleaned
up and planted the Johnson Creek area to improve system conveyance. Fisheries is
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
pleased with these projects. It makes a nicer system for fish once the system is
cleaned and planted. They did four miles last year and three and a half miles this
year.
The Saar Creek sediment trap modification project is an adaptive
management approach. They built the sediment trap last summer. The October
floods brought a large volume of sediment down. This is the second construction
phase of the Saar Creek management plan. Construction of the trap was the
second phase of the plan. The creek comes out of the hills. They built a concrete
diversion structure. The main creek comes out of the hills and hits the diversion
structure. The flow splits in two. There was more sediment in the entrance to the
habitat channel. She will talk to the design engineer who will modify the inlet
channel so the water has to flow upstream more and there will be less
sedimentation. There is a lot of sediment that got into the trap. There was no
evidence that sediment made it downstream, which saved the downstream system.
Swift Creek flood hazard reduction is the next project. Kerr Wood Leidel will
help finalize the plan for Swift Creek. The plan calls for formalizing sediment traps
down river. They need to do some kind of bank protection as part of he sediment
trap to keep the creek from eroding the dredge spoil piles.
Another project is the backsloping work on the Hampton levee, which will
come from 100 percent of Lynden /Everson subzone funds.
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Proposed Review Process for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Draft Plan
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the goal is to revise the preliminary
review draft so it can go out for public review in June or July. The review strategy
is to go through a section -by- section review. Sections three and four will require
the most work. She recommends that the review process is interest - based. All
caucuses are using a comment and question form. As they review the document,
there are three questions to consider. One question is whether the caucus supports
the section of the plan for distribution to the public. If not, define the changes
needed and wanted for public review. They expect the two -hour monthly Planning
Unit meetings will be too short. The Planning Unit will have longer, more frequent
meetings.
Roy asked when this comes back to the Council after it goes to the Planning
Unit. She wants to know what comes out of the Planning Unit.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this will be proposed
by the Planning Unit for approval to the public. The Council can either approve it or
not approve it. In the public review draft, staff would come to the Council. He will
go to the Planning and will need to have updates for the Council.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
McShane moved to approve the review process.
Brenner asked if they are committing funding by approval. Roll stated they
are not.
Motion carried unanimously.
WRIA 1 Budget Needs for Four Early Action Elements
Roll stated they have been working to come up with an instream flow action
strategy. They are working to set a flow regime for the entire water resource
inventory area (WRIA). There is interest in piloting some of this work earlier rather
than jumping into entire WRIA -wide piece. This proposal is to start with some of
the instream flow work specifically in the Bertrand Creek watershed. This proposal
includes work on the Comprehensive Irrigation District Management Plan (CIDMP)
project through the Watershed Improvement District (WID) that has been formed.
That work is moving forward. By mid -year, there will be a draft CIDMP for review.
An integral piece of that is understanding what instream flows need to be, the
water available for out -of- stream uses, and how people address the Endangered
Species Act and Clean Water Act issues. More details about CIDMP work is in the
draft plan.
The other element is groundwater modeling. There is a desire to move
forward with groundwater modeling for Bertrand Creek. They will need that
information as they move forward. He anticipates in May to get conceptual model
framework from Utah State University (USU). The technical team will find out what
it will take to finish that model. They'll need to modify it as they move forward
depending on what comes out of the USU conceptual model.
The first element is community outreach. WRIA participants desire more
community outreach for all the pieces of the plan.
Fleetwood asked why they just don't wait six weeks for a more accurate
estimate of the USU groundwater modeling piece. Roll stated that is an option.
The estimate is from the technical team of what they will need. A significant
portion of this is data collection.
Roy asked who the early action recommendations came from, and if they are
from the technical team. Roll stated the recommendations are from a compilation
of people who contributed to the proposals.
Roy asked if the Planning Unit supports selecting one pilot area. Roll stated
there seems to be a desire to move forward with the pilot.
