HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources January 21 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
January 21, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair Dan
McShane in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
WRIA 1 Plan Development Schedule
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, reviewed the current schedule of how the
watershed management plan will come together. The original outline was to have it
done in February of 2003. There would have been a public review draft available
on March 30, 2003. The Planning Unit would have approved a revised plan on
6/25/2003. There have been recent reasons for not having all these done
according to this timeframe. Three issues included the governance and
implementation structure, which is supposed to define how to continue to work
together. There has been a lot of discussion, but more needs to happen. The
Planning Unit wants more time to work on it with the caucuses and other
stakeholders. Also, the staff wants more time to work with caucuses and
stakeholders on the different pieces, pilot projects, WRIA -wide projects, and other
items. Extension of the timeline is before the Planning Unit for decision this month.
The funds are available in the budget to extend the timeline to October.
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated some of the
contracts will need to be amended to extend the timeline, but the funds are there.
There may be needed additional funding for some of the caucuses for 2003.
Nelson asked which councils this would go back to. Blake stated the County
Council, tribes, all the initiating governments, and possibly other organizations such
as the small cities, especially if they are identified as responsible for implementing
something in the plan.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
Nelson asked if March is too soon to get input from those councils. Blake
stated the current timeline is silent about when it would go to the councils. The
final schedule clearly says the watershed management plan would go to the
legislative bodies.
Nelson stated if they wait until October, the issue of funding is going to be
the critical issue. He asked if they could work on the agreement of funding before
October. Roll stated they could do that. He will discuss in each work session where
they sit where it comes to funding.
Blake stated a table in the plan would identify the resources needed to carry
out the plan. That needs to be done for the draft plan, which they will see in June.
There will be discussions before June.
Fleetwood asked if there is express language in the act that gives the State
Department of Ecology authority to extend the deadline. Roll stated a letter would
go to DOE outlining the status of the plan. No WRIA's in the state will have
approved plans under the current deadline. In his conversations with Ecology in
Olympia, the State deadline will be extended during this legislative session. There
is no indication from the State representative on the Planning Unit, who is an
employee of the DOE, that it will be an issue at this point.
Brenner stated this has gotten way out of control. If they go through with
the majority of this stuff, they are creating a new huge bureaucracy. There is not
enough money for it. It is too complex. Simplify the process and structure. There
are too many technical and staff groups. Some of the requirements are impossible.
She asked who the public is that will review the draft, and who would hold
the public hearings. Blake stated the public includes anyone who wants to
comment.
Roll stated that for formal approval, per the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW), the Planning Unit and the Joint Board would come to some consensus. The
governmental agencies have to be in consensus, and the water interests have to be
by majority vote. It will be a regular County Council agenda item on October, with
a public process. At that time, the County Council has the opportunity to approve
or not approve the plan. After October, they can't change it. If the County Council
wants to make changes before October, it can send it back to the Planning Unit.
Roy asked if the individual caucuses review the entire plan, or just their
pieces. Roll stated they would look at the entire plan. Between now and when the
draft comes out, staff will have sections and pieces of the plan as they progress.
Scarlet Tang, Program Specialist, stated that between now and June, a lot of
the public involvement work is going to be focused on working with stakeholder
groups and caucuses so they understand and can provide informed input into the
actual plan. The groups are going to review the entire plan.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if these pilot projects are the six areas the Council
voted to do modeling on. She asked what happened to those six areas. Roll stated
the Planning Unit wanted good pilot projects to start sooner rather than later.
