HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources April 16 20021
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
April 16, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Also Present:
Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member
Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council Member
Grant Deger, Bellingham City Council Member
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065)
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Watershed Plan Technical Team
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there is a request to
form a technical team to deal with management solutions and focus -area pieces.
John Sproul, Program Specialist - Watershed, stated the first item to discuss
is the Planning Unit meeting issue for next week. The Planning Unit will make a
decision on creating another technical team for watershed planning. The proposal
is to create a group that will work with consultants hired to develop the plan, work
on an environmental impact statement, and work on the socio- economic effort.
The organization of the technical team is similar to other technical teams.
Caskey- Schreiber asked for information on the management options the
technical team might develop. That's one of the focuses of the technical team.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the management options are what the
water resource inventory area (WRIA) process is all about. Last year, a
subcommittee formed to put together the options that have been considered.
There is a catalog that lists the options. The idea of the catalog is to be an
interactive document. The solutions subcommittee has been meeting to focus on
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
one particular area of the catalog and get more specific about the options. The
subcommittee takes the general ideas and flushes them out for economic, legal,
and other considerations. This catalog is another piece needed to pick their
management scenarios.
Nelson stated this is getting confusing. They need to look at where they are
going. There is an identified problem. They are trying to find a management
option for that problem. They are also dealing with data collection, facts, and
assumptions to deal with the problem.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought that they were already coming up with
the management options as a part of the ongoing WRIA process. It seems to be a
parallel program.
Nelson asked what this technical team is in regards to the management
options. The management options are simply a course of action for a problem.
Blake stated the decision support system (DSS) would be used to evaluate
the management options. To run the 'what if" scenarios, they have to look at the
various problems that exist in an area and then look at the management options. A
scenario is a suite of options.
Nelson asked how they identify the problems. Blake stated they have
information based on the technical work that has been done.
Nelson asked how they analyze the problem that needs to be solved in the
agricultural area. Blake stated they already have a pretty good idea of what the
problems are, including inadequate water supplies. That's one problem in that
area.
Nelson stated that the technical review team would help the Planning Unit
and everyone else to understand the models. Blake stated this technical team is
not new, but reformatted to continue the work that is already going on related to
looking at these different management options. The team was reformatted so as
not to exclude tribal participation.
Nelson asked if Parametrix is working on their facts and assumptions.
Sproul stated Parametrix is refining the existing matrix of information to generate
the catalog for management solutions and options. They are going to refine the
work with this group of consultants.
Nelson asked if the catalog is the facts and assumptions on the problems in
the watershed. Roll stated the DSS, which is the facts, assumptions, data, and
models, is created. This technical team and Parametrix need to take the myriad of
management options and narrow them down. The management options they look
at will be geared to specific questions and areas in the WRIA. This subcommittee
will look at how the management options impact instream flows, water quantity,
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
and the components of the project. Utah State University (USU) is creating the
model of scenario - builders. This technical team will take the huge catalog and
narrow down the management options with group consensus from the Planning
Unit. They want to narrow down the scenarios in the next couple of months so they
can run them through the decision support system.
Sproul stated this group has already been working. It is a subcommittee of
the Planning Unit. They are only asking to formalize the group as a technical team,
which enables other initiating governments to participate.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is something that they can afford to do. It is
a worthy commitment. It's also a big commitment of finances. Roll stated at least
four technical teams meet consistently every week. It is one of the most important
technical teams in terms of getting management options fed into the land.
Sproul stated the other technical teams are trying to be more efficient in
their use of time. It's unavoidable.
Blake stated they have to have a plan in June 2003. It is a tight timeline to
look at solutions and do technical evaluations.
McShane stated he's hearing a concern that the Planning Department staff is
stretched. It's important that the Planning Department staff participates. Make
sure the Planning Department is there, but they need to have some sensitivity to
the fact that the Planning Department staff is stretched. It's a resource issue. The
Planning Department hasn't been getting flood fee money for this.
Nelson stated the Planning Department needs to come back with a request.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he appreciated
the Council's position. The Public Works Department must understand that they
are doing everything they can to get the information to the Planning Department.
