HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources September 21 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
September 21, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N.
Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD DIVISION
Alternatives analysis for Bertrand and Fishtrap Creek Levees
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated she will give a
presentation about Bertrand and Fishtrap Creeks (on file). The model is a hydraulic
model that describes the stream system, the levee, the flood plain, and hydraulic
structures. Last year, a consultant calibrated the model, which was very difficult.
She showed a map of the watersheds. The agricultural levees are not
designed. Their purpose is to keep spring floods off the fields. They run
perpendicular to flood flows of the Nooksack River. The flood water has to be
funneled to get over the high ground and levees.
Roy asked if there is agricultural land on both sides of the creek. Cooper
stated there is. During a flood event, the Nooksack backs up in the creeks. Water
overtops the levees on both sides of both creeks. Over the years, the levee
configurations have caused problems, especially with Bertrand Creek. The January
2002 flood even caused problems. The levees have gotten higher over the years,
but they were not designed and there is no structural integrity. She showed a
picture of the Bertrand levees during the 1995 flood and a picture of the Fishtrap
levee. During flood, the levees actually impede flow.
Fleetwood asked the cause of the floods over the levees. Cooper stated they
want this flooding to happen so it isn't jammed in the river. The Fishtrap and
Bertrand levees are actually a relief valve to let the river access its flood plain. It's
not an issue of making the levees protect something. During the winter, they have
to let the flood flow go because the river will never hold it all.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
She read the Power Point presentation on the recommendations from the
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) and design criteria.
Design to protect spring flood and let winter flood flow. She sat down with folks
from Diking District four. They want to protect a five year flood. She continued to
read the presentation about alternatives analysis steps and the inputs to the model.
Fleetwood asked about economic analysis. Cooper stated in a residential
area, they come up with damage curves for different types of houses. They use a
maximum flood elevation from the model. The economic model will determine the
damage curve. It compares the flood level from the model to the low water entry
point and the depth damage curve. It computes the total structural value for
damages. For agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers will figure out the damage
analysis.
McShane asked if the Corps did repairs on Bertrand. Cooper stated they did
an economic analysis for every area they work on. Those Bertrand levees are in
the Corps' program. The County asked for assistance. She's trying to look at this
more comprehensively so they don't have to keep repairing Bertrand over and over.
She continued the presentation on inputs to the model and alternatives
development.
Crawford stated the model is over a length of about a mile. Even though the
chart looks dramatic in its ups and downs, it is drawn out over a mile. Cooper
stated that is correct.
Cooper stated the benefit of the Fishtrap levees is gone. Bertrand has a flat
profile. There is no variation from one end to the other. In Fishtrap, there is a rise.
Bertrand still backs up water, and drowns the Fishtrap levees to some extent.
Without working on Bertrand, there's no point in doing much to Fishtrap. If they
lower Bertrand levees, Fishtrap's high ground is still mostly controlling Fishtrap
upstream. They need to work on both levee systems to see a benefit.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the benefit of lowering the flooding is to broaden
the flood area. Cooper stated it reduces flood levels so it wouldn't get as high
during a flood. It would drain. It would accelerate the draining process and reduce
flood levels, which benefits the crops in the area. River Road becomes impassible
during flood event. If they lower the levees, they will lower the flood levels.
Caskey- Schreiber stated lowering the levees will change the people who
would be affected. She asked if all affected people have been part of the decision
process. Cooper stated they are. The diking district thinks this is great. They are
still working on the final elevation. Generally, there is support all around.
Crawford asked how if lowering the levees so water goes to over the top is
what they want to do. Cooper stated they do.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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
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.
Crawford asked if they are sacrificing certain areas during a flood over other
areas. Cooper stated they aren't sacrificing anything. They are reducing flood
levels.
McShane stated the farmers don't care about the flooding in the winter, but
only in the spring. The levees act like a dam during the floods.