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District 1 General Manager, stated the
agricultural community is very interested in there being a pilot in the agricultural
community to see this demonstrated and how this works.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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
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.
Henry Bierlink, Agricultural Preservation Committee, stated the Planning Unit
hasn't recommended it formally yet. It was discussed at the last meeting, and
there weren't any negative comments so far.
Roll stated the Planning Unit will vote on it at the next meeting, and he needs
Council direction as the County's representative on the Planning Unit.
Roy asked the total amount requested. Roll stated almost half a million
dollars is requested from two places. One source is the general fund. The second
source is the fund balance left in the former water resource fund. There are no
longer monies being placed in that fund, and there's $500,000 sitting there that is
available for something like this.
Brenner stated she is not comfortable deciding to fund some of this stuff.
Groundwater is an important element. It was promised initially. USU didn't do
what it promised, and the County didn't have the oversight to prevent the waste
that happened. They are all important proposals. She will not support funding
from the general fund. There are too many other items coming forward that need
funding. They're pushing things a lot faster than they have to be pushed. The
State was supposed to fund some of this.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state she understood the County would get funding for
the Bertrand project. A lot of this is being thrown in the County's lap for funding.
They shouldn't move forward at all until there is a dependable source of funding.
McShane asked the amount for Bertrand. Roll stated the amount is about
$120,000 for Bertrand.
Bierlink stated there are two elements. Element three is about $120,000.
Element three also includes Ten Mile. Element two is instream flow setting, focused
on Bertrand.
Anderson stated not all of element two would go to Bertrand. There is
$77,000 that is focused on the negotiation with the WID and the participants in the
Bertrand. That amount is focused on Bertrand.
Bierlink stated element three is money not spent unless other money from
the State and federal governments, which there is. There is $300,000 from the
State. If they don't show local commitment, that money continuing to come from
the State won't happen. Without County commitment, it is hard to make the
argument to keep money coming from the State.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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
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 Kelli Linville said the State would fund the
groundwater study for the Bertrand area. Roll stated there is no State money for
that area. Nothing got through the State budget for that purpose.
Bierlink stated there is ground -to- surface augmentation that will include
groundwater studies. To do that in the Bertrand WID, they will have to do very
focused groundwater examination. It is not even drainage wide.
Roll stated this isn't a modeling activity that Councilmember Caskey-
Schreiber is talking about. That data can help calibrate a model.
Anderson stated he is not aware of any money in the State budget directed
toward that activity.
Fleetwood stated groundwater is critical. He asked how much of the overall
groundwater component in the entire plan will be moved forward by approving this
particular project. Roll stated understanding the relationship between surface and
groundwater is important throughout the whole basin. In terms of groundwater,
it's difficult to say if this will meet everyone's needs. The group hasn't spent
enough time on the specific geographic and management questions on what needs
to be accomplished and the certainty that the models will provide answers. They
lack a lot of data that characterizes groundwater, which is needed to calibrate the
model. It's healthy to look at a smaller area to get a better understanding of what
it would potentially cost a larger area.
Fleetwood asked if Bertrand is the best example of a place to study. Roll
stated it is a very good place, especially with the proponents working on it.
Fleetwood asked if studying it on some level is a necessity, but they can't
guarantee results. Roll stated it is a good place to study. They are going to have
to do this analysis at some point in time. Part of the exercise is defining the
information they're trying to get from the models. As they learn more, people will
understand the models better. Some of the models won't necessarily provide
outputs that give lots of certainty, because of the calibration. He can't guess how
much information someone will need to make a management decision. All the
models have limitations and positive attributes to help predict future outcomes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can fund one element without all four
elements. She heard Lynden is digging a deep water well to find another source for
their water. She asked if there is any shared data and a groundwater study they've
done. They talked once about the Canadians having something that might assist
the County and that would reduce their cost. Roll stated it's a potential. He will
ask if that Canadian model is something they can apply here. The Council can
support some or all of the elements of this, with or without conditions, however the
elements are intertwined.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that of DOE ultimately sets the instream flows, the
WRIA could skip the negotiation step and just achieve what DOE wants. Roll stated
the flows were already set in 1985. The question is whether those are the flows by
which this community wants to manage. To date, the community has said it wants
to reevaluate how flows are managed. They want to manage the flows based on
wet, dry, and normal year flows. If the WRIA doesn't go any further, the DOE can
go into its rulemaking, but he doubts they will since they've already set the flows.