It's a matter of digesting the information. In 2004, they have to make sure that
what is adopted in 2003 is consistent with the plan in 2004. As he figures it out
with the Council, he will bring forward a proposal. It's just a one or two year period
of time when the work for consistency is being done. They are trying to create the
best product for the community as possible in the next year and a half of intensive
watershed management organization and input. The resource problem is there.
Nelson stated the councilmembers need to understand this so they can
articulate it to the constituents. They need to have the information in the terms
that they understand.
Roy stated they are looking at options for different areas in the watershed.
She asked how they analyze the different areas that affect each other. Sproul
stated they would have that conversation later in this meeting.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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 stated she liked the portraits of the watershed.
Nelson moved to approve forming the technical team.
Motion carried unanimously.
Watershed Plan Focus Area Selection and Plan Implementation Paper
Sproul stated there are ongoing conversations related to the need to have
greater detail in geographic focus areas. Geographic boundary areas are currently
outlined in the context of surface water delineated areas. Staff has looked at five
geographic focus areas where watershed management can give issue - specific
solutions. The areas described with the greatest emphasis are Lynden North, Ten
Mile Creek, and the South Fork of the Nooksack River.
Nelson stated Ferndale and the Public Utility District (PUD) withdraw water
from the Nooksack River. He asked how that fits into this. Roll stated he hoped
they make good progress on understanding the total water budget. That doesn't
translate into producing new water rights.
Blake stated that, according to the Parametrix scope of work, they could only
focus on three areas. They are trying to figure out the areas that best represent
the diversity of issues out there. They don't get to discuss Ferndale this time, but
they have gathered information from other areas that might apply to Ferndale.
Nelson asked if the product produced at the end of two years will be just on
these three areas. Sproul stated that is the current scope of work for Parametrix.
Staff also asked Parametrix what it would cost to do an additional fourth area. The
plan would have geographically distinct areas with solutions.
Blake stated the solutions for these areas are going to be more detailed. In
addition, they will have general recommendations that could be applicable
throughout the entire area.
Roll stated there is modeling related to the DSS for Lake Whatcom. The
information is predominantly on lake loading. The issue to be considered in the
next month is how much of the management options specific to the Lake Whatcom
watershed should be in the WRIA plan. There are a number of possibilities. One
possibility is to make it a focus area of the WRIA plan. The modeling and
management option scenarios would be included. A total maximum daily load
(TMDL) study will happen in 2004. There is a joint Lake Whatcom Management
Group. The key here is to focus collectively on one place to see some of this occur
and to invest their time and energy.
Nelson stated the Lake Whatcom model can help in other issues, such as
water quality and water quantity. Roll agreed. The County and the City would
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
need to advocate for that to happen. This would need to be considered a focus
area. There are limited focus areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported focusing on Lake Whatcom as one of
the focus areas. That will eventually be important to every person in this county.
McShane asked if they've seen anything so far in the small streams in the
Lake Whatcom watershed. He asked if the information on stream flow and water
quality is transferable to other small streams. Roll stated that is part of the
exercise being done by someone studying the loads. They have not gathered
enough information to extrapolate the information from one watershed to another
watershed.
Blake stated USU is developing models related to water quality throughout
the WRIA, but they are not all done at the same level of resolution. They are trying
to come up with good answers to that.
Sproul stated there are different screening levels that overlay different
geographic areas. In those areas, they can understand more. A type of modeling
tool that relates to the different water components allows them to answer, in
greater detail, the questions where the screens are able to overlap the most.
Blake stated they don't have consistent support to include Lake Whatcom as
one of the geographic focus areas. Not everyone wants to do Lake Whatcom. One
perspective is that there is already a management group in Lake Whatcom, and
they need to spread out the resources among all the challenges in the rest of the
community.
Nelson asked if it is within the scope of the WRIA to tap resources for Lake
Whatcom for tense types of activities. Roll stated the debate is whether Lake
Whatcom will become one of the three focus areas they can afford to study. It may
become an issue with others. If so, then the Council may want to help pay for a
fourth focus area.
Watts stated there are some parallel efforts going on, including the TMDL
study, the Lake Whatcom Management Program, and WRIA. There might be some
overlapping of efforts. These three focus areas are separate and distinct, with
slightly different goals. He would be concerned if the level of effort and expertise
being directed at WRIA were lost to the other two efforts. The subject, Lake
Whatcom, overlap, but the methodologies and modeling also need to be consistent.