Crawford asked if the flood basin doesn't have enough pitch to drain water
downstream quickly. Cooper stated that's correct. The levees are sticking up and
blocking the flow.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the levees on Bertrand Creek are
to prevent spring flooding of the creek. However, the levees also become barriers
to flood flow from the Nooksack River during the winter floods. The levees need to
be high enough to deal with the spring flooding of Bertrand. They are trying to
balance two different events.
Cooper stated that ideally they'll get the levees in the Corps system rather
than have farmers working on them. In the model, when they lower levees, the
benefits go all the way to the Guide Meridian.
McShane asked what happens downstream. Cooper stated it increases flood
levels by less than a foot. It doesn't change the duration of flooding. The land is
all agricultural.
Roy asked if the people in that area are in the diking district and are aware of
what's going on. Cooper stated they are. She met with the diking district and
landowners.
Monsen stated that from a damage standpoint, velocity and erosion are the
damaging factors for houses and structures. In fields, the duration of the flooding
creates the damage. How long the field is under water, not how deep the water is,
is the issue.
Cooper continued to read her presentation regarding a potential project
opportunity. Pull back the levees so they don't follow the meandering bends along
the river. The levees would be straight.
Roy asked if this is better for salmon. Cooper stated they are working with
Bertrand Creek Improvement people. This has benefits for water quality, fisheries,
and aquifer recharge areas. They don't want to keep spending money on the same
levee system that always fails.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated they met with the water improvement
district (WID) for Bertrand. They're excited about it. There is $300,000 from the
State Department of Ecology that they want to spend. This is an example of what
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
they want to accomplish because it deals with fishery habitat, meander limits, and
re- vegetation.
Cooper stated the Department of Fisheries is excited about the project also.
There may be grant opportunities. There is money in the 2005 budget for it. They
want to move forward. The landowner on Bertrand Creek needs every acre to
apply manure from his dairy. The project looks hopeful.
Monsen stated that as they do project development, staff will identify the
water resource and road interests in that area to develop a comprehensive project
when they can.
McShane asked who would own the land between the levees in the setbacks.
Cooper stated it depends. There are different ways to work with the people to do
whatever works for them.
2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Proposed Lake Whatcom stormwater and road Droiect for Cable Street
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, submitted a map (on file) and stated
traffic counts three and four show the relative volume on Lake Whatcom Boulevard
compared to Austin Street and Lake Louise. Lake Whatcom Boulevard has 5,400
average daily trips. Lake Louise Road has a traffic count of about 2,700 average
daily trips. Twice as many are using the Lake Whatcom Boulevard. They recently
heard comments about moving traffic volume away from the lake. They have a
desire to do regional stormwater work in terms of transportation and road network.
For now, there is a construction project on Austin Creek bridge. People are to using
Lake Louise Road for access to Sudden Valley.
Regarding the accident summary, Lake Whatcom Boulevard has fewer
accidents than Lake Louise Road, but it has more traffic. Accidents per million
vehicle miles is 1 accident for 1.6 million miles on Lake Whatcom Boulevard. On
Lake Louise Road, there are 3.9 accidents per million miles.
Roy asked if there is a national standard for these kinds of roads. Rutan
stated his only intention is to compare the two roads.
Monsen stated the standard of two to three accidents per million miles is
common.
Rutan stated there is a project to improve Lake Louise Road to gate 13 and
then from gate 13 to Lake Whatcom Boulevard. They have applied for grant funds
for that project. Ways to get traffic to Lake Louise Road is to install a sign and to
make it a safer route. Dealing with the intersection of Cable Street and Austin
Street will influence how they deal with stormwater. They have opportunities to
deal with that stormwater before it gets into the lake.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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
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.
