HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources March 18 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
March 18, 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:
L. Ward Nelson None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
Barbara Brenner
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Canyon Creek Alluvial Fan Update
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated staff did a refined and expanded
risk analysis for 500 -year events. They went through an exercise to define the area
where they would acquire land and improvements for a portion of the Glacier
Springs area. The project proposed is supported by the risk analysis, and they
want to go forward with it. By doing the buyout, they won't have to do
maintenance work on the levy or any other type of capital improvement behind the
levee. They can hold a public meeting in mid- to late -May to describe the analysis.
The notion of walking away from maintenance on levy is no small matter to a
number of folks. If they move ahead with the buyout, funds are simply not
available for capital improvements. In addition, the buyout program will reinforce
to the State Department of Transportation that the highway is at a substantial risk.
Finally, the risk analysis will begin to describe what the buyout means to the rest of
the area. They are close to completing a risk analysis that supports the buyout
program as it is designed, which will open questions regarding repairing the levee,
and will bring back the question of the significance of the State highway.
Crawford suggested that the public meeting be held during an evening or a
weekend so the councilmembers could attend. They want to continue to hear what
the property owners in the area think. It would be appropriate to have the Council
listening and involved in the public process.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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 the decision to no longer have funds available for
repairs and maintenance is a philosophical decision or a rule of the federal grant
program.
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated a requirement of the
grant is that the County will not request disaster assistance on these properties.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would have to fix any repairs or breaks
on the levee. Monsen stated they would not.
Cooper stated the risk analysis indicates that the dike will not hold.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the State highway would be repaired, but not at
the County's expense, if the levee breaks and washes out the highway. Monsen
stated the State would repair it. Nothing prevents federal assistance for a repair
like that.
Roy stated this appears to be a good long -range solution on the surface. She
asked how much would it cost to fix the levee and keep everything the way it is.
Cooper stated it would likely be more than $1.6 million, which is the cost of
this project.
Monsen stated repair of the levee will deal with some of the minor events. It
may lead someone to believe that they are protected from a major event, but that
isn't true. People would be more at risk.
Brenner asked if the buyout areas have been revised. Cooper stated it is the
same as what the Council looked at last time.
Nelson asked the location of the dike. He asked the risk to certain properties
indicated on the map. Cooper stated the map represents what would happen
during a 500 - hundred year event when there is a major landslide in the upper
watershed that would create a dam, which fails and then bursts. The map doesn't
show what would happen if another flood happened after that.
Crawford stated the dike is not where the indicated properties are on the
map. The stream currently is not where the stream is shown on the map. He
indicated the location of the stream on the map.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would have to expand the buyout area.
Monsen stated the County has discretion on how it deals with a situation like this.
There is no obligation to do that. The County could expand the buyout area.
Whether or not the County would receive federal or state assistance is a different
matter. It is not as likely as this project.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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 certain lots are already developed. Cooper stated
there are two developed properties.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a moratorium on building. Cooper stated
there isn't right now.
Roy asked if the map of the buyout area includes the areas where they are
predicting future events. Cooper stated it doesn't. She indicated the areas that
were included in the initial project, but it cost too much money. The benefits didn't
outweigh the costs. They scaled back the buyout area.
Monsen stated they are trying to model an extreme event. This might not be
what actually happens for the next four generations.
Brenner asked if the people who built were told. Cooper stated they
attended all the public meetings.
Brenner stated she is not interested in buying out their improved properties.
Those owners were told. She asked if the County has done a notification to each
area and every lot that might be developed. Cooper stated every lot owner should
be aware. The County has mailed several letters out to them.
Brenner asked if the County has some kind of legal liability if the people
knew about it. Monsen stated they don't, that he knows of.
Brenner asked the liability to the County if someone buys the property and
doesn't know about the risk. She asked if something could be put on the title so
people know. Monsen stated that is why they want to get to the public meeting
soon, to disclose that information. At this point, it would be dangerous to say
whether they can or cannot put that kind of notification on a deed without
understanding the situation a little better.