This action strategy is a novel approach. It's very different from rulemaking in that
it engages people in the field.
Anderson stated the big issue is the fact that DOE rulemaking has a priority
date of 1986, or whenever the rulemaking is done. The tribal issue, which is part of
the negotiation, affects existing water rights. Whatever DOE does won't affect that.
A big piece of the negotiation is about the effect the tribal question has on water
rights. That's important to agriculture, cities, and other existing water users.
Waiting for DOE to do something doesn't answer that question. Many people are
involved in this process because the negotiations are an attempt to deal with the
tribal question.
Roy asked if the tribal issues are being addressed in Bertrand Creek.
Anderson stated they are.
McShane stated the tribes are engaged in the process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about Lynden's deep water well. That could have
enormous impact on the area. Bierlink stated Lynden did some modeling but not a
great deal. If they have to, they will pursue it in connection with water law and the
Bertrand WID. A well won't go in quickly.
Anderson stated that even if a well went in quickly, it will be five to ten years
to satisfy DOE's needs to use the water. The basin is closed right now. They have
to drill the well and do the testing to calibrate the models to predict the use.
Brenner stated it's in the City of Lynden's benefit to do the modeling. The
County should not focus money on issues Lynden needs to do anyway. Work with
the City of Lynden, and find out when they do their modeling, even if it takes five
or six years. The assumption is that they have to hurry up and get something
done. She's tired of hearing that. Let the State come down on the County if that's
what it's going to do, which it probably won't.
Roy stated she understands the idea of having one WID as a model. She
asked how many more potential WIDs there are in this watershed. She asked if
they are starting a domino effect. Roll stated they could be if this WID were
successful.
McShane stated they could consider scoring or ranking future WIDs and their
projects. He preferred to go ahead with this because it isn't an issue about the
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
State coming down on the County with a hammer. It's an issue of two groups of
county citizens, including tribal members and their water rights issues. The tribes
are the ones with the hammer. The tribes have chosen not to use that hammer so
far because of the WRIA effort. The tribes see an opportunity in the Bertrand Creek
area. There is also a group of farming interests on Bertrand Creek who will benefit.
It's about helping a group that needs assistance and assurance that they don't get
hit with some sort of hammer. Lynden is capable of finding its own water source.
The County is playing a part in representing two groups of citizens the County
represents and resolving their water disputes. Go ahead with this project. He is
not concerned they're going to create a domino of other projects coming forward
any time soon.
Brenner asked how McShane supports funding.
McShane stated there is money from the former water resources fund now.
The County made a change to how water resource projects are to be funded in the
future. The projects like this do need to compete in the realm of the general fund.
As they reach their capacity to fund projects, one suggestion is that the PUD may
consider a countywide tax to support these kinds of things. The County reduced
the flood fee and raised the property tax rates. Additional money was added to
the general fund. Projects will have to compete for money from the general fund,
where it comes from.
Brenner stated the Mental Health Advisory Board is losing money to service
life and death issues. It will come forward at budget time to request money for
that. At some point, the Council will have to prioritize the life and death issues.
She is not opposed to these projects, but there are more critical issues.
Fleetwood asked if any strings are attached or assumptions made about how
the reserve fund balance would be spent. Roll stated there is not. The balance is
money that was never allocated for any one purpose.