Roll stated the State Department of Ecology (DOE) is doing the TMDL. Their
staff is dedicated to doing their models. The local opportunity to be involved is the
public comment period. He doesn't have enough staff to sprinkle through all three
of those efforts and be at every meeting. There is going to be a one year gap
between when they have the WRIA stuff out and when some of that TMDL
information will be available in June 2004.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, Page 5
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.
1
2 Caskey- Schreiber stated the TMDL studies encourage other areas of study in
3 the lake as well. It's going to be more thorough if they keep at it. Roll agreed.
4 They are all sharing in the data collection. It's a joint effort between DOE, WRIA,
5 and the City of Bellingham.
6
7 Sproul stated the next thing to discuss in this issue is the Plan
8 Implementation Paper. It is an outline of a series of questions and issues. In the
9 context of implementing the Watershed Management Plan and actually using the
10 DSS, staff has observed and generated a lot of important issues that need to be
it resolved over time as they go into putting this into practice. Sue Blake organized
12 this and made it a user - friendly document that addresses and packages the
13 different issues. The staff is going through each of the questions with other
14 initiating government staff, and working toward a way to present how they look at
15 the long -term implementation of the Watershed Management Plan and the DSS.
16 The councilmembers should begin to think of the long -term vision of the Watershed
17 Management Plan, the DSS, and how the Council would create an institution or use
18 an existing institution with this creative tool.
19
20 Nelson asked if the Deer Creek Water Association and negotiations about
21 annexation policies will be tied together. They are going to see more and more
22 questions about how this will work, given the existing problems, and where this will
23 go in the future. They have to keep focused on one problem, which is overall
24 watershed management related to the salmon enhancement program to restore
25 salmon. They have to have a process to work on the issues brought forward by
26 these groups. Sproul stated they need to develop a mechanism for dealing with
27 long -term strategies and big - picture issues.
28
29 Nelson stated the County is a member of the Planning Unit, and is also the
30 lead agency. He asked how to integrate those roles without distorting the efforts to
31 solve a variety of problems. Roll stated that the purpose of the current structure is
32 to develop the plan. That may or may not be what they want to move forward.
33 Parametrix will have a report on how people throughout the nation deal with joint
34 management of the resource in various regions. There are mixed signals from the
35 Planning Unit and the Joint Board to think this is the structure. This is the structure
36 to get the plan done.
37
38 Hart stated Washington State has some unique land use laws that a lot of
39 other states don't have. One of them was the Growth Management Act.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
42
43 Hart stated the structure for agreement is already there in the Countywide
44 Planning Policies. The Countywide Planning Policy approach, which guides land use
45 planning, is there as a model for them to look at.
46
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
Nelson stated that as the other problems outside of the WRIA effort are
raised by groups under the assumption that the problems are a part of WRIA, they
should guide those groups towards the direction of planning policies. Hart stated
that should be part of the discussion.
Roy stated there is an underlying theme of frustration with the process by
the two groups that approached the Council. That's something that could be helped
with more direct communication.
Nelson stated they need to find administrative solutions. This is a good step
forward.
Roy agreed. People are anxious to see products and end - results. Roll stated
the staff has spent 20 to 30 hours over the last month trying to address the
concerns of the water caucus. The amount of time spent will escalate. There has
to be a clear strategic direction, knowing that not everyone will get everything they
want. They've reached a point in the caucus where they are willing to take votes
on decisions that are not agreed to by consensus. The governments have to have
consensus. The water interests have to have a majority approval.
Sproul stated there is a consensus at the Planning Unit to move forward with
the technical work development plan.
Nelson stated the plan would be accepted if they were as inclusive as
possible.
WRIA Financial Plan Update
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the flood control zone district was
created in 1991 for recovery from the 1989 -1991 flooding events. One of the
activities within the flood district includes comprehensive planning regarding flood
hazards. The flood district moved to more general water resource management
with a focus on comprehensive plan. The Water Resources Division was created to
do general comprehensive planning for water resource management, including the
WRIA project. The water resources fund has contributions from the flood district
for the purpose of comprehensive planning countywide. The WRIA project is a
major part of that. There are also grant revenues.
