HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources May 13 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
May 13, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 10:08 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 L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sharon Roy
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Flood Control Maintenance Program
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, submitted a handout
summarizing the new projects for this year, the carryover projects from past years,
and the current flood hazard reduction projects. She also submitted a map with the
locations of the corresponding projects.
The flood control maintenance program is in Title 17, and is about how the
program will be administered. Internally, they've developed two subprograms, the
repair and maintenance program and the flood hazard reduction program. She
described the purpose of the two programs.
There are three repair and maintenance projects that are new projects. The
first is the Truck Road bank stabilization. The County did a project on it in 1999.
This project has saved a portion of Truck Road. It was 600 feet long. They
probably didn't go far enough. They will go back this year and do a project outside
the water to stabilize those two ends.
The Hannegan Levee Repair project is a carryover project from last year. It
is the left bank levee. There is an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers to
do construction. They're going to get rid of the concrete and develop a gentler
slope, and then stabilize the toe with rock.
The next project is the Hadaway /Hokema stabilization. Protecting the high
ground is critical in terms of maintaining the existing frequency of overflows to
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Canada. Two spots are eroding. One spot is not yet at the high ground, and they
can do something passive. At the other spot, they will be in the stream because
they are at the high ground right now. It will require extra permitting.
Brenner asked if the river would meander much farther. Cooper stated they
don't want it to meander much farther. The advisory committee has looked at it,
but not decided anything formal yet.
Brenner stated there is a sharp turn in the river at that location. She asked
if they could do something that will keep the river from breaking through. Cooper
stated they could do something if they design it right. It will probably require
ongoing maintenance like any other revetment.
Brenner asked how far it will go if they don't do anything. Cooper stated the
meanders get more pronounced, and then quit getting pronounced and move
downstream. They are putting together the analysis. Given the location, it is not
an unreasonable place to stop the river. They need to protect the high ground. If
they end up losing some of it, there is an existing survey to replace it. They don't
want to increase the overflow to Canada.
Crawford asked if this is where Sumas gets it flood. Cooper stated it is.
McShane explained the geological history of the area.
Cooper stated there are four flood hazard reduction projects.
The Betty Lou Close property may be relocated instead of demolished. The
Canyon Creek project grant agreement will go to the Council during the next
Council meeting. There is a tight timeframe. They finished the Saar Creek
Management Plan implementation plan in 2000. Saar Creek comes out of the hills.
There is a mini - alluvial fan, with a lot of sediment. It moves all over the valley.
The drainage improvement district digs it out every few years as the bed gets
higher and higher to keep it from flooding the farm fields. The plan called for
restoring channel capacity. The gravel has piled up in the channel bed over the
years. Reed canary grass has made the cross section smaller every year. In 2000,
they did the first phase of the plan and implementation.
Brenner asked if they could dredge anymore. Cooper stated they call it
channel excavation now, to make permitting easier. They excavated in 2000. They
did extensive replanting to reduce the reed canary grass. She proposes to also
build a sediment trap. They had to construct a habitat channel around the
sediment trap for the spawning chum.
Brenner asked how a sediment trap works. Cooper stated it is a wider cross
section that slows down the river so the sediment drops out. Drainage
Improvement District 15 has committed to doing maintenance. The County will
provide assistance and information to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Drainage Improvement District. The Drainage Improvement District will do the
annual maintenance on the trap.
McShane asked if the area dredged to Rock Road would be planted. Cooper
stated it would. The permit is conditioned on doing plantings.
The next project is the Johnson Creek plan implementation. Consolidated
Drainage Improvement District #31 and the Sumas /Nooksack /Everson Subzone are
the project proponents. Johnson Creek historically has lots of reed canary grass,
and they have dredged different portions each year. She did a Johnson Creek
capacity and habitat restoration plan. They will do excavation work along one
reach. The upper reaches will be maintained by spraying, mowing, and planting.
The project review subcommittee has prioritized these projects for
permitting.