Some of these pilot projects are beginning to get going. They also need to develop
the criteria for the pilot projects. That's how they pick future pilot projects as they
implement the plan. Those criteria will be worked against the pilot projects that are
emerging here. The decision - support system (DSS) is happening on a parallel
track. However, the models will not be available at the same time as the plan. The
DSS and the plan will merge at a point past plan approval.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Ten Mile Creek project and the pilot project
would blend at any point. Roll stated they would. There are elements of the DSS
that they can use as they are being developed. When those focus areas came
forward, they intended to have the models be available to be used to develop the
management options. They won't be.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they want to wait until they are available. Roll
stated he hoped the DSS is fully functional by year's end and will be able to serve
its role. There will be scientific feasibility work done ahead of any of those being
included in the plan. Parametrix identified work items. Parametrix is working with
Utah State University (USU) on those pieces that can be used in the existing
models. There are weekly meetings to coordinate that effort. It's a matter of
having the DSS done when they can use it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to hear more follow up information
on things the Council has approved, and see how things fit together. She asked for
a visual chart of things that have gone on and will go on.
Roy asked the financial commitment now and in the future to keep the
parallel tracks going in terms of USU and Parametrix. Roll stated the Council
approved in the 2003 budget the monies needed to finish the work from both. He
doesn't see a need to expand the budgets for either of those pieces of work. The
WRIA effort now needs to identify local resources to carry the pieces forward, which
depends on who will implement each piece.
Roy asked if the initial phase of this is going to be done by the end of this
budget. Roll stated it will if everyone approves.
Roy stated that after that, they have to decide on implementation. USU and
Parametrix will be out of the picture. It will just be local government trying to
figure out what to do. Roll stated that is correct. A lot of work in the Planning Unit
and Joint Board on the governance structure for implementation and the budgets
needed to sustain the DSS and update data. These plans are designed with
adaptive management that need to be revisited every three or four years. They are
developing how to do that.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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
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.
Roy asked to see a comparison of what they are required to do by statute
and what they are doing. Roll stated he can do that two ways. He can identify all
sections required by the RCW. Legislation says that two entities are required to
implement: the county and state agencies.
Bob Wiesen, Non - Municipal Water System Caucus, stated this has gone on
too long. There is no evidence of significant progress. The process is too bogged
down.
Nelda Sigurdson, citizen, stated not one thing in there says anything about
saving the soil.
Nelson moved to accept the change in the draft schedule, and keep it
flexible. He preferred to extend the timeline beyond October to go beyond
Comprehensive Plan amendments and the budget process. If they have to do it by
October, he preferred to see the funding mechanism prior to October, preferably in
the summer.
Brenner stated she doesn't like the idea of having these deadlines. Slow
down and simplify.
(End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that instead of deadlines for everything, have
deadlines for each section. Next, set a deadline for the internal draft, but not the
rest.
Motion carried unanimously.
WRIA Plan Outline
Blake explained the draft plan outline. It is divided into four sections:
Introduction; Technical Assessments, Findings, and Problem Identification; Identify
Solutions, and; Long Term Governance, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management
Strategy.
Nelson moved that Dr. Roll vote for approval of the draft plan outline at the
Planning Unit meeting. The most important aspect is the DSS process. He is most
concerned because he didn't see specific information in this outline on how that
system would be done. Blake stated DSS and model integration would be
discussed under section 111. 10. There aren't any details in that outline.
Nelson stated he would be more comfortable with an outline of the DSS
process.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
Brenner stated she couldn't support the motion. Wait until they've had time
to read it.
Fleetwood stated he supports the outline. It includes the basic components.
This is only a draft outline.
Crawford stated sections II.1 and II.2 address Councilmember Roy's
concerns. Section II.1 describes what needs to be addressed per the RCW. Section
II.2 might fit in nicely with creating a chart to show the work that has been done so
far and how it all fits together. He asked if Section II would also be a written
product. Blake stated she estimates that section II, once written will be about 50
pages.
Crawford stated he supports the motion.
Brenner referenced section IV.2. She asked if the outline is just a chronology
of what has happened, or if it is the approach they want to take. She's not
comfortable with the approach they are taking, and she won't support even an
outline. Blake stated that section describes who is involved now in developing the
long -term governance and funding strategy, and also to describe the recommended
approach.
McShane stated they haven't decided yet what the governance structure will
be, but this is an outline that will be filled in later once they do decide the structure.
Brenner asked if this outline commits them to approving anything. Blake
stated it does not.
Roll stated it gives staff and Parametrix direction to begin working through
each of the sections. The Council will go through an input and approval process for
each section.
Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to come back with a simple
structure, and not layers.
Nelson stated this is an outline for the WRIA plan. They have to have a plan
according to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and federal law. The WRIA plan,
which is to deal with federal and State requirements, is what they are trying to put
together here in an outline form. This is only an outline so Parametrix can gather
all this work and put it into a plan that everyone can comprehend.
Brenner stated it's also about a plan that is reasonable and will work.
McShane stated the friendly amendment is more direction towards staff.
(Clerk's Note: The friendly amendment was not accepted,)
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
Roy asked if the outline items are the topics for the plan, and the Council
would receive the information. She is concerned about funding. She asked if this is
not a commitment, and is only a list of the pieces that will be in the final plan.
Nelson stated it is.
McShane restated the motion to accept the outline as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
WRIA 1 Pilot Projects
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Fleetwood left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.)
McShane stated staff is asking if the Council is generally supportive of the
pilot projects.
Tang stated these projects are intended to be early demonstrations of what
they could be doing with the watershed plan. These pilot projects are general
descriptions of what should be explored further to see if they work. These projects
are also designed to feed back into the DSS to provide more data about conditions
in the watershed.
Roll stated a group of people from the Joint Board have been fleshing out
these projects, which are on the table. He is looking for more direction on whether
they are feasible.
Roy asked about the process. She asked if there were more projects turned
in, and who made the decision. Tang stated at least a dozen projects were turned
in. The Watershed Technical Team included Joint Board staff and Planning Unit
members. They were developed at the same time as the pilot project criteria.
They tested some of the project ideas against the criteria, but did not check off
whether they met the criteria.
Brenner stated the East Hemmi project sounds like a great project. She
asked why there is not an explanation of water quality. Roll stated this is nothing
more than what they know at this particular time.
Tang stated the main benefits for this project is in the area of water quantity.
Nelson moved to approve the five projects.
Nelson stated he preferred to have a DSS to use to evaluate these. He
hoped there wouldn't be too many more of these coming in without an idea of how
they will work. They are trying to get information from these projects for the
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
different areas, so they have information gathered to apply to development
standards
He is also concerned that soil conservation isn't addressed. He asked if that
could tie in with the agricultural drainage project. The general concern is erosion
impact on farmland uses. Roll stated he could bring it forward to address during
the WRIA -wide program discussion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated one of goals of the East Hemmi project is to
eliminate the flooding on East Hemmi Road. She asked who pays for
implementation, and if the County is being misleading by coming up with solutions
without funding. Roll stated it is clear that for a project to be approved it must
have funding brought to the table.
Tang stated the goal of the pilot projects is to get projects into the design
stage. Implementation and funding for them would be addressed in each pilot
description, but right now they don't know.
Caskey- Schreiber asked where funding would come from. Roll stated there
are potential grants and existing County funding. There may be other groups that
can work on the projects.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if this project is successful, the goal would be
to eliminate flooding on East Hemmi Road. She asked what happens if there is
flooding in another area because the quantity is distributed elsewhere. Roll stated
that's why they need people like Paula Cooper engaged. She has reviewed these.
She is in a position to determine how this would impact other areas in the WRIA.
Brenner asked that the wording be more descriptive. If the acronym "GTH"
had the phrase 'slaw firm" after it, she wouldn't have had to look up the acronym.
Also, the Groundwater Augmentation of Low Stream Flows project timeframe
doesn't seem practical for a pilot project. Tang stated they have cataloged all the
water rights in the county. They are not talking about changing water rights, but
using landowners with those existing water rights.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what happens if the project affects another water
right holder downstream. Tang stated that would be taken into consideration in
finding a suitable landowner.
Nelson stated he has no problems with projects. He asked if they are leading
themselves and the public to the idea that sub - basins will develop, implement, and
strategize their own programs. Tang stated that is what the Bertram Creek project
will test.
Nelson stated that is a test of a philosophical point of view that they haven't
discussed yet. They want to have some leeway in discussing whether they want to
do it by sub - basins or WRIA -wide. Roll stated they need a governance structure to
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
nurture local drainage management groups. They also need a global governance
management structure.