Fleetwood asked for examples on how to manage the stormwater. Rutan
stated examples are building ponds, vaults, or a combination of the two. The
amount of land available to do that is a consideration. There are ongoing
maintenance costs. There was a thought of making the turn from Cable Street onto
Austin Street a nice sweeping curve that people would stay on. All the post office
boxes in Sudden Valley are on Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Once they improve Lake
Louise Road, they can work with Sudden Valley to move the mailboxes to Lake
Louise Road.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Rutan continued to state that getting traffic to use Lake Louise Road is a
policy issue.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she heard that Lake Louise Road is very shady and
is icy in the winter. Do better road management in the winter. Rutan stated that's
true. They could de -ice the road in the winter. The road is shady because there
are no shoulders and proper clear zones, which is one reason there are serious
accidents on that road. When they put in those types of things, they will probably
get more light in there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they could make that a higher priority than working
on Lake Whatcom Boulevard.
Roy stated good intentions have consequences they don't think about ahead
of time. If they put all the traffic on Lake Louise Road, the pollution will be washed
to the Cable Street intersection. She asked if they would just be moving the
problem upstream. Rutan stated the intention is to move it away from the lake so
they can catch and treat it.
Monsen stated part of the issue of shifting traffic to Lake Louise Road is that
it has a substantial influence on how they design the stormwater elements of this
project. It has huge implications.
Fleetwood asked to what extent the neighborhood is engaged. Rutan stated
he talked to Steve Greiser from the Sudden Valley Community Association. Mr.
Greiser will come to the Public Works Committee meeting next week, because it is
an element of the road construction program. Mr. Greiser had similar comments
and questions. He appreciates the County trying to get grant funding on the Lake
Louise Road project.
Crawford stated the reality is people are going to go the quickest way to get
home. Improvements to Austin Street won't solve the bad road conditions in the
interior of Sudden Valley. Most of the drivers on Lake Whatcom Boulevard are
residents who have chosen to go on the boulevard. Rutan stated that's correct. As
long as the travel time on boulevard is shorter, they are fighting an uphill battle.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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
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.
They can decrease the travel time on the Lake Louise Road route by making
corners more comfortable. Allow a stop condition at Cable Street and Austin Street,
and make the turn to Austin Street the through movement. They are going to try
and make Lake Louise Road a more attractive option and a more viable route.
Roy stated they should meet with the Sudden Valley community, not just the
association, who may have some suggestions. They are the ones driving all the
time. Rutan stated he wanted to find out from the Council first if this is a policy
direction they should move forward on.
Caskey- Schreiber stated winterize the road and make it safer so they might
be able to increase the speed on Lake Louise Road.
Fleetwood asked if there is reason to believe Lake Louise Road would be
more attractive than Lake Whatcom Boulevard, if they could improve the route as
much as they want, and assuming people just want to get home quickly. Rutan
stated they can move a number of people to the Lake Louise Road route.
Geographically it would make more sense to go out on the Lake Louise Road route.
However, they will not move everyone off the boulevard.
Fleetwood stated that no matter how much they improve Lake Louise Road,
it will be curvier and more hilly. Rutan stated that for some people who live higher
on the hill, they can make this a more viable route, especially if they can move
their mailboxes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a lot of stop and go on the straight road,
from people turning into driveways.
Rutan stated the intention of this presentation is really about stormwater.
Crawford stated the Post Office will no longer allow any more post office
boxes in Sudden Valley. The new folks to Sudden Valley must get their mail from
the Post Office. Sudden Valley is negotiating for some cluster boxes. Take those
people who live on the west side of Sudden Valley and change their post office
boxes numbers. There will be some resistance. Get some people from Gate 13 to
move their boxes away from the current location.
McShane asked if it is accurate to assume there are water quality threats to
Lake Whatcom from pollution and stormwater runoff, but the big issue is
phosphorus and sediment loading. He asked if changing traffic patterns make a
difference. Rutan stated it can tell them where to build water treatment facilities to
deal with the dirty water that is carrying the phosphorus. Regarding stormwater,
they are talking about more than just road runoff. They are talking about treating
all the runoff. They want to do treatment to the maximum extent they can, given
the land and ability they have. They won't size the runoff measure for just the road
runoff.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
McShane stated that if they widen Lake Louise Road, it will increase runoff in
that area. He asked if they can treat in those locations. Rutan stated they have to.