Roy stated that when that money is gone, it's gone. She asked how many of
these costs will be ongoing next year when they don't have a fund reserve. This
doesn't appear to be a one -year project. It's a multi -year project. She agrees with
Councilmember Brenner. The State is refusing to provide services to anyone with
mental health issues who is not a Medicaid client. That will leave a huge gap in
services for homeless people and people in crisis. That's a huge issue. She is
bothered that they're prioritizing budget items without other interests competing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the projects because they support
agriculture, address environmental impacts, and address water rights and tribal
issues. She will advocate for it only if they use the water resources reserve
balance, not the general fund. She asked if they want to include the $50,000 for
Ten Mile as well. The groundwater piece has got to happen. For WRIA to be a
success, they have to know how much groundwater is available. They will
ultimately have to spend more than $155,000 on groundwater. If they are going to
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
make realistic decisions, future councils have to know the impacts of using water
countywide. If this is the biggest priority for implementing WRIA, and they want to
use the reserve money for this, she supports it. Roll stated this is the proposal on
the table. Another issue is salmon recovery and shellfish protection. He can't say
this is the most important issue right now.
McShane stated they need to look at the water resources budget in the
context of the entire budget. If there is any project they do as a pilot, this is the
most attractive.
Brenner stated they have a choice of not funding the items in their entirety.
Go back to the drawing board and come back with a request that is 25 percent of
this request. When there is less money to spend, they will go slower.
Roy stated that within the Watershed Management Plan will be other funding
requests. Not only have they not looked at the needs of the rest of the County
budget, but they haven't even looked at the rest of the needs within the WRIA plan.
She won't support the request as it is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to hear what the Planning Unit has to say
first.
Roy stated the Planning Unit has said it likes the programs. The Council likes
the programs. The Planning Unit doesn't have to prioritize this in terms of funding
along with all the other County services.
McShane moved to support this early action item.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are making a decision in a vacuum. They
don't know the options to prioritize this. She moved to hold in Council, look at this
list, and get help from staff on costs of other projects that might come forward and
to prioritize them. Roll stated it takes a lot of time to go through each project on
the list to come up with the costs.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber's motion was not voted on.)
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a way to do these with a lesser amount.
McShane asked if there are things that should be done sooner rather than
later. Roll stated he can't answer that question.
Fleetwood asked why these items are in this particular order and need to be
done right now. If he has that answer, he can hopefully support the request. All
these projects are important and address the question of finalizing the plan.
Brenner stated these are important issues, but they have other issues that
are equally or more important, which are life and death issues. The Council needs
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
to do any kind of budgeting and funding through the budget process. Don't do it
separate from the budget process. These are major numbers they are talking
about. It affects the money that will be available for other things.
Motion failed unanimously.
Section 3 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, read
from the presentation (on file) regarding the Natural Resource Policy Integration
(NRPI) Program. They take what they are already doing and do a much better job
by working with the key stakeholders to integrate policies. The focus for the NRPI
program is the four water resources inventory area (WRIA) issues, water quality,
water quantity, habitat, and instream flows. There is a link between growth
management and four WRIA issues. He's concerned that much of the discussion of
urban growth area (UGA) growth and other growth is in a separate box from water
resources growth. They need to consider them together as they accept 50,000
more people into the county. As the County does critical areas planning, the
Council will hear a lot about best available science. There is an immense amount of
code change going on as they refine how to protect their natural resources. The
Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) would be key to management of all the layers
of regulation they're incorporating into the bundle of policy integration. Have an
annual process for evaluating accomplishments and goals. Get the different
jurisdictions thinking along the same line regarding low impact development. The
more participation there is on a regular basis, the better a project will be. If there
is collaboration and people agree on the underlying concept, the better off they'll
be. The listed stakeholder appendix is important. By doing a better collaborative
job, the better off they will be when competing for limited dollars at the State level.
They have to show a great amount of collaboration amongst all the stakeholders.
Roy stated that when she worked in a school district, she worked with special
services, which was made up of different departments. The communication among
them wasn't good. The school district decided to change the configuration and go
by areas. Each specialist was assigned to an area, and then they all met as area
teams. She's struck with fact that the County is divided into departments. She
asked if there can be a team of people looking at an issue, not as a member of a
particular department. Hart stated they are creating a one -stop shop. The
Engineering Division can be an interdisciplinary team with the Land Use Division.