One of the projects managed by the Water Resources Division is the WRIA
project. That is one of the reasons for this money flowing into the fund. The
Initiating Governments, as a part of the WRIA project, formalized the relationship
administratively to create a Joint Board fund. It is also supplemented by grants.
Crawford stated the Joint Board includes the City of Bellingham, Water
District 10, and the tribes, in addition to Whatcom County.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Monsen stated this fund was created for joint management of the major
contract activity. There is direct WRIA - related activity conducted by Water
Resources Division staff through the water resource fund. The Initiating
Governments is made up of the two tribes, Whatcom County, the City of
Bellingham, and PUD 1.
Crawford asked if those other entities are putting money into the WRIA
project. Monsen stated they are not putting cash into the project. The
contract activity is under contract with the Joint Board. Each of the Initiating
Governments is expected to bring, at their own cost, staff and other administrative
resources to play a part in the joint management.
Crawford asked why the caucus funding was a County thing rather than the
Joint Board considering it. Monsen stated part of it is trying to move the project as
long as simply as possible. It was more convoluted to have the five governments
jointly manage the administrative support to a caucus. The County itself doesn't do
its administrative support through the Joint Board. Facilitation of the process is by
the County through the water resource fund. Only contract activity is managed by
the Joint Board. The reason the Joint Board was created was to complete a plan.
Once the plan is complete, the Joint Board won't exist unless they choose to
reestablish it for some reason. The action items that he will propose will describe
their financial needs, financial sources, and decision - making structures. Until those
proposals are on the table and approved, implementation is not clear. He can't
describe implementation in this financial status report.
Nelson stated implementation would have to continue many years to come.
There are several ways they can do this. He asked if the Planning Unit may be
responsible for implementation in the future. He asked how implementation would
work and who would make that decision at the end of the planning process.
Monsen stated that the Joint Board and the Initiating Governments, as well as the
Planning Unit members, would try to answer those questions. In reality, depending
on the recommended actions of the plan, the Planning Unit is attached to this
project. When the project is finished, the Planning Unit will cease to exist.
Nelson stated that in its role as facilitator, there might be an assumption by
many that the County is responsible for those types of decisions at the end of the
planning process. Monsen stated that how implementation is organized would
depend on whether it is structured around someone taking a lead to facilitate the
implementation process, whether they agree to coordinate and cooperate, or
whether they agree to transfer authority to someone who has the ability act, such
as a board. Until the legislature gives them that authority, it's not a choice.
Roll stated that, right now, the legislation only obligates the State and the
County on the implementation plan.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the County would give up if they decide to
transfer the authority to handle implementation. Monsen stated he preferred to
defer this discussion to another day. He's speculating on the future.
Nelson asked if they want to maintain a minimum of $5 million in the flood
fund. Monsen stated that is correct.
Nelson stated the County currently has that reserve amount in the fund
balance. Monsen stated they do.
Crawford stated that they've come up with a fund balance for each fund at
the end of each year. He asked if all those fund balances are all separate, and
none are a portion of another. Monsen stated the fund balances are all separate.
Nelson asked if staff has any concerns. Monsen stated they discussed
accessing additional funding out of the flood fund balance for a short time to pay for
the WRIA project. That will carry them through to the end of the WRIA project.
The current form of funding of the flood district is not correct to implement all of
the planning going on in the Water Resources Division.
Nelson asked if the funds are enough to pay for both the plan and a
catastrophe, should one occur. Monsen stated that subject to State and federal
support in response to an event, the funds are enough.
Crawford asked about the comment on the projected 2004 fund balance
regarding the removal of interest income. Monsen stated the projection includes
revenue interest from the fund balance. He made the assumption for this current
projection, because the statute specifically allows it, that interest income will help
backfill the general fund rather than the flood fund.
Crawford stated a recent ruling decided that road tax interest cannot be
applied to a county's general fund. He asked if that would happen with the flood
fund, also. Monsen stated he didn't know, but he didn't think so. The State statute
allows all funds managed by the County Treasurer to benefit the general fund,
unless specifically removed to benefit its own fund. In the case of the
transportation revenue, it may be in direct conflict with the State Constitution.
That would not be the same reasoning for a special purpose district.