Brenner asked if the County is going to leave the Betty Lou Close property
open for day use. Cooper stated they didn't do anything because Conservation
Futures funds were not used. It is all flood funds that are being used. There are
issues with fund usage. They can't give it to the Parks Department.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they can't use Flood District funds
on a park. The purpose of the expenditure was to allow it to become a flood area.
They can have secondary uses as long as the primary purposes aren't interfered
with.
Brenner stated she wants to allow it as a day use or overnight park in the
summer. She asked how they could do that. Monsen stated the ball is in the
community's court.
Cooper stated the community had a visioning meeting last night. It will
explore grant money to develop it as a day use area. There are other options to
explore. It could be a mitigation site for a road in the area. There are different
options.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to pour staff and money into it, just let
people park their Recreational vehicles (RV's) there in the summer only. Monsen
stated that to do that, someone at least needs to cut the grass. The Flood District
can't do that.
Cooper stated future projects include a Deming and Sande - Williams levee
repair. They will put in one application to fix various spots. Riprap is falling into
the river. They will try for a straight rprap repair project.
McShane stated they haven't established meander zones in this area yet.
Cooper stated there are preliminary meander zones. The question is if they should
spend a lot of money in an area where they should maybe let it meander.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated they should determine the meander zone first. Cooper
stated she could pull out maps of the preliminary meander limits and bring them
before the Council.
McShane stated they should move forward with the Deming area, and wait
on the Sande - Williams project. Cooper stated they could do that.
The Council concurred.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how these areas come to the County's attention.
Cooper stated she solicits applications annually. The project review subcommittee
prioritizes the applications. They move forward with only the projects that are
prioritized as high.
Fleetwood asked if it truly captures the areas with the greatest need of work.
Cooper stated it does. They don't miss too much.
The next project for the future is the Rothenbuehler /Enghold bank
stabilization, with two separate spots. She explained the locations on a slide. It
can impact Acme. They are going to start slowly and look at a reach analysis to see
what makes the most sense.
Another project is the Harksell Road levee repair. It is an agricultural levee
that has some erosion. If left unchecked, it will fail in the next few years. It will
open up this area to be inundated more frequently. During the spring, it will
interfere with agricultural activities. This project will keep agriculture in business in
this area.
The next project is the DeBoer levee repair and culvert replacement. It is an
agricultural levee that runs along Nooksack. A culvert goes through it. It has failed
and caused the levee to slump in around it. The whole structure needs to be
excavated and replaced.
Brenner asked about the Canyon Creek meeting. Cooper stated the meeting
went well. The residents asked good questions. The consultant did a great job.
Acquisition of The Logs has to happen before they can purchase the undeveloped
lots. The owner of The Logs is resigned to the fact that the County will not
reinforce the dike enough to protect him. He is willing to entertain an offer.
Cooper stated the projects on the maintenance program are assigned dollar
amounts during budgeting. As they get closer to the time of the projects, she likes
to update the Council. The Council will see contracts come forward for some of
these projects.
2. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
New Recommendations for Solutions
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is part of the
Parametrix scope of work. There is also a need for the County to look at other
things that need to be included in the plan solutions. The goal is for the Council to
understand the purpose, knowing it will be included in the draft watershed plan.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated a small group of people thought there
were additional things to consider for inclusion in the plan. Ten ideas are listed in
the packet. They are under consideration for development. Today, she is looking
for opinions on any of the ideas that should not be included.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Fleetwood referenced the concept of the feasibility of trans -basin
importation. He is vehemently opposed to that. He asked who came up with it. He
moved to exclude items two, three, and four on the list. It interferes with the
vision of what they are doing with water planning. It violates the spirit of the
Watershed Management Act.
Roll stated they are not looking to exclude any ideas at this point. They are
looking for information on why or why not they want to try these ideas. These
ideas are advocated for by certain caucus members.