Cooper stated the County requested that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) put alluvial fan hazard areas on flood maps. Flood
maps are often looked at when someone buys a piece of property.
Fleetwood stated they are subsidizing protection for landowners. He asked
why the landowners can't deal with this through insurance and other means.
Monsen stated that at the time the event occurred, federal funds were available to
do repair and protection for the area. The County partnered to do that using
federal money. Now they realize that the investment doesn't protect the
community forever. Since then, because of the money involved, trying to protect
the community is too expensive. Therefore, they are pursuing the alternative.
They've decided to not keep throwing money at this black hole.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County is under some obligation if it lets
people build in the area. Cooper stated they have some parameters to provide
people to what they now have to mitigate.
Doug Goldthorp, Senior Land Use Specialist /Geo- Hazards, stated the fact
that the County issues a permit creates some responsibility.
McShane stated Mr. Goldthorp will now have a report in hand to do an
analysis. He asked if Mr. Goldthorp will look to a consultant to refute that report.
Goldthorp stated the report will be included as part of the analysis of what a
landowner has to mitigate for to obtain a building permit.
The Planning and Development Services Department would like to see the
levee removed if the County decides to walk away from it. Under his experience,
the critical areas ordinance today wouldn't allow that it be constructed if applied for
today. In 1994, when the critical areas ordinance was in its infancy, they weren't
quite sure how to administer it. Things are different today. From an environmental
perspective, that system should be returned to its natural state because of the
salmon habitat. Aesthetically, the levee is an eyesore. When people come in for a
building permit, the levee creates an unreal sense of security. He deals with
comments from the public all the time. Regardless of what the County tells them,
the public believes that the levee will protect them. If the County abandons the
levee, he would like to see it removed. It would make it easier in the long run for
consultants who design mitigation to protect structures.
Nelson asked if this study was done with the idea that the levy exists or does
not exist. Cooper stated this study is a product if three different model runs. One
model was with the dike in place, assuming it stays in place during an event. A
second model was done without the dike. A third model was done with the dike in
place, but failing.
Monsen stated any answer would be preliminary and not actually factual
because they do not have the report yet.
Nelson stated he would be reluctant to remove a levee without the report of
the impact. Monsen stated he agreed.
Goldthorp stated an existing and valid mining issue in the area still needs to
be dissolved. When the permit for the levee was issued, there were conditions
associated with it at the time.
Nelson asked if there are certain conditions that have to be maintained with
the levee under the permit. Goldthorp stated that is correct.
Nelson asked if those conditions would still have to be met, even if the levee
was abandoned. Goldthorp stated one of the terms of the permit was that the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
levee was a temporary measure. It stands to reason that if it is temporary, it
would be removed at some point.
Cooper stated the permit was conditioned so that the levee was temporary
until the County could investigate a buyout plan.
Nelson asked why they paid for the consultant to do the studies if the
County's intention was that the levee be temporary. He asked why the study was
based on there not being a levee. Cooper stated the study included the levee
because it is there right now. Once the model is set up, it is not difficult to run
different scenarios.
Monsen stated a number of community members clearly believe that the
levee must remain there. The Council should be prepared for the public calling on
this issue. The levee has been there since 1994.
McShane stated there were some mistakes made regarding this. Now they
have to figure a way out of it.
Nelson stated they've only talked about salmon enhancement and mitigation
for recovery of habitat. He asked the benefit to the public in terms of access and
recreation. Cooper stated that all the property would be turned over to the
Whatcom Land Trust.
Gordon Scott, Whatcom Land Trust, stated that generally, all trust lands are
available for the public. They don't encourage access to some areas because of the
sensitive habitat. He doesn't see that this area will be particularly sensitive except
when the salmon would be spawning there. He didn't see, at this point, why the
public couldn't be allowed to go there.
Nelson stated access into the area was maintained by the property owner.
He asked if the Land Trust would provide access. Scott stated he didn't know at
this point.
Nelson stated he would need to know that information.
Monsen stated there is still County road access abutting a high percentage of
the area.