Wiesen stated he liked the East Hemmi project, but they are not doing
anything about water quality. They should assess the changes in water quality as
are a result of the changes made in the system.
Roll stated it will be in there, but it is not in there now. He expects there to
be a list of water quality related benefits as these projects move forward.
Wiesen asked if there is an assessment before the projects start on what the
water quality is now. Roll stated that is part of the feasibility.
Wiesen stated they have been working on that process already. It would
seem that they should have had some information a year or two ago. Tang stated
there is a baseline of water quality of information already.
Brenner asked if they could include baseline information in this project
proposal to make sure water quality is a higher priority. Roll stated Sue Blake
received $250,000 from Clean Water Act monies that is tied to this WRIA process,
specifically to develop a long -term monitoring strategy WRIA -wide. It will include
information on how they gauge progress in a particular water quality constituency.
It will ultimately be a section in the plan.
McShane stated the objective of restoring late summer flow is a big objective
for the East Hemmi Road project. Public Health has a lot of information in their
groundwater reports for the two landfills that are in the headwater area. A
proposed wood waste landfill has significant groundwater data linked to the aquifer.
That creek certainly goes dry in the late summer, but it's upstream quite a way.
Some of the other projects need a lot more fleshing out before the Council could
provide any direction.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
WRIA 1 -wide Programs
Tang stated the WRIA -wide program ideas were also developed through the
Watershed Plan Technical Team. These programs could be implemented
throughout WRIA 1. They have a broader scope than the pilot projects. There are
five program ideas proposed for inclusion in the first version of the watershed plan.
She is asking for direction to include these programs in the watershed plan. Staff
will come back to the Council with more details in the plan. Program three was
eliminated because it was too duplicative of other things that were happening.
Roll stated the habitat effort will be more to coordinate existing efforts, and
not so much to go do something.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane asked Mr. Thompson if number three is duplicative.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated a lot of it
is already ongoing. What they really need here is a way to coordinate the
watershed plan and other efforts. There doesn't need to be a separate program,
but it is an ongoing need.
Brenner stated she is getting confused about where the decisions are being
made. She's heard from numerous people at the caucuses that they are losing the
energy necessary to keep up. Staff people do this all the time, but the caucus
members are taking time out of there busy schedules to be involved. They seem to
be more on the peripheral.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner continued to state she was concerned about the last bullet item in
the first program. The way it is written, she cannot support the transfer of
development rights (TDR) concept. It passes the buck and eliminates a direct place
for the public to go. They are creating another bureaucracy. This will complicate
the TDR program even more. Tang stated the only people involved are the County
and City of Bellingham. The idea of this bullet item is to broaden the program to
look at other cities.
Brenner stated it is up to the other cities to do that. This says that WRIA will
make sure all this stuff happens. They've already reached out to the small cities.
Adding another layer will not inspire the cities to come up with receiving areas. The
County, not WRIA, needs to bring the legislators together. Tang stated the first
program hope is to use the relationships built up during the WRIA process to start
talking about other issues, such as stormwater and integrating the WRIA policies
with the Comprehensive Plan updates.
McShane stated he visualized thinking about and using water resources in
the planning decisions they have to make. Planning and Development Services
Director Hal Hart thought WRIA would be a good place to come up with other ideas.
McShane stated using the word "coordinate" is a problem.
Roy stated that word makes it sounds like the WRIA process is going to take
over. They don't want to create something that will take on a life of its own. They
need to consider water issues throughout the planning process, including planning
for stormwater and TDR's.
Brenner stated she thought they were already doing that. She doesn't mind
hearing from WRIA, but she doesn't want WRIA leading the charge.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
McShane stated it's like WRIA asks as a consultant. The DSS will play a
process in running scenarios.
Brenner stated WRIA should feed information to the Council, rather than the
Council going to WRIA for approval.
McShane stated the word "coordinate" is a sticking point for the Council.