Crawford stated the drop of the transfer into the water resource fund comes
a year later. He asked why. He asked if the transfers come in based on the
previous year. The drop in the flood control fund is in 2003, and the drop in the
water resources fund is in 2004. Monsen stated that to deal with the region -wide
planning effort, they would transfer in 50 percent of the revenue received.
However, that transfer was supplemented by an additional $1 million because of a
project, with the expectation that it would be returned to the fund balance. The
extra revenue borrowed from the flood fund in 2002 and 2003 will be repaid in
2004 and 2005.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
Crawford stated the Parametrix study and some other things are costing
more than anticipated. He asked how that affects things overall. Monsen stated
the supplemental budget request of $1 million is because of things like the
Parametrix study increase. All of that growth increased the amount transferred out
to the Joint Board.
Sometime between 2003 and 2005, they will design what they intend to do
in the future, which will be different from what they do now.
Crawford stated that as they look at the money for this project, the
councilmembers should continue to get this kind of a presentation. This is very
helpful to him.
Nelson stated they need to know the impacts of a major catastrophe, and
how to deal with it. They also need to think about project implementation in the
context of funding.
Monsen stated the next financial status report will be in the context of
implementing policies and priorities in the Lake Whatcom watershed. When they
begin to implement stormwater management in the Lake Whatcom watershed and
to comply with the Clean Water Act phase II requirements, it is the beginning of the
implementation portion.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a ten - minute break at 11 :25 a.m.)
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Moratorium
Roll stated he will provide an update on the model and will have more
discussions on the stormwater special district standards, seasonal limitations on
clearing and grading, downzoning options, and onsite sewage operations and
maintenance requirements for sensitive areas.
Blake distributed an article that compares a simple model with more complex
models. They need to give thought to how accurate they want to be to make their
decisions. As they start to use models more and more, they are going to want to
give some thought to how accurate they need to be to have enough information to
make management decisions.
They have been doing more work on the model itself. They have all the data
they need to work through the numbers for the watershed. It will take a bit of
work to do. In terms of results, they've taken a look at the loading information.
The results are as they expected. On an acre -by -acre basis, the largest loadings
appear to come from roadways, then commercial zones, then residential areas,
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
then agricultural and rural areas, and then forested lands. They need to look at the
numbers for forested lands again, which seem high. They are trying to focus on
things that keep land in a forested state, or retain vegetation, in addition to doing
things that reduce impacts associated with roadway, commercial, and residential
development.
Nelson asked if the numbers include forestry practices, or just forested land.
Blake stated she would look into it.
In terms of best management practices (BMP's), they are trying to put
forward suggestions for things that will keep vegetation and trees, as well as
reduce the impacts from the other things.
Rich Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated the special district
standards are here.
Two years ago, someone identified a need in chapter two of the development
standards, which is not codified and where stormwater is managed. The
Engineering Division manages chapter two. In that chapter is an exemption for
duplexes and single - family homes. They decided they wanted to fill the gap to
regulate duplexes and single - family homes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Duane continued to state that in June, the State Department of Ecology
(DOE) manual came out. Whatcom County will be under the terms of a National
Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits at some point, which
will require the County to be compliant with the DOE manual. Staff developed the
special district standards to fill a gap in chapter two and to be compliant with the
DOE manual.
The goal of the special district standards is to limit flow from single - family
homes; treat pollutant generating surfaces, such as a roof; and to do education,
which is the most effective BMP. The special district standards will not give a
quantifiable number of how much loads they are reducing in the watershed.
The special district standards will require property owners to preserve
portions of their land in native vegetation. They will require infiltration or
dispersion of runoff from driveways or roofs. They will require someone to treat
pollutant - generating impervious surfaces.
There are two thresholds. The first threshold is an increase of impervious
area by 500 square feet. The second threshold is for new construction or a remodel
where the cost of the work exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value. Five hundred
square feet is a reasonable increase in impervious area to detect impacts with
standards modeling software.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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
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 why they developed the threshold on the value of
the house. Duane stated that threshold is to try to retrofit major remodels.
Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated one thought behind the action
strategy for addressing issues in the Lake Whatcom watershed was to find a
balance for new development and existing development. This is a tool for retrofits
in existing development.