McShane stated the lots on the County road are privately owned. Cooper
stated they are in the buyout area. The access might increase, to a degree.
Scott stated the access is next to The Logs property. That will not change.
Brenner asked if the public benefit would be the reduced liability. She
recalled that the reason the County got involved was because of the liability.
Monsen stated he couldn't say that the County is liable. He doesn't think the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
County is liable. There's never been a shortage of people who claim that the
County is obligated to maintain the levee, and is liable if it doesn't.
Fleetwood asked if the Prosecutor's Office has written an opinion on it.
Monsen stated there is not a written opinion, but that question is part of the
analysis at this point, in the context of completing the buyout project.
Fleetwood asked the Lummi Nation's interest. Scott stated it is a partner in
the Land Trust grant. They would plant trees on a portion of The Logs property.
Monsen asked what the Council wants staff to do next in completing the buy
out process.
Nelson moved to proceed with the implementation if they get the letter to
go ahead from FEMA. He asked if the Council will still have an opportunity to look
at this after there is public input.
Monsen stated that when he receives the letter of notification, the Council
would be able to officially approve the grant. Once staff receives the letter, it can
begin that process. It cannot obligate any money without Council approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated they need to evaluate whether or not to remove the levee.
It doesn't meet conditions of the shoreline permit. There may be a potential for
greater risk having the levee there.
Brenner asked if they could find out what to do about people going into the
area and developing. She would like to know if there is something between a
moratorium and doing nothing. Find a way to indicate that someone buys at that
person's own risk. It seems there should be a way to do this because they have
done it with other issues.
Goldthorp stated whatever is done should be to try to avoid long, lengthy
appeal processes.
2. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
WRIA 1 Project Schedule
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the Parametrix plan schedule includes
an internal draft due in May and the public draft due in June. There are a lot of
pieces that will be coming out, which the Council will receive along with staff. May
15 is the date for the internal draft, with comments due by May 30. That's not
much time. There will be a work session scheduled during that time. The May
work session will include discussion on the draft water resources inventory area
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
(WRIA) plan. They want to identify any major big problems that exist. The Council
will get more time to look at this once it goes into the next stages.
Brenner asked if the pilot project is the same as the WRIA -wide programs.
Blake stated it is not.
Brenner asked if WRIA -wide programs are the same as watershed -wide
programs. Blake stated she suspects they are the same. They should use the
same terminology.
Brenner stated they received one section out of five. She asked why they
are seeing section one ahead of the other sections. Roll stated the Council was
interested in seeing pieces of it as it moves forward. He felt that the Council was
reluctant to have all of it thrown at them at once.
Brenner stated they are doing the final draft in April. She asked how they
are going to see those other sections before the final draft. Roll stated it is not a
final draft. It will be a draft that the council will work on before it goes out to the
broader, WRIA -wide audience at the May deadline. The October draft will be
mutually agreed upon between all participants and the Planning Unit. It will go to
County Council for adoption.
Nelson asked if there is a reason to have "preview draft - subject to change"
watermarked on each page. It makes it difficult to read.
Roy asked for a definition of the WRIA participants. It is a term that is used
a lot. Roll stated it includes all 18 caucuses and their constituencies, including the
participants of the tribe.
Roy asked the process for individual caucuses. People on the Planning Unit
feel like they haven't necessarily been heard. She asked if this is going to go
through the standard process, Planning Unit, and then Joint Board. Roll stated it
will go through the Joint Board at the same time. Historically, those discussions
happen concurrently. The Joint Board usually provides some direction, but not
before the Planning Unit has provided some direction to the Joint Board.
Roy stated she's gotten comments from several different caucuses. She
asked if they could work it so the input from the Planning Unit is validated and not
overturned by the Joint Board. Roll stated they have not operated in that way at all
to date. He can't go to the Planning Unit with direction from the Council, and then
turn a different direction when the County Executive has to sign as part of the Joint
Board. There is that concern, which is normal because they are getting into issues
and policy. There is nervousness inherent in the process, which is set up to fully
engage people through those caucuses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A.)