Roll stated they are looking for someone to provide water information in the
context of TDR's. The Council wants to provide a framework of information to
decide where TDR's should be in the context of water resources. Staff can rewrite
the last bullet point in the first program to reflect the intent.
McShane moved to approve all the WRIA -wide programs except program
three. McShane moved to amend the first program with the last bullet point
rewritten by staff to alleviate the concern discussed.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner stated she didn't like the ten -year limitation and local water master
as referenced in the second program. She asked for whom the water use report
would be. She is not comfortable with this program and a water use fee. Roll
stated there are issues germane to existing State law, which allows a water master.
The DOE is responsible for water rights issues. A water master could help deal with
those legal pieces regarding water rights in the WRIA. Another piece is some of the
impedances to existing law that need to be changed. Some needed changes have
been identified, and they may identify more.
Brenner stated this language is very specific. Don't appoint a water master.
Don't do ten -year contracts. This program will be a burden on those who need the
water, and will create a very controlling layer. Roll stated currently a landowner
has to relinquish a water right after five years if it is not used. The ten -year
provision is to provide a longer period of certainty. DOE doesn't have the capability
to deal with water rights issues now. There is a need for people to be able to apply
for water rights and have those applications actually addressed.
Brenner stated don't solve one problem by creating another. This looks like
they are trying to appease DOE and not work for the local people.
Nelson stated he hasn't been sold on this program. For years they have
been trying to determine a definitive amount of water that DOE approved and to
resolve the applications that are on DOE's desk. This is an attempt to take the
process over from DOE. Roll stated this is enabling the County to be more self -
directed in how water rights are addressed. There do exist water masters in the
state.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked if the Governor likes the idea of the pilot project, and the
County will pay for it. Roll stated that is correct.
Nelson stated the County would pay for the work that DOE is supposed to do.
He asked what the Governor is willing to give them locally for doing DOE's work.
Roll stated it addresses ESA and Clean Water Act issues, and it is a way of dealing
with water allocation in areas.
Nelson stated DOE still has to sign off on it. He asked the guarantee the
Governor will provide if the County spends the money to do this.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with councilmembers Brenner and
Nelson. Don't fix what DOE isn't willing to do. She spoke to the DOE director about
water rights issues. She was told that DOE is not enforcing water rights, and is
looking the other way. It is a policy problem. Don't wade into it. She asked how
exempt wells would fit into it. She doesn't know how they would ever have
enforcement over the tribes. Stay clear of this project.
Crawford asked if there is implication that Public Utility District (PUD) 1
would be the water master. Roll stated the water master is a DOE employee. A
water master may be funded by a local source to work through local water rights
issues. The RCW doesn't allow PUD to be the water master. The idea is to fund a
resource locally to deal with water rights issues. It is an opportunity to guide what
they want that funded individual to do locally. That can be part of the plan. The
State would be obligated in that context. What is in the plan can direct the State.
The State is obligated to implement the plan.
Crawford asked if other water masters issue water rights. Roll stated they
.•
Crawford asked if people are getting water rights through this program. Roll
stated they are.
Crawford stated he would like to keep an open mind on this if they can get
out of the current stalemate of no water rights being issued.
Brenner stated this wouldn't force the State to issue water rights. It puts
more impediments on local people to do what the DOE should be doing anyway.
This plan has to be based on the public benefit. She won't support this program.
Sigurdson stated she works with water associations. Locally, they are doing
their job reasonably, and they would like to be left alone. They can't have only one
person look over all the water associations. Don't bother a system that runs pretty
good.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, 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.
Roll stated there are a lot of questions. In the next month or two, he will
define the issues and ask Tom Anderson to present more information to the
Council.
Nelson asked if these are going to the Planning Unit for a decision. Roll
stated he needs conceptual approval.
Nelson moved to amend the motion for approval of the programs by not
approving program two until the Council has more information.
Motion to remove program two carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed
and Fleetwood absent.
Robin Dexter, Planning Unit Environmental Caucus member, asked if there
was a way for this to go forward to the Planning Unit without Council abstaining
from this project.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took an eight- minute break at 12 :10 p.m.