Nelson asked if this tool could be part of the objective to achieve a 110 -
percent decrease if they use this tool for retrofits. Duane agreed that it could.
Nelson asked if an increase in footprint by 500 square feet would have an
impact on a 40 -acre parcel. Duane stated probably not, but the standards are for
lots five acres and less.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they thought about using the percentage of lot
size as a threshold. Duane stated it is not possible to get an accurate reading from
a computer model for anything less than 500 square feet.
Crawford asked why the threshold numbers were chosen. Duane stated one
goal is flow control. To determine if new flow is occurring, they are going to run a
model, which will not pick up anything in an area less than 500 square feet.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the permit threshold used
to be 120 square feet, but the Planning Commission increased it to 500 square feet.
Watts stated that basing a threshold on the cost of remodeling is a way of
retrofitting existing houses. The City of Bellingham threshold is a little different
because lot sizes are smaller. People are limited to 15 percent of the lot size or not
less than 2,000 square feet of impervious surface. The City's Lake Whatcom
Regulatory Chapter limits the regulation to lots of 5,000 square feet, which
accommodated a new building or someone who wanted to put in a garden, for
example. It seemed reasonable for someone to dig up and remove natural
vegetation from 500 square feet at a time, as long as it is covered during the rainy
season. It is a measurable amount. In the City, there is a record of the amount of
impervious area per lot.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the City ever considered lowering the threshold
unless there is a lot consolidation, when the threshold could be raised. Watts
stated yes. They would allow an additional 1,000 square feet of impervious area,
as long as a factor of 10 -1 was taken out of service.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County could adopt a similar process. It might
minimize some of the impact of all the new development that will happen in Sudden
Valley.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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
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.
Duane stated they want to apply the stormwater special district to Lake
Whatcom and possibly Sudden Valley. An architectural review committee exists in
Sudden Valley. The County needs cooperation with the existing group in Sudden
Valley. Also apply the district in Lake Samish and possibly Drayton Harbor.
The goal of the shellfish protection district overlay is to protect shellfish from
fecal bacteria. Since stormwater is not a primary contributor to fecal coliform, a
modification of the stormwater special district in Drayton Harbor would be
appropriate. Anywhere there is a critical area or buffer on a parcel, it would be
reasonable to apply the stormwater special district.
McShane asked if they considered the distance to critical areas such as
buffers and wetland areas. Duane stated having a buffer on the property would
trigger the threshold.
The standards will require a full -time employee to enforce. There are many
houses out there. The standards are complex. An employee needs to have
experience in drainage, modeling and computer, field, and people skills.
Nelson asked if permit activity fees could pay for this position. Duane stated
it's possible.
Nelson asked Duane to begin formalizing that proposal and bring it to the
Council. Duane stated the Engineering Division typically is not involved in single -
family home permitting.
Nelson stated they need to start the discussion by the end of the month,
when they begin to look at implementation.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if maintaining native vegetation is an effective
stormwater management system. Duane stated it is an effective BMP. Most
engineers and developers will try to maintain native growth on parcels. That way,
they can make their stormwater management facilities smaller, therefore saving
money.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some of them could be used instead of official
stormwater systems, if done correctly. Duane stated that if they leave enough
vegetative area, it would minimize, reduce, and possibly eliminate the need for a
stormwater management system.
Roy stated they are talking about this almost being an individual, case -by-
case experience for this drainage inspector. She asked if they can write up and be
more specific about these standards. Duane stated they already have to some
extent. However, the amount of possibilities for impervious area is infinite.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
Roll stated that the goal is to maximize movement of pollutants off a
particular lot. They would get into case -by -case determinations. Staff will want to
look at each parcel to maximize the stormwater benefits.
Roy asked if the hired staff person would have the ability to make a
determination on low- impact development. Roll stated he hoped so. They have
trouble attracting these kinds of employees.
Nelson stated they are addressing impacts from single - family development.
He asked about impacts that have measurable reductions in stormwater that
actually enhance the environments, and whether someone could get a credit.
Duane stated they have given credit to someone if that person does something
such as amend the soils, disperse the flow, or infiltrate the flow.
McShane stated he could visualize someone getting a credit on how much
they have to pay if he or she does something good. That may not be applicable to
this discussion.