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
Roy stated she wanted to make sure people have a chance to have their
input heard now that they are working on the final draft.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the small cities caucus has a point, which is that
they do represent a lot of people. The water districts are allowed one person to
represent all of them. Roll stated the Joint Board has discussed this and expanded
the roll of the small cities. The Joint Board unanimously agreed to expand the
participation of the small cities caucus because it is a general purpose government
and it is also needed for input on land use issues. He continues to support that
land use is a critical piece to the success of this plan, and they need the small cities
to participate. The small cities are actively engaged in the implementation
governance work group, the instream flow implementation work group, and the
staff team for the Joint Board.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would expand caucus funding as they
get more representatives. Roll stated there are no additional representatives.
They are going to have more places where they can inject their thoughts and input
in the development of the pieces. Whether there are more representatives is a
decision of the County Council.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has been approached to provide more funding
for them. Roll stated caucus funding is a grant. The Council would have to
consider how much additional funding exists in the approved budget, or deal with a
supplemental budget request. It would go forward as a contract amendment.
Blake stated there was a checkpoint last fall to look at the Utah State
University (USU) work so far, and whether or not it has met needs and
expectations. As a result, the local entities involved in the process spent quite a
few months talking about issues that needed further clarification, such as
groundwater, the decision support system (DSS), and the peer review process.
They are now looking at some different dates for the model to be complete and
ready for peer review. They originally hoped for June, but that was too optimistic.
The goal now is an October delivery date for a draft of the models, which would
then go to peer review. Peer review will take many months. They are looking at
2004 to finish the USU work. She will provide a schedule in the next month.
Roll stated he is pleased with the amount of participation of all the technical
teams in these areas. Without the technical teams, they wouldn't get the products
that meet the needs of the constituencies.
WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan - Preliminary Draft of Section 1: Introduction
and Background
Roll asked that the councilmembers provide their comments to Scarlet Tang.
He's interested in glaring errors or big gaps in information. For example, one gap
was in a description of what transpired previous to WRIA in terms of watershed
planning efforts.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
Brenner stated she was surprised that they would end up with 94,000 more
people in the year 2022. She calculated the increase from 1990 to 2000. She got
at total of 80,000 to 84,000. Roll stated EcoNorthwest is a subcontractor of
Parametrix. Hart Hodges, who is the head of the economic group at Western
Washington University, is managing this work to make sure it links with the
economic plans being done throughout the county.
Blake stated this is a preview draft, and is subject to change. They already
know more work needs to be done. They need to make sure the information is
consistent with the numbers being used by the Planning Department for future
growth.
McShane stated that councilmembers should submit comments individually.
Roll stated he hoped that they don't have to revisit these pieces after the
final draft in May is done. To keep the costs down for Parametrix or USU, they
need to not redo sections and pieces once they are done.
Nelson stated they are typically dealing with a segment of Whatcom County
when they are dealing with WRIA issues. Water supply isn't directly related to one
specific area. There isn't any information on impacts of forestry practices on
forestlands, snow packs and water quantification, or the impact of the entire
eastern area of the county on water quantity. Roll stated that is an area where
they can add more information. He'll see what information is there.
Nelson asked if the State Department of Ecology has provided instream flow
quantities. Roll stated they have established required instream flow for this WRIA.
According to DOE's perception of those flows and what is currently being used from
paper water rights, no more water is available. There is a question of whether the
process by which they developed those flows used best available science and
whether it truly reflects wet water versus paper water issues. One of the pieces
looked at from the beginning of this process was reevaluating the ecological needs
proposed throughout the WRIA. There will have to be a decision at some point on
the recommended flows and the management strategy to sustain a flow regimen
throughout the WRIA, drainage by drainage. That's where the instream flow
management strategy comes in.
Nelson suggested having information about Bellingham Bay, Portage Bay,
and what is required for the survival of the salmon. Roll asked if the suggestion is
to talk about the influence of estuaries.