Blake stated it was her suggestion to put trans -basin importation on the table
because doing a feasibility analysis does not mean doing a project. It has been
brought up for many many years. It is constantly on the table. Doing a feasibility
analysis will help clarify the issues around doing importation. That is not to say
importation is a good or bad idea. A feasibility analysis will identify all the
impediments and challenges. Councilmember Nelson has mentioned doing it. Put
it in a larger management options catalog.
Fleetwood stated it spends time and money on something they already know
the answer to. They already know that it is technically feasible. Where they want
to go should be a policy discussion. The purpose of the Watershed Management
Act is to work with what they have within their basin.
Brenner stated she was thinking about what happens if something like
terrorism or an emergency happens to Lake Whatcom. They need to know the cost
of an alternative. She wouldn't mind knowing the cost. She's had people tell her
that it wouldn't cost very much, but she doesn't know anything about it. Don't use
it as a management tool, but it will be good for an emergency.
She doesn't like project 11 on the list. It is not an on- the - ground project. It
is a bureaucracy. Don't do it as a pilot project. Blake stated a lot of these don't fall
into the category of pilot projects. They don't know what to call them yet.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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
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 they have done an enormous amount of work on this project. The
project needs to be maintained and updated, or the maps won't be useful in six
months to a year. The community needs to better understand what the water
rights are. No mechanism is in place to meet that community need. As instream
flows are established, they need a way to rearrange flows to benefit the
community.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she appreciates where Sue Blake is coming from
regarding the trans -basin importation, but it is too expensive to implement the
options. There are also cross - jurisdictional issues. If people ask about doing it,
just say it's too expensive. It is too expensive. This will be extremely costly for
permits and infrastructure. Blake stated the question was more of whether there is
value to having a place to read about what people have found out in the past about
this, or whether they know enough to not put any more effort into it.
McShane stated he doesn't have any problem with number four. He has a
problem with numbers one, two, and three. The County is attempting to assist all
the water users in the county, but it is not a water provider. The question is
whether this is something the County government, rather than a specific water
purveyor, should pursue. Skagit County has transferred water at great distances,
but it isn't practical at this time. There will be expenses to that evaluation. They
have to be careful. Committing to a study isn't something he wants to approve.
Blake stated an original thought from the group is to put down what they
already know into the catalog, which still takes time. She asked if the
councilmembers don't want the existing resources to go into the catalog.
McShane stated that if someone knows it and it is easy to put into the
catalog, he doesn't have a problem with that.
Brenner stated she would like to get the information about Ross and Baker
lakes. Skagit County has worked with Whatcom County and other communities.
Item one is not realistic, but doing it will provide information that they will want to
have someday. Blake stated there is no party named as a lead on these or
resources designated to them. They are just asking if there is an interest to do the
project.
McShane stated he could go along with the second, third, and fourth bullet
points under the Objectives for project #1. The items in the first and last bullet
points appear to be much more involved.
Brenner stated all the objectives on item one are important to know in
dealing with water resource inventory area (WRIA).
Caskey- Schreiber stated they have to keep the line on the WRIA costs. This
would be very expensive to figure out.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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
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 this is an idea to put into the plan. This doesn't obligate the
County to get involved and spend money on it.
McShane stated he doesn't want to begin spending money on it.
Roll asked if the opinion is that the County doesn't want to spend money on
these items.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County doesn't have enough funds to explore
the deep -water aquifers.
Blake stated it is useful to know whether or not the County has an interest in
some of the ideas enough to assist in some capacity. If the answer is no, that's
great. Then it means that someone else will have to move it forward. Ultimately,
the plan will have to have information on what it takes to do a project and who will
do it.
Crawford stated he wanted to see the information compiled. He asked if
there is a cost to compiling all this information. Blake stated it would be based on
existing WRIA participants looking at them more closely and asking that they
become actual WRIA projects.
Crawford asked the projects they are currently working on. Blake listed
several projects that Parametrix is working on, including conservation and
compliance projects.