They will detain and treat for existing and new runoff.
McShane asked if they will do a cost benefit analysis. Rutan stated they will.
Monsen stated they can do a cost - benefit analysis for the transportation
element. For the stormwater retrofit, they have to decide the amount and level of
retrofitting. He's not sure they can do a cost - benefit analysis for that. Stormwater
retrofitting costs range from $1 million to $5 million, depending on what they want
to do.
McShane asked if they know how much they will treat. Rutan stated they
have to decide how much of the runoff they want to capture and treat. Minimally,
they will treat the road runoff. However, they want to treat more than that.
McShane stated they have to assume the build out in the future. He asked if
the estimates will be based on future build out based on current development
potential. Rutan stated they will also look at the land available to build detention
measures. They will determine what they are capable of and at what cost.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated they needed to discuss the road issues
before discussing the range of options to deal with current and future conditions.
As they come up with different proposals for treatment in the area, they will have
an analysis of what they expect to remove during full build out conditions.
McShane asked if staff wants direction from the Council on how to proceed.
He asked how long something like this would take once it is figured out. He also
asked how they are going to pay for it. Roll stated staff would come back in early
2005.
Monsen stated the design concepts would be presented next spring. The
goal is to build something on Austin Street by 2007, and Lake Louise Road by 2009.
To do stormwater, they need substantial conclusions by the end of 2005. They
need to spend the rest of the time on design and financing.
Fleetwood asked for a basis for concluding whether this assessment is
premature in the context of not having a full, comprehensive idea of where they
can get the most benefit from stormwater improvements. Roll stated it is
somewhat premature because they are receiving loading models from the
Department of Ecology and through the water resource inventory area (WRIA)
efforts. Those models will help them understand priority areas, priority pollutants,
and relative load contributors from various drainages. He hopes that would feed a
clear prioritization of where they should go first. However, given this drainage and
the fact that it's a highly urbanized area with a potential for more urbanization and
location near intakes, it will be a top priority. They're setting a tone for the public
in addressing this, which will create an expectation in other areas where there is a
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
need for stormwater controls. Think carefully about how big the treatment options
are, how they're going to maintain them, and what they hope to achieve in terms of
load reductions for each of the options.
Crawford stated the corner of Cable Street and Austin Street seems to have
rather large convergence. He asked if the northern arrow on the map represents
the water that goes out of the drainage. He asked if the ditches on either side of
Austin Street are taking the water out of the drainage. Rutan stated they want to
do some dye testing to prove the drainages. He understands that a lot of it heads
down Cable Street to the outfall.
Monsen stated that even if there is an existing pattern, part of the design is
whether they would change it to catch and treat runoff.
Crawford asked if they could get that water out of there. Pump it into the
sewer or another location. He asked if that would be too costly, and if they would
affect the lake ecology by taking that amount of water out of the basin. Monsen
stated it would be costly. The alternative is also costly.
Rutan stated they cannot combine storm and sewage systems.
Roll stated this is an area staff would have to look at to see if they want to
deal with treatment in that location.
Crawford asked if stormwater at Spring Street is going into the lake, and if
there is a system to treat that stormwater.
Monsen stated there are a couple of private detention ponds, but there isn't
any system for collection and treatment.
Rutan stated the best that exists now is open ditches with vegetation
growing in them.
Crawford stated one option may be something large in that area to treat the
runoff.
Roy asked the treatment of choice for phosphorus. Roll stated phosphorus
treatment is a biological influence to remove the phosphorus. A lot of the systems
are tied to reduction in sediment and corresponding phosphorus that is part of that
load. Ideally, they can reduce it through biological processes.
Roy stated that means a pond rather than a treatment plant.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would be responsible for long -term
maintenance of treatment facilities, and if the cost would be factored into the
analysis. Rutan stated it would.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
Monsen stated the amount of water that is captured and treated would
dictate who would finance it. If they want to treat it comprehensively, there may
be a new utility for the county.