Councilmember Crawford left the meeting.)
Roll asked if there is a desire for staff to get more information on this item,
which is what this project was to authorize.
McShane stated this item is pulled for the time being, and the Council would
like to spend more time on this item.
Roll stated that not approving this would eliminate any other work being
done by Parametrix or any other people on this project. There are many
conversations between state legislators that will continue to happen. However,
WRIA resources will not continue going to the work on this item. He will bring more
information to the Council on this item in the next month.
Brenner stated changes might need to be made at the legislature instead of
here. Roll stated the gist of this program is to determine what they need to change
in State law, so they can craft legislation.
Nelson referenced the second bullet point in the fourth project. Cedar trees
don't grow in all types of soils. He asked why that section specifies cedar trees.
Nelson moved to change the language in the second bullet point of the fourth
program, "Plant and maintain eedar appropriate trees...." Tang stated she would
make that change.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Fleetwood and Crawford absent.
Brenner asked for an explanation of program six. Tang stated that if
education and compliance efforts didn't work, then enforcement would kick in.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked why it is a placeholder. Roll stated certain caucuses make sure
that compliance be considered a part of the way they do water resource
management business.
Benner moved to amend the sixth program, "...This program would provide
voluntary compliance with, e-n� or if necessary, enforcement of environmental
laws...."
Motion to amend carried 5 -0 with Fleetwood and Crawford absent.
McShane restated the motion to approve the WRIA -wide programs with
programs two and three removed, and with amendments to programs one, four,
and six.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Crawford and Fleetwood absent.
Pilot Proiect Selection Criteria
Roll stated these are the criteria to judge all future pilot projects.
Nelson asked what happens if they found out a project does not meet
substantial criteria once the project begins. He doesn't want that data tainting
other projects. He asked the mechanism if a project becomes foul. They need
evaluation along the way to make sure good information is coming out of the
project. Roll stated there needs to be a clearly defined monitoring program that
gives specific measures and how those measures are addressing criteria. There
needs to be checkpoints to measure specific objectives against the criteria, and use
adaptive management to redirect or stop the proposal.
Tang suggested additional language to include adaptive management and
discontinuation of a project to the last bullet point of the first Procedural Criteria on
Water Resources work session packet page 39.
The Council concurred.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brenner moved to amend the Administration and staffing section, bullet
point one, "...shall not require implementing entities to act beyond their eurrent
organizational capacities, in terms of personnel or...."
Motion carried 5 -0 with Crawford and Fleetwood absent.
Brenner stated the Substantive Criteria are too broad. Every project that
comes in will meet the criteria. Having matching funds and a willing participant are
important. Tighten up the criteria.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated they need to weight the criteria.
McShane stated the question is whether pilot projects need to meet more
than one criterion. Tang stated the idea was that a project was to be given
stronger preference in proportion to the number of criteria that were met.
Brenner moved to amend the sentence following the section title
Substantive Criteria,
the fellevi-ft In order to be considered for preference, proposed pilot projects shall
be evaluated on the following criteria:"
P.M.)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Fleetwood returned to the meeting at 12:40
Roy stated the weighting or the criteria comes later.
Roll stated this needs to be fleshed out more, and they need to deal with the
weighting issue. This section is about how the pilot projects get funded and who
the proponents are. They want to create a venue where people can come and see
a pilot project get off the ground. If a funding source is identified, they need to
determine the criteria to administer a funding source for a long -term project. The
group is trying to look at the incentives to get people to come forward with pilot
projects.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the fifth substantive criteria sounds like they could
be billed after a project is over. She asked if that could happen. Roll stated it gets
to the issue of who brings the money to the table, and the accompanying
requirements. Depending on the fund source, it could be different.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this bullet item is vague.
Nelson stated he's not sure how this ties in to the WRIA -wide process they
are trying to achieve. He asked if they are putting the cart before the horse by
determining what projects will come forward but not yet determining the types of
projects they need to achieve the WRIA -wide objectives. He asked how they are
tied together. Tang stated a proposed project must meet a major element as
identified in the watershed plan. When they come up with the objectives, the
future pilot projects will have to address those objectives.