Crawford stated an item about water storage is not on the list. Blake stated
there is money being spent by the State to explore storage options in the WRIA.
The Public Utility District (PUD) is doing it.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. He would like to see the
information compiled.
McShane suggested that they address each item individually.
Fleetwood accepted the friendly amendment to address each project
individually.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Brenner stated she would like to limit the amount spent on project #1.
Fleetwood stated he is not necessarily opposed to project #1 to the extent
that they are trying to count the amount of water they have.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Blake stated she is hearing that the councilmembers are concerned about the
resources that would be spent on project #1, but are not opposed to someone
looking at it.
The Council concurred.
McShane stated that if a city or the PUD wants to use deep storage for water,
and it's in the plan, then the question is if the County will play a role in the
feasibility study to oversee contracts. Blake stated that if it does, it would have to
be in the plan. Right now, the Council is saying it doesn't have an interest in
playing that role.
McShane stated that's why he doesn't like to see those two components
included.
Roll stated the councilmembers should think hard about whether or not the
Council wants to spend County resources on these projects. Put that as a
condition, so they are clear they are not committing County resources any further
and that the Council wants to look at the big picture in the future.
Fleetwood stated that whether or not the information already exists
regarding projects #2 and #3, it's a policy issue. If in the plan, it might be
perceived as an option for how they plan to grow in the future. He is opposed to it.
Blake stated that if the Council does not oppose these projects, all they will
do is write it up and decide who would go do the feasibility analysis. No one will go
and do more work. In the plan will only be the idea and how it is done. They are
not doing any of this now.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is seriously concerned about how big this
project is getting, and this is an entirely new level.
Brenner stated she shares that frustration, but they have to have information
on water. If they can get an idea about deep -water aquifers without spending a lot
of money, she wants to know about it. Somewhere, it has to do with the overall
water supply. She hopes someone can put together information that she can look
at. They can say they want more information, even though it isn't a good option.
McShane stated he is hearing a majority support for the project #1
components that compile the information they have.
McShane moved to approve project #1, without the first and last bullet
points listed in the objectives section.
Motion carried 4 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Crawford moved to approve project #2 as proposed.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Motion failed 1 -4 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to approve project #3.
Brenner agreed they should not encourage these alternatives, but would like
the information in case a disaster happens and they need another source. Make a
policy statement that they oppose this as a general policy, and only approve if
there is an emergency.
Fleetwood stated the purpose section of the Watershed Management Act
does not give the County a charge to contemplate emergency scenarios of that
magnitude. It is to contemplate the quantity and quality of water, and how it can
serve them within that watershed unit. I don't think it's our duty to do that.
Brenner asked if that is correct. Blake stated the Council has the flexibility to
do that if they want.
Fleetwood stated that he urged the councilmembers to oppose the motion.
McShane stated he is opposed to doing a feasibility study.
Brenner stated she's only interested in this as an emergency backup.
Motion failed 2 -3 with Brenner and Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to approve project #4.
Caskey - Schreiber asked to amend the background so it doesn't infer that
they would take water from Skagit County or British Columbia. She asked how
they got into this. Blake stated that cities are not okay for water beyond the 20-
year horizon. It is a tool for the toolbox of solutions to help address the looming
supply issues. One confusing area for people are the issues with moving water
from outside the county into the county. There are State and local rules and
regulations.
Caskey- Schreiber stated an example is Lynden. On one hand, the County is
saying that it doesn't expect Lynden to grow the way it wants, and will target
farmland for the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. On the other
hand, the County is facilitating the City so it can grow. Blake stated this does not
advocate for where or how they move water around. It simply summarizes the
rules for how to move water around. It makes no decisions about specific locations
for where it should go.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Fleetwood moved to amend the motion to remove the provision to go
outside of WRIA 1.
Roll stated components of WRIA 1 are in British Columbia, and components
of WRIA 2 include the Samish watershed.
Crawford accepted the motion as a friendly amendment to his motion. He
wants to be consistent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her point was about how involved the County gets
in solving other peoples' water use issues.