Nelson stated there have been many discussions on alternative systems,
whether it is dredging or retention, which are part of the history. There is not
much information on those alternatives. Cover all the areas that impact fish habitat
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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 pages 17 and 18 discuss groundwater and surface water.
She attended a function where DOE said it considers everything except direct lake
withdrawal groundwater because of the hydraulic continuity. Roll stated the
struggle is characterizing the relationship in critical areas in the WRIA, determining
the options to transfer from surface to groundwater during sensitive times of the
year, and determining the relationship of the switch from the time it takes water to
impact the stream. They will gain some insight in areas where they need to
attempt to determine if it will work in certain areas. They won't have a drainage -
by- drainage understanding of that relationship of groundwater interfacing with
surface water.
Blake stated the numbers came from the work the Public Utilities District
(PUD) did in estimating water use in the basin. The groundwater methodology was
whether the water was from a well versus a stream or lake. They didn't get into
the nuances such as well depth.
Brenner asked if they are going to have specific numbers of how much water
is being used by private wells. Roll stated they have those numbers.
Blake stated this is just the introduction. She suggested that the
councilmembers compare the outline it received in January with future sections.
They are going to see some of those other pieces in different sections in the plan.
That's where she expects water use estimates to show up.
McShane stated this section is just the background section, and doesn't get
into the details.
Brenner asked if the heavy metal loading into the Nooksack River from the
Ferndale sewage treatment plant has been alleviated. She thought that was taken
care of a few years ago. She understood that they were required to fix the
problem, which they did. Roll stated that the Sudden Valley has done a lot on its
sewer line to alleviate some spills.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated this is
very general information from the eliminating factors report that was completed
last year, which depended on existing information. All this is saying is that it has
been identified as a potential impact to salmon in the Nooksack basin at some point
in the past. It doesn't mean it's happening now.
McShane stated the fish habitat section is missing any discussion on hatchery
operations impacts to stocks. He can't believe that it isn't somewhat of an issue.
Scarlet Tang, Program Specialist, stated that this plan focuses on water
supply, water quality, fish habitat, and instream flow. It is somewhat out of the
scope of this plan to discuss fish hatcheries.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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.
Thompson stated that the focus is on habitat.
Roll stated it is something that can influence the likelihood of those stocks.
They need to acknowledge that it can either enhance or be a detriment to the
stocks.
Thompson stated they could do a brief, general summary of the four H's:
habitat, hatchery, harvest, and hydro.
Brenner referenced the limiting factors for pink salmon. The sentence needs
to be completed. Page 28 talks about the different things that have paid for and
shaped the WRIA process requirements. The flood fee money is not mentioned.
The paragraph on the objectives of the watershed planning process talks about
balance, but there is not really a mention about what happens if they can't balance
it. Since there is a concern about that, they need to have some kind of discussion
on it.
Brenner referenced the second bullet at the bottom of page 30. She asked
about the definition of "impair and diminish an existing water right." She spoke to
DOE personnel. In Ferndale, the Sandy Point Improvement Company is trying to
relocate its point of withdrawal many miles away from where its right is located, in
some rural area. The DOE staff person told her that "impair" and "diminish" could
be very different from each other. She's confused about those terms. Roll stated
he could talk with the DOE staff.
March 31, 2003 is the deadline for comments to be sent to Scarlet Tang.
WRIA -Wide Programs - Pending Workshops
Roll stated Parametrix is sponsoring two workshops to help flush out to
program areas that have been identified by WRIA participants as areas where they
want to find programs.
Blake stated the Council saw a proposal for six WRIA -wide programs in
January. Parametrix has to flush out the details and come up with
recommendations to be included in the draft plan that is coming out in May.
Parametrix is working on two programs, compliance and policy integration, by
scheduling workshops. For both of those program areas, they need to get the
people who work most extensively with regulations, plans, and policies in the same
room and get their input to define the regulations. Anyone can attend the
workshops to observe.