The public wants a seamless operation. They are doing the same thing with natural
resources policies. They have to identify the team around the four WRIA issues.
Roll stated they've come a long way toward that concept. The Planning staff
and Water Resources Division staff job descriptions are the same. It requires
people to function in a team environment. There have been specific changes to
create cross - functional teams. It is happening. The Executive's Office is on to that
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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.
concept. The salmon recovery and WRIA plans are on the streets. The County role
needs to switch toward implementation. He is meeting with the Planning, Public
Works, and Health departments for the budget process.
Hart stated that if they switch to the two -year budget, it forces staff to think
in a longer time period.
Roll stated he would revisited the three review strategy questions on natural
resource policy integration. He asked if there is something that must change for
this to go to the public.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are trapped by the Growth Management Act
(GMA) to set up the UGA, and they're giving away their control to develop a
wetland mitigation bank or transfer of development rights (TDR) program. It
seems like a no -win situation when they have to adopt a subarea plan and UGA.
Hart stated the more sensitive approach to the concern is to have that subarea plan
information to form the land use decisions. On a site -by -site basis, all the areas in
the urban growth areas have limitations. They're not being creative to overcome
individual problems. In the future, allow a lot more creativity to benefit the
building community and natural resources on a particular site.
Blake stated staff recommends that some of the resource allocation funding
at the end needed to be reexamined. They looked low.
Blake gave a presentation (on file) on the low impact development (LID)
program. She read from her presentation regarding appendix I.2 of the Watershed
Management Plan. This is a program that is reevaluated over time. There are a
number of LID projects in the county already. People have already gone through
the process. The County needs that kind of feedback.
Brenner stated she would like the Council to see existing local examples of
low impact developments.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated there are always
ongoing changes in regulations from cities, the county, and the state, which is an
impediment. His staff have to change continuously. There are unexpected
challenges with that. Certain programs may be affected by changes. The public
has to know about the changes, and is also dealing with its own development
issues. To expedite reviews, make sure the environment doesn't lose. A challenge
is not having the time to monitor and look at the programs they want to see
happen, which is why the administrative Land Use Division is excited about the
opportunity for policy integration and this element of WRIA. The low impact
projects are seen as another cost of building a home. They want to insure that
anything in the code is effective and will provide benefits to water quantity and
quality down the road. Make sure those mechanisms are in place when the codes
are adopted so monitoring can happen and they can respond and modify the codes.
Leaving the codes subjective is difficult for the staff of engineers. He would speak
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, 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
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.
against doing that type of code writing. At the same time, be flexible enough to
incorporate best available science, which changes every year.
Hart stated there is an exchange of information at permit intake. On larger
projects, there is a negotiation over what the developer will do next to a shoreline
or stream. That negotiation will be extended to the LID. It will add time and
another layer of complexity. However, what they get out of it will be important if it
works. They are seeing in other locations where it does and doesn't work.
McShane stated he can understand not providing a lot of flexibility to the
code in terms of creating a false sense of flexibility. He asked if there can be a less
flexible code unless there are incentives to do low impact experimental
development. There are fundamental design differences that can't be written into
the code because they are site specific.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner left the meeting at 12 :25 p.m. End of tape two, side
A.)
Blake continued her presentation. Now, the Water Resources Division is
identified as the lead for the low impact development program. That lead status
needs to be changed to Whatcom County. There is also participation that includes
the cities, Public Utility District, State Department of Ecology, and other community
members. The plan identifies that the initial work would be done with existing
resources. That needs to change. In general, staff supports this program with
those two changes and also to include more information about using pilot projects.
She heard that the Council wants to go on a tour. She asked if that should be
added to the program.
Roy stated it is just for background information for the Council, outside the
plan.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on May 4 , 2004.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, Page 12
1
2
3
4
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.
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 4/13/2004, Page 13