Brenner asked if these ideas make the County financially responsible. WRIA
is an umbrella that allows different interests in WRIA to do certain projects on their
own.
McShane stated he doesn't approve of the amendment. They need to
consider any transfers outside of WRIA 1 that occur. That would have an impact on
the County.
Brenner asked if the County has an obligation to plan for emergency
contingencies.
Fleetwood stated the County's charge is basic.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is just committing to writing a brief about the
issues and challenges associated with the project, and does not commit the County.
Blake stated it summarizes how they do it right now. It's a limited exercise.
Motion as amended carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to accept project #5.
McShane stated he is concerned about the second bullet to evaluate the
effectiveness of low impact development practice in reducing stormwater impacts.
Before they can do that evaluation, they need about 25 years' worth of data on the
basin. He didn't want to have that hold up low impact development. They need to
rely on what has been done elsewhere.
He agreed with the second set of bullet items on the next page. They might
want to include an item "Avoidance of interception and conveyance of groundwater
into surface water."
Brenner suggested that they don't use the acronym "LID" because it stands
for more than one thing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Crawford moved to accept project #7.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to accept project # 10.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to accept project #11.
Brenner stated this should not be a pilot project. It should be ongoing. Fund
the Conservation District to do this. Blake stated it is not a pilot project. These are
additional ideas.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to take out "pilot project."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion failed 3 -2 with Brenner and Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Crawford moved to accept project #6.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to accept project #8.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the project is.
Roll stated the analysis is on the potential return of doing certain best
management practices (BMP's).
Blake stated they were looking to find a water system or small city that
would be interested in some assistance that would be focused on water
conservation. They have not yet found anyone. The non - municipal water caucus is
going to talk about it.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to accept project #9.
Blake stated David Davidson has been trying to see if there are opportunities
to reuse water at the co- generation plant to meet other water demands.
Fleetwood asked if it has implications to benefit Whatcom County instead of
one individual or entity. Blake stated it does. It is being done as an example of
impediments people might come across related to reuse projects. It is something
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
that would benefit Sumas and the larger community, as they learn about it. If they
don't make it a WRIA thing, they might hear about it, but this keeps it on the radar.
Crawford asked how much they could recover. Blake stated it's not a lot.
It's enough that David Davidson thought it was worth looking at.
Motion failed 3 -1 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed and Brenner
abstaining until she gets more information.
Watershed Management Plan, Modification to Parametrix Scope of Work
Presentation
Roll stated Parametrix is working to gather the information needed for the
watershed management plan. They've done a lot of work on pilot projects and
other items. They are struggling to work locally. The current approach is not the
most efficient way to take the information and craft a plan. A group was charged
with finding a way to get drafts more efficiently. The group made a
recommendation to have a small group help facilitate and write those sections of
the plan, with the entire input coming from Parametrix.
In the past, they were reluctant to have local people working on this. The
proposal to go to the Planning Unit is to use existing resources to have a core of
people facilitate bringing plan sections forward.
Brenner stated she is uncomfortable with the portion of the background
statement about the staff developing other options. She asked why staff did it, and
it didn't go through the Planning Unit. Roll stated it is common that groups spin off
and work on pieces that go to staff team and then the Planning Unit. It's not
unusual.
Brenner asked about the six options for completing the plan. Blake stated
they tried to look at the full range, from using Parametrix the way they are
currently used to taking them out of that role. There was another option to get
someone else with local knowledge to write the plan. The recommendation was to
use people in the process locally. It was more of a challenge to have someone in
Bellevue write something that requires a lot of interaction with local parties,
including Utah State University (USU) and the different teams. It is a resource
drain.
Brenner stated that's why she didn't want USU in the first place.
McShane stated that supporting this item would be in line with what
Councilmember Brenner said in the first place.