Nelson stated it looks like two different people vote for these. He asked if
workshop guide layout could be reorganized so the purpose of the workshop is in
the front. Blake stated this has been finalized for distribution to folks. Additional
material will be sent out to those who are invited. The final product will come out
of the workshops.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break at 11:25 a.m.)
3. WATER RESOURCE TRENDS
Roll explained how the water resources issues evolved within the county.
They are due for a complete revision of the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan.
There were some common themes in the plan. There was no coordinated strategy
at the time it was developed to deal with water resources issues. Also, there was
no mechanism in place for engaging constituencies and stakeholders.
In the years since the plan came out, they have done updates, but they are
updates of what they've been doing in those areas. He will be working with
Executive Kremen to come up with a revision. Most likely, the Council will see a
revision of the plan in the coming months. They need to ask the question of what
services are needed. It will provide more specific information.
Water resources are evolving. The roll of the Water Resources Division will
change over time. Updates also recognize the need to include other issues as they
relate to water resources, such as stormwater.
Nelson asked about addressing resource utilization in the Comprehensive
Water Resource Plan. Roll stated the plan doesn't talk about it. It talks about the
need to do it. As they start moving through the future drivers, it is an area where
they will need to spend time and energy. They haven't done that.
Brenner asked if they could expect to find specifics about stormwater control
retrofitting, especially in special watershed management areas. People have been
asking the County to do that for a long time.
Roll stated he is considering future drivers. As he begins to look at the
different water resources groups, he is identifying common drivers. One of the
future drivers is stormwater.
One of the cornerstones of the whole WRIA process is to deal with instream
and out -of- stream issues to maximize beneficial use. The first iteration of the plan
provides an action strategy for coming up with the management of those regimens.
One conundrum is between wet water versus paper water, and being able to
manage wet water without trouncing on legal pieces that are tied to paper water.
Monsen stated a person might have a right to use 10,000 gallons per day,
but is only using 6,000 gallons per day. The paper right is for 10,000 gallons, but
the person is using 6,000 gallons of wet water. There are options with the other
four.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
Roy asked if it is implied that the County would be managing this. Roll
stated no. He is presenting issues that will come up when he engages with the
County Executive in developing a draft plan. He needs direction from the Council
on areas where the County should and should not be involved.
Roy stated that the management of water rights is not a County function
currently. Roll stated that is not implied. He is attempting to manage the water for
the best use, and not get hung up on DOE's charge to solve the water rights issue.
He is asking whether they wait for DOE to work through this, or begin to work on
wet water ahead of understanding that those other pieces will need to roll out over
time.
McShane stated they would make management decisions based on the paper
water and what the actual water usage is, but they are not deciding on how that is
used.
Monsen stated it is one thing to understand DOE's role and legal standing in
managing water rights. It is something else for the County, from a land use
management standpoint, to promote certain economic development directions
without the ability to influence water supply.
Nelson stated the County could at least have a strategic plan to implement
wherever that growth happens.
Brenner asked if they are going to be able to go there. She asked if the
County can deny a permit because the State won't give them water, even though
the zoning is there.
Roll stated the next future driver is land use. Now, they are giving a set of
tools and guidance to deal with managing water resources. A question is how they
take what is in the plan and translate it into a land use policy that supports the
goals of the plan. At the same time, translate salmon issues into land use policy.
Nelson asked how they plan for that land use if they can't know what their
needs are in the future. Roll explained future projections are a piece of the whole
WRIA process, and are integrated into the decision support system (DSS).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roll continued to state they will begin to see the framework for the DSS.
Another future driver is water supply, including watershed protection and
alternative water supplies.
A fourth future driver is stormwater, including identification of stormwater
management functions. Retrofitting and public education are things that they still
need to define.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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 asked when the Council would seriously consider retrofitting.
Monsen stated it is coming together this calendar year. They will have the tools to
formulate the question they are trying to answer. If he speculates on those
questions, he would ask the value of retrofit versus something else.
Brenner asked what that something else would be. They have to balance
downzones with retrofits. Monsen stated retrofitting is substantially driven by
ability to finance.