McShane asked the role of the city, given this is an urban growth area
(UGA). There are interlocal agreements for taking over roads and other County -
owned facilities. Monsen stated for the majority of the counties in the state, there
is a road system and a roadside drainage system, but not a stormwater system in
place other than those in urbanized counties that function with a stormwater utility.
Whatcom County is limited to doing stormwater utility systems. Rural roads have
been urbanized without stormwater utilities. The next step in the process is to
determine what to design, build, and maintain as the public system and how to
finance it.
McShane asked if there is a way to recoup costs from a utility. Monsen
stated there is. It's a timing and scope issue. The reason they're talking today is
because the Cable Street and Lake Louise Road projects are coming on line for
design and construction. Also, the water quality issue is a priority.
Fleetwood asked staff to assemble a list of options that they talked about
today, including general predictions on timelines and costs. Roll stated they can
also estimate load reductions that would result.
Crawford asked what's happening with the Hillsdale Project. Rutan stated
they are going to install a new culvert and stormwater treatment for water coming
out of Brownsville. It is on the annual construction program. They plan to do that
at the end of 2005. The treatment installed will be greatly influence by the amount
of property available for the treatment option.
Roll stated they have to consider the issue of what they can do as
landowners. The Public Works Department staff knows that as they propose
structural changes to the area, there will also need to be behavioral changes in the
watershed to ultimately affect the water quality. Structural and nonstructural
programs need to be in place. They may want to enhance land use regulations to
encourage pollutant reduction.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she likes the idea of shifting volume off the lake.
They have time to act now, when real estate is not as expensive. Look at and
identify the problem areas. Make sure this area is in the top tier of areas they want
to target, as a result of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study and other
studies. Rutan stated the timing of the upgrades to Cable Street is right. They are
going to be doing roadwork in this area. They want to look at all issues holistically.
All the pieces have to come into play.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a fifteen minute break at 11:35 a.m.
Councilmember Crawford left the meeting.)
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
3. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES
Overview of the 2005/2006 departmental priorities
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the Public Works Department staff
is beginning to prioritize its services so it can deal with water resources
management better. Work on surface water management depends on how
comprehensive they want to get. He read the last paragraph on page 16 of 20 of
the handout (on file). They want to have enough stability in policy direction so the
department can actually deliver services. The most significant issue for the
department in 20 years has been the lengthening time it takes for development and
delivery of a project due to a variety of new considerations that go along with
projects and the related policy direction.
(Clerks' Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Monsen continued to state that page 17 of 20 summarizes the more
significant issues about the delivery of projects consistent with all County policies
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Pages 18 and 19 of 20 include a draft budget proposal to address action
items. The proposal is for the department to deal with priorities comprehensively.
If the priority order is changed, it would significantly impact when and how they
develop project activities, which is project implementation. He is looking for
direction and support for where they focus resources to deal with priorities
comprehensively. Given the resources, they will run out of resources in the middle
of the unincorporated Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) project four on the list.
They are required to do that project.
Roy asked if the Public Works Department consulted with the Health
Department on the matrix on appendix pages A -11 and A -12. Monsen stated he
has not yet, except for the action items that specifically include the Health
Department.
McShane stated the prioritized items are on the top of page 19 of 20. He
asked if the Bellingham UGA priority area includes Bellingham Bay and Squalicum
Creek. Monsen stated unincorporated Bellingham UGA includes what is required by
federal and state stormwater requirements. It influences Bellingham Bay, the lower
main stem of the Nooksack River, Silver Creek, and the Nooksack delta. They are
the phase two areas. The Bellingham growth area includes areas such as the
Squalicum Creek sub - basin, which have some areas that are higher priorities than
other areas. The growth area needs to be done comprehensively. Other areas are
task - specific. That item is more of a political boundary than a drainage boundary,
as the other priority items are. The departments aren't sure how to start financing.