Nelson stated projects have to meet the procedural and feasibility criteria
before it has to meet the substantive criteria.
Brenner amended her motion, "Preference shall be given to pilot projects
that meet any ef the fellewing substantive goals, such as:" That allows the decision
makers to weigh the criteria however they want.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
Nelson moved to approve the proposed criteria for evaluation of pilot
projects as amended.
Caskey- Schreiber questioned the goal of the fifth bullet point of the
Substantive Criteria. Tang stated the goal is that the people have to agree to
contribute to the cost of the project up front.
Roll recommended pulling that bullet item for more information and to better
define the goal.
McShane moved to remove the fifth bullet point under Substantive Crieteria
for more information and to better define the goal.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
Motion to approve all projects as amended carried 6 -0 with Crawford
absent.
WRIA Peer Review
Roll stated peer review occurred for the phase III scope of work technical
studies. This is to make sure that the products developed for phase III technical
studies are peer reviewed. It also acknowledges that they need to be in more
control locally to define which pieces get peer review, and keep independent of the
USU process. Scarlet Tang will facilitate the independent peer review of the four
areas: water quality, water quantity, instream flow, and habitat.
Brenner suggested that the references to Scarlet Tang's name be changed
to "coordinator."
The Council concurred.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion to approve as amended carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
WRIA Instream Flows Action Strategy
Roll stated this item is going through legal review. It is also a draft that has
been forwarded to the Planning Unit for consideration. It will ultimately be a
chapter in the plan. This item was held to the next Water Resources work session.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WRIA Plan Implementation
Roll stated a memo from Parametrix describes who is being considered for
governance and funding. The County, PUD, and others are being considered.
Review this memo before the next meeting. This item was held to the next Water
Resources work session.
McShane suggested providing comments and concerns to staff before the
next work session.
Brenner asked that any changes be shown with strikeout and highlight
formatting in the next packet.
3. FUTURE COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS
Introduction of Stormwater Phase II and Flood Zone Issues
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, introduced the new Assistant Director of
Engineering, Joe Rutan.
Joe Rutan, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated he'd like to hear any
input from the councilmembers about any issues in his division.
Monsen stated this item would be discussed at the Natural Resources
Committee next week. He explained the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and geographic area requirements. The permit application is due
March 10, 2003. He is preparing an application. There is draft legislation to give
DOE on how much or little it should do in this program area. There are minimum
requirements that will be discussed next week. Adaptive management will be a
requirement even though it's not listed in federal law.
The geographic area requirements apply. Phase II of this program identifies
urban areas that have a population of at least 50,000 and a population density that
is contiguous to that population core. As long as there is that density in contiguous
census blocks, the geographic area boundary applies until the density is low enough
to not go further. In this case, he was surprised to learn that the area east of
Ferndale applies. Ferndale doesn't meet the general population requirement.
Population density is not contiguous. Therefore, Ferndale is out of the requirement.
However, the area east of Ferndale is in the requirement to perform the six
minimum federal requirements. That area east of Ferndale connects in one corner
to the northwest corner of the Bellingham area. From a legal standpoint, the area
east of Ferndale is included because that density touches the Bellingham area. He's
already objected to DOE. That area drains to the Nooksack. The area is
dramatically different from Bellingham in terms of types of development, density
issues, and the receiving water. The Ferndale area drains into the Nooksack area.
The Bellingham area drains into Bellingham Bay.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 16
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.
Brenner stated they are supposed to avoid Bellingham and Ferndale bumping
up against each other. Monsen stated this is a federal definition that simply exists.
He's objected that it doesn't make sense. He will continue to look at that area as
distinct. He will spend some time at the next meeting on the kinds of things they
are applying in the various locations, such as Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. The
area designated according to the federal formula is the minimum area requirement.
From a management standpoint, those are tough geographic boundaries to use to
establish different programs.