Brenner stated a downzone hits people financially, too. Monsen stated it is
hard to compare land use issues with physical infrastructure. In most every
situation, significant retrofitting is expensive enough to consider whether or not it is
really a good choice.
Brenner stated a local program showed how pervious blocks can replace
asphalt. That is not an exorbitant cost. She's not talking about making sure
everyone who has older houses is up to today's code, but do something, at least.
Monsen stated that when he uses the term "retrofit," it applies to proactively
changing a house or subdivision. It is not about future building.
Roy stated it is also stormwater management.
McShane stated it is something they will deal with in the future.
Monsen stated they can get to those options at some point in the next year.
Roll stated the fifth future driver is pilot projects. There have already been
some pilot projects. The challenge is to have them happen in other places. The
Comprehensive Irrigation District Management Plan (CIDMP) is a pilot project that
has great potential to deal with water rights issues, clean water issues, and salmon
issues in a defined area. The Governor's Office supports it.
The low- impact development project is a pilot that addresses what one can
do for low impact development, defining low impact development, and then
monitoring the benefit of doing different best management practices (BMP's).
Brenner suggested that people be given a discount for low- impact
development. Roll stated incentives are a part of it. All the pilot projects are trying
to get grant monies.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that low impact development uses have motivation
within themselves for being cost effective. They are frequently less expensive than
stormwater treatment system, and they are more effective. Educate people more
on that so it might sell itself.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated the last future driver is marine resources. The benefits of marine
resources include showing trends and improvement in water quality. There is a
need to manage the data and understanding how trends support or not support
changes over time. Public education has been a big one that has been very
effective in those areas. Another piece is the trans - boundary issue.
McShane asked if the marine resources project will still be tied to WRIA. Roll
stated WRIA's focus really has not been marine resources. They have not spent
time on marine resource issues. WRIA will be able to provide loading estimates
from creeks. From there, WRIA is handing it off to someone else.
Roll stated the question is the pieces that need to be in place to deal with
future drivers. He listed some of the pieces that he's seen and tools that are being
developed to address the different drivers.
Best available science for current and future conditions gets into the issue of
WRIA identifying what they have and running scenarios for the future.
Public education and outreach needs to be expanded in all areas in terms of
getting the constituency to understand and engage in the issues.
Development of monitoring strategies for adaptive management is needed to
determine their status and where they are going.
Public forums for resolving water issues are important for people to engage
in and work through solutions at a grassroots, stakeholder level.
Brenner stated she would like to see a method for people with water issues
to call the Water Resources Division at any time. Set up a public discourse for
water conflicts rather than keep setting up new public forums. Develop something
that has some continuity.
Identification and resolution of limiting factors for salmon recovery are
needed to deal with all the drivers. Knowing how each of those interface with
salmon and salmon recovery efforts is important. It is a common thing that runs
through all future drivers.
Brenner asked if they are going to include limiting factors that occur in the
ocean. Roll stated they wouldn't be there in terms of WRIA.
Thompson stated there could possibly be mention of those limiting factors in
the introduction. They will identify where folks kind find other information.
Nelson stated that County planning is their responsibility. They are not doing
land use in the middle of the ocean. They may want to acknowledge it.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated the last common theme for future drivers is preservation and
protection of ecological functions.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated he's glad they expanded
the definition. Include the concept of pollution prevention over remedial action
because it is more cost effective and efficient. Regarding monitoring strategies for
adaptive management, it is a way of confirming that they are able to maintain
quality. They will be taking the status quo and considering it an interim standard.
Generally, trends will be evident. Prevention is preferred over remedial actions.
Brenner suggested jurisdictional drivers. She is concerned about issues in
Whatcom County that are the jurisdiction of the State.
Roy stated these issues are being integrated with different departments. The
departments need a lot of communication among them. Roll stated they have
dedicated resources to create those links. They are having meetings to form the
coordination.
Monsen stated the Water Resources Plan is in the context of the County, not
water resources. They want to make sure of what they want to accomplish and
determine how best to do it.