They need to know what the Council wants to accomplish so they can provide
financing options. Or, the Council can set a financing amount, and staff can provide
information on what it can accomplish with that amount.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
McShane stated the Council has discussed the cost to the Public Works
Department regarding concerns about dealing with those costs. The County is
getting into the position of having to provide urban levels of service. One argument
was to keep the UGA's at smaller levels. He questions whether Lake Samish needs
to be put further down the priority list.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated water resource inventory area (WRIA) 3
fell apart when no one could agree on instream flows. The State Department of
Ecology (DOE) is doing a rulemaking on instream flows for the Samish, but it won't
happen any time soon because there are other issues tied to the established flows
on the Skagit River. The Lake Samish water and sewer district strongly desired to
have input on managing the basin. They are capable of developing a stormwater
plan for that basin. It will have to be approved by the County engineers and Health
Department. If they want to increase flow levels in Friday Creek, the County will
have to regulate it. They're modeling the stormwater utility from Liberty Lake in
Eastern Washington.
Also, be aware of an intermittent desire to bring utilities from Skagit County.
That area doesn't allow a lot of wells in proximity to the lake. A large majority of
people are drawing water directly from the lake. At this point, he's not devoting
staff time to it.
Monsen stated they struggle internally with things such as this. Drayton
Harbor and Lake Samish are on the list because they are special districts. A
question is whether they need to deal with those areas comprehensively. Lake
Samish is an area where they may want to do something proactively rather than
reactively.
Roll stated they want to do a better job of natural resource integration. The
WRIA plan describes it somewhat. They've agreed to work on a series of inter-
departmental agreements that would describe the resources and goals assigned to
the different departments. They want a tool for the Council and public to have to
understand how they function across departments.
Two additional service requests (ASR's) will come forward. One is the
continuation of work in Lake Whatcom. They are the education -based programs
that are voluntary and incentive - based. Another ASR will come forward to address
marine resource support. The Public Works Department has supported three active
advisory committees tied to marine resources. There is an ASR to support that
work. The ASR deals with gaps in data collection and project specific work. There
is a renewed interest from the Planning Department to interface with the
corresponding critical areas people to deal with issues from a land use perspective.
One concern is about mandatory requirements for septic system maintenance.
They will have to have some type of proactive maintenance program. How it is
done will be discussed in 2005.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, 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.
McShane asked if there has been discussion about the Lake Whatcom inter -
jurisdictional committee and management plan. Roll stated he's discussed it with
Councilmember Nelson, Executive Kremen, and Mayor Asmundson. There is a
desire to reevaluate how they approach forestry management and advisory
relationships. A proposal to address that will come out in about a month. They
need some type of approach to deal with forestry on a scale larger than in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. There has been a response to the letter sent out by the Joint
Lake Whatcom Management Committee from the Commissioner of Public Lands,
Doug Sutherland.
McShane stated the Council took a position on the appointment process to
the interjurisdictional committee in January. There has been some friction
surrounding the appointment process. There are many other issues regarding
management and the County's role in forestry. The County has its own ability to
review forestry in the county. In his experiences, many forest practices in the state
do not go down to the alluvial fan below the forestry area. A consultant
recommended they not have logging in the watershed, yet the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) allows logging in a landslide area.
Monsen stated he is trying to emphasize the policy issues that drive the
projects they decide to do.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced pages A -6 and A -7, and asked the amount of
money the County is contributing to the ferry costs. Monsen stated the amount
listed as local funds is the road fund contribution from the property tax road levy.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if those funds could be used for things other than
the ferry. Monsen stated they are using it for the ferry. The total expense for the
ferry and the annual road budget are listed on page A -1. Annually, $200,00 to
$500,000 goes specifically to subsidize ferry operation.
Caskey - Schreiber stated that plays into the decisions the Council makes on
how much more development should be allowed, which will add volume and cost to
the ferry system. Monsen stated they will discuss the ferry survey results at the
next Council committee meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the status of the water study and community plan.
Roll stated that is a big project. It will cost about $500,000. Staff is working on an
ASR to fund that activity.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 October 26 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 9/22/2004, Page 13