Nelson stated they want to make sure they get the best bang for their buck.
He is concerned about the statement that they want to look at the entire area with
the same development standards. Don't slow down the process where they really
need to do the work. He asked if the intent is to use similar standards throughout
the entire watershed. He could not support that. Monsen stated they need to file a
permit application that says what they intend to do at a minimum within some
defined geographic area. The County is not obligated to do more than that, but it
can. They are already beyond the minimum requirements on some of the things
they are doing in the watershed. The County still needs to state what the minimum
requirements will be and where they will be applied. At this point, it's important
not to overstate in the application what the County is going to require.
Brenner stated she wants to make sure they are going to protest this. She
doesn't want to see this used as a reason to give that area to Ferndale. Even
though there has been a strong statement in the past that the Council would keep a
boundary between Ferndale and Bellingham, there are people in the administration
who have been pushing to do just that. She's shocked that they would be stuck
with this because of one little corner.
Fleetwood stated they would have to change the federal definition.
Brenner stated she doesn't know where this requirement came from.
Monsen stated it came from the Department of Ecology, based on the information
from the U.S. census.
Brenner stated Ecology has good communication with Whatcom County.
There have been people in the County administration who have tried to get rid of
that area, and pawn it off on Ferndale. This isn't just generically from the census.
There is something going on between Ecology and this County.
McShane stated they would look at this more. Steve Hood may be able to
explain the process of why Ecology did what it did. Governor's Point is considered,
and he knows there aren't any houses on Governor's Point yet. The quadrants that
they are using need some explaining.
Monsen stated that he talked to the Planning Department and the geographic
information system (GIS) folks to try and recreate some of this by looking at
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 17
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.
defined census blocks and confirm that there are census blocks that at least would
create that shape. This boundary does resemble a compilation of census blocks.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Nelson left the meeting at 1:15 p.m.)
Monsen stated they need to submit a permit application by mid - March. It's
an odd scenario. Ecology is nowhere close to being prepared to issue a permit,
which is at least two years away. At this point, Whatcom County is making a
statement of what it intends to do at a minimum to comply with federal law.
Ecology will not tell Whatcom County what its interpretation of the minimum
standards are for at least two more years. They will go through this again in about
two years. Whenever a permit is issued, it is good for five years.
McShane asked if there is an appeal process for the municipal permits.
There is for industry. Monsen stated there is.
Brenner stated there is not much population south of Slater Road, on
Northwest Road. What they've done is stretch the boundary out enough so they
could pull in enough population. It's taking away their local rights to define the
cities and the county. Monsen stated Ecology has the ability to add communities to
the requirement for a variety of reasons. He has no idea why Ecology has not
chosen to include the City of Ferndale.
Brenner asked if the requirement would still be there if the North Bellingham
area were put into Ferndale. Monsen stated no matter what happens from an
annexation standpoint, it would not change. If Ferndale were to annex that area,
Ecology would have to include all of the City of Ferndale. That wouldn't be much of
a motivator for Ferndale to annex that area.
Roy asked if this is related at all to sensitive watershed areas. Monsen
stated there are two exceptions. Generally, it is assumed that higher population
urban areas are a significant cause for water quality issues. Because the Nooksack
River is on the 303(d) list of polluted water bodies, it is a criterion Ecology can use
to add a community, even though they haven't crossed the population threshold.
Inside Lake Whatcom, they are working on the total maximum daily load (TMDL).
Once that is complete, the stormwater management criteria in phase II, the TMDL
matter must be included in what they do.
Brenner asked what this means. She asked what would be required.
Monsen stated the permit application has a good description of all the kinds of
things that would be required, although it is still somewhat unclear. The highest
population centers were subject to phase I. The next highest population centers
are required under phase II. It is meant to recognize that if a city or county
collects stormwater runoff from developed areas, there is a high likelihood of
impairing pollutants into some water body. Therefore, population is the driver for
dealing with those pollutants.
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 18
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
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.
2. LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Benchmarks
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 11 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 1/21/2003, Page 19