OTHER BUSINESS
Crawford stated implementation will be influenced by mechanisms that are in
place. One example of that are public forums for resolving water issues. Tom
Anderson's presentation suggested a mechanism by which a water usage permit
could be issued. It was a successful pilot project. It would become a pretty
influential part of water use in Whatcom County. He asked if anything has
happened on that in Olympia in the last month. Roll stated they are moving
forward. In terms of the maturity of this group being ready to tackle the issue,
they should take the next legislative session to push it harder.
Roy stated there are two bills in the State legislature that work on the
implementation of the ten -year contracts and a lead identity designated through
DOE. She has concerns about them. The bills seem to be exactly what the Council
voted against. It seems that it could really happen.
Brenner asked if State Representative Kelli Linville has been in contact with
the County about this. Roll stated he has not talked to her.
Brenner moved that a letter be sent to State Representative Kelli Linville
regarding the Council not being interested in doing the ten -year water contract
water master concept.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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
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 she assumed that at some point the legislature
would come to the County and ask if it wants to participate. They can't just
mandate it. She agreed with some of the bill, but not all of it.
McShane stated they should look at the bill first. They shouldn't review
something that doesn't actually exist.
Roy stated the bill exists.
Brenner stated the Council's position exists.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that one of the parts of the bill she is in favor of
addresses the water right issue in the County. She is against being a guinea pig to
try and fix something that is very complicated and over which the tribes might sue.
Roy stated they need to send letters as individual councilmembers.
Brenner suggested they send a letter of concern from the Council majority.
McShane suggested that Councilmember Brenner draft a letter. He won't
vote for something that is not drafted.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Roy stated the bills are substitute State House Bills SSHB 1336 and SSHB
1338.
Monsen stated he would provide information to the Council today on the
status and language of those two bills.
Nelson stated that in the State House of Representatives right now, there is a
bill regarding shoreline management. There is a possible new shoreline
management program with criteria that they haven't had a chance to look out, and
Whatcom County will be a pilot county.
McShane stated the guidelines are out. They may have been finalized. They
were held up for a period of time because of the path A /path B choice. The process
for creating that salmon - friendly approach was questioned. A settlement was
worked out so the guidelines were finalized. There was talk about which counties
would act as pilot projects, and funding is available. They'd be more likely to get
money to develop the shoreline master program earlier versus waiting until later.
If they wait until later, the odds are that they would follow another county's
guideline, rather than develop something unique to Whatcom County. The City of
Bellingham is already moving forward on its own shoreline program, which is
lacking in other communities in the state. They are in a good position to do this.
Whatcom County has also done a fair amount of inventory work. A lot of the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, 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.
groundwork has already been done. Additionally, Whatcom County already has a
good shorelines program that probably won't have to be altered significantly.
Nelson stated Whatcom County has a DOE - approved shoreline management
plan. He doesn't know what will come out of the legislation. He is concerned that
one councilmember can encourage the State to designate that county as the first
county to implement that plan. There needs to be concurrence with the full
Council. It has fiscal impacts and staffing level impacts. He asked for input from
staff regarding the impacts on the program and the staffing levels before they jump
into this.
McShane stated the guidelines have been out for some time. It is a rule
making process. The only issue is establishing the timeline from when counties
would need to implement their shoreline programs. The legislation looks at
changing those timelines and extending them out longer than they would have
been otherwise.
Brenner stated her biggest concern is what staff would think of being able to
put this in place by 2005 rather than 2010. There is so much work for the staff.
She would like to hear from Hal Hart and Jeff Monsen regarding the staffing time to
implement this before she takes a position.
McShane stated the County has never been asked officially. He received a
call from the Governor's Office at home asking if Whatcom County would be
interested. He said the County might be interested, and anticipated that the
County would get a chance to talk about it. Hal Hart has said that he is interested
in it because it is a financial benefit to the County to do it early. He would prefer to
take an official position if they can get a copy of the bill and input from staff.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 8 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 3/18/2003, Page 18