Nelson stated he wants to look at ways to reward people who enhance their
properties. Duane stated it's possible to issue a credit, however there is no base
fee on a single - family house in Whatcom County right now.
The special district standards have been completed by the Engineering
Division. The Engineering Division has met with the other stakeholders, including
the Water Resources Division and the Planning and Development Services
Department. The standards have been presented to the Technical Advisory
Committee, which reviews standards prior to them going to the Executive. The
special district standards can now be submitted to the County Executive for
signature. They are different from ordinances and resolutions.
McShane stated the Planning and Development Committee and Council will
need to evaluate how effective these may be, in relation to certain stormwater
areas. Duane stated the special district standards in Title 20 have some
inconsistencies. Prior to implementing the special district standards, Title 20 may
have to be revised.
McShane stated that as soon as the special district standards are created,
they apply to Lake Samish. Duane stated that is correct.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, presented information on seasonal
limitations and all the sections in Title 20 that relate to Lake Whatcom. Next
Tuesday in the Natural Resources committee, they would look at them more
specifically. The seasonal limitations match the City of Bellingham's Silver Beach
ordinance. Some changes reflect the adoption of the stormwater special district
standards, but they haven't yet worked out all those changes. Staff also tried to
clarify problems they've found as they work with people who apply for permits.
Staff proposes making similar educational handouts for any of the other changes
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
that happen in Title 20. They could put together a brief overview of the stormwater
special district standards. They've tried to make the changes as simple and as
consistent with the Silver Beach ordinance as possible, so developers can have
similar regulations to work with.
Crawford asked the approval process. Goodwin stated they could be adopted
as an emergency ordinance, and then go to the Planning Commission if the Council
wants to get them done before the moratorium is lifted.
Baumgarten stated this is the first step toward consolidating everything
related to Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish in Title 20.
Goodwin spoke on downzoning options. She submitted two maps. One map
shows pending long plats, pending short plats, and areas that can be further
subdivided. The areas that can be subdivided further are the areas they want to
focus on if they want to downzone. The rest of the areas are already fully platted.
One area to focus on for downzoning would be the rural residential, two units per
acre (RR2) zones that are not subdivided and that are without sewer and water.
Two -acre lots don't have a lot of impact on water quality, but the half -acre lots do.
She asked for input on what other areas staff should bring forward. The other map
shows the existing use of certain areas. They wouldn't want to look at areas that
have a checkerboard pattern of mostly development. It wouldn't be equitable to
downzone those people. Look at areas where there are large pieces of land that is
vacant. This was an option that came up at the last meeting, and the majority of
the Council present asked for more information.
Nelson asked for information on impacts to future projects of water and
sewer development, in terms of the City of Bellingham and Water District 10. This
land use may have impacts on their comprehensive planning.
McShane stated the Council has the sewer plan for Water District 10, which is
very important in the north shore area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Nelson stated that staff should ask the City and Water District 10 how this
affects their compressive plans for sewer and water.
Ryan stated the County and City agreed on areas that were critical to water
quality and the highest priority for property acquisition. One of the areas was along
a creek at the south end of the lake. It is another overlay that might be important
to look at.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, spoke on onsite sewage
(OSS) operations and maintenance (O &M) and requirements for sensitive areas.
The State revised the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regarding onsite
sewage systems in 1995 that mandated the counties to develop and implement an
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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.
O &M program for OSS systems. Whatcom County did that in 1999. They filed a
work plan to the Board of Health, which approved it. It focused heavily on
education and notification. They implemented the program in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. It has since been expanded to include all other watersheds in the
county. Staff provides O &M information during the permitting process, routine site
inspections, and at community events. Staff produced advertisements on the local
cable networks. They've published and distributed an onsite and well water
information newsletter. It was mailed out to every onsite owner in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. They also distributed it through the Point Roberts, Blaine,
Ferndale, and Lynden newspapers. Staff also gives out reminder cards to each of
the pumpers in the county. The pumpers distribute the card to their clients on a
routine basis.
Nelson asked if any of the pumpers are using the card. Chesson stated they
are. They've been tracking pumping rates since the program was implemented in
1997 and 1998. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, about 12 percent of the onsite
systems are being pumped annually. In the rest of the county, the amount is eight
percent. Staff recommends that a system be pumped every three to five years.