Brenner stated staff should not spoon -feed it to the Planning Unit. It should
come up through the Planning Unit. Blake stated the concept was brought to the
Watershed Plan Technical team for its feedback. She's talked to the caucuses by
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
phone. The current way they are trying to approve the pieces of the plan will need
a lot more connection with the existing players. It is more likely they'll have a plan
with that kind of ownership, because they will be involved from the beginning.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there will be a cost - savings, and if the County is
bound to working with Parametrix. Roll stated Parametrix is stopped until they
resolve the issue locally. They can't have budget increases for this, and there have
to be savings.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Parametrix was spending money faster than what
it was supposed to. Roll stated they had the first two drafts locally. Doing more
drafts wasn't the most efficient way to do it. He was concerned that it has the
potential for cost overruns. There will be a cost - savings in the end. It should be
more efficient to get stuff out for public review and input, and not slow things
down. He's not sure how much faster.
Blake stated the original date for an internal draft was this month, and a
public draft in June. Upon seeing both sections one and two, it became obvious
that those sections will not be complete for months. Now they are talking about a
November release for the public version, but that was going to happen anyway.
Crawford moved to support modification of the Parametrix scope of work
by having the actual plan written locally using existing water resource inventory
area (WRIA) staff and project participants, incorporating the completed work of
Parametrix and continued involvement of Parametrix.
Brenner stated she's not sure she wants to continue to involve Parametrix.
Roll stated Parametrix still needs to write other pieces of the plan. He wants to
meet with them immediately and know the status of each piece.
Brenner asked for a friendly amendment to amend the background
statements, "This approach would incorporate the existing work completed by
Parametrix and, if necessary, include the continued involvement of Parametrix in
providing...."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
Fleetwood asked at whose discretion that would be.
Brenner stated staff and everyone should be aware to use Parametrix only
when necessary. Roll agreed that they have to go very cautiously to get the most
efficient plan. The technical people are doing preliminary site work on some of the
pilot projects. There are technical resources they may not have locally but from
where they want to continue getting information.
Brenner asked for another amendment that the intention of this is to ensure
that everything remains within the budget.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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.
Crawford amended and restated his motion. The Council supports
modification to the Parametrix scope of work by having the actual plan written
locally using existing WRIA staff and project participants, incorporating the existing
work completed by Parametrix and, if necessary, including the continued
involvement of Parametrix in providing critical support elements, all within the
existing approved budget.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roll provided a memo from John Thompson to the Council dated May 13,
2003.
Brenner stated she would like them to have a discussion at some point on a
letter the Council received from the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that it be discussed in the Natural Resources
Committee.
McShane stated the issue should be raised with the chair of the Natural
Resources Committee, so she can schedule it.
Brenner stated that's fine.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated the
Council approved a contract with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to do
some planning. They are putting out a request for qualifications for consultants to
prepare some or all of that work. There are three pieces, including developing a
stakeholder framework in a pilot watershed, competing a detailed outline and key
sections of a salmon recovery plan, and preparing a comprehensive revision to the
habitat restoration strategy.
Regarding the second item, the habitat restoration strategy, they have
reached a point to refine the project review process and develop a detailed habitat
management approach for WRIA 1 under the salmon recovery plan. They need to
engage a larger cross - section of the community. He will send out a letter to the
community. There is also a draft agenda for that meeting.
Brenner asked if the meeting has to be on May 22. Roll stated it was the
date that the Governor's Shared Strategy was available to facilitate.
Brenner asked staff to check with the Council in the future about scheduling.
OTHER BUSINESS
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked about the article for the second generation of salmon that
are not able to spawn. It referred to some money that has been committed. He
asked if that is what $100,000 is for. Thompson stated that is a separate grant the
Nooksack Tribe got from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that looks specifically
at the scour and fines affecting survival.
Crawford stated he became concerned after reading the article. There is an
issue with the program up there. If there are resources to address it, he would like
to see that. Thompson stated the Nooksack Tribe is trying to find the options for
dealing with it.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 17 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 5/13/2003, Page 15