Ideally, they would like the percentage to be about 25 percent annually.
Crawford stated it would be nice to have a map of septic sites and sewer
lines through the watershed. Chesson stated they could develop that.
In the Lake Whatcom watershed, there are more stringent requirements for
onsite sewage systems than anywhere else in the county. Historically, these
regulations were developed in the 1970's, before a lot was known about alternative
technologies. The developers at that time felt that, to provide an additional degree
of treatment and assurance of resource protection, they would increase the amount
of soil depth required. They've interpreted those rules very strictly. If appealed to
the Sewage Control Appeals Board, the administrative decision was frequently
overturned if there was an alternative technology.
Other sensitive areas in the county need protection from improperly
managed onsite sewage systems, including Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay. They
came up with the concept of an OSS shoreline management zone. That shoreline
management zone would mirror the existing the County shoreline management
program. This is a good opportunity to add additional onsite sewage system
requirements. They are providing for additional assurance with an alternative
device to the OSS shoreline management area. The State and County sewage
control regulations also provide for a formal designation as an area of special
concern. If the County decides to formally designate that OSS shoreline
management area as an area of special concern, then operation and maintenance
would be required. They have not formally designated any area of special concern.
3. SALMON RECOVERY
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, Page 16
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.
1 Update on WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Fund Board Results
2
3 This item was held to the next Natural Resources Committee meeting.
4
5
6 4. RIVER AND FLOOD
7
8 Potential Buyout of Flood Prone Properties
9
10 Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the Council adopted
11 a land and easement acquisition and flood mitigation assistance program in 2000.
12 A program was designed to take advantage of funding opportunities. Last
13 December, the State Division of Emergency Management requested that staff put
14 together a proposal for a project to use leftover hazard mitigation money. Staff did
15 that. In the end, they decided to not allocate any of the money to those who put
16 together proposals. They decided to use the money internally. The two top priority
17 properties belong to Bill McCoy on Marine Drive and Betty Lou Close on the South
18 Fork. Since they lost the opportunity for the Federal Emergency Management
19 Agency (FEMA) money, two other opportunities have come up. The County can
20 partner with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in a
21 project to acquire the McCoy property.
22
23 Steve Seymour, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, stated
24 that in the last two and a half years, WDFW acquired an area from Slater Road to
25 Marine Drive on the left bank. The ultimate plan is to start looking at modifying
26 dikes and levees to provide more flood plain connection through the tidal reach of
27 the Nooksack River. The last grant was a coastal wetland conservation grant,
28 which is a federal grant that they used to acquire one site. They have some surplus
29 money from that grant. It might be appropriate to share the cost of the McCoy
30 property with the county.
31
32 Cooper stated the County just recently acquired a nearby parcel that has had
33 multiple flood insurance claims in a ten -year period. He's aware of at least one
34 claim the McCoy has so far. The property has been damaged numerous times in
35 the past. It is difficult to protect. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory
36 Committee recommends a 50 -50 cost share, up to 50 percent of the value. The
37 total share to the County would be $50,000.
38
39 Nelson asked what requirement the County would have in using the property
40 for recreational activities. Seymour stated that WDFW would be the owners. They
41 would work with the County on providing some public access.
42
43 Cooper stated this acquisition expands opportunities to reconfigure the dike
44 and provide more storage upstream.
45
46 Monsen stated the acquisition expands the options available to deal with the
47 area.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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
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 protects properties on the other side of the river because
they are letting the flooding occur in the other areas.
Nelson asked the value of the structures. Cooper stated the assessed value
is about $50,000. They should be able to get the owners out of there for about
$100,000, including demolition.
Nelson stated staff and WDFW are asking for Council consensus to continue
with this project. They still have to get an appraisal of the property.
Hart stated the area, including the acreage owned by WDFW is included in
the supply of long -term commercially significant agricultural land designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. If they take all that land out of that designation, the
Comprehensive Plan should address that issue.
Seymour, stated their idea is to have more flood water on this property.
Some of this will be set into food plots for ducks and waterfowl. The property has
been in an active agricultural use since Dean Foods went under.
The Council concurred to go forward with the McCoy property program and
get a final appraisal.
McShane stated they now have a flood hazard reduction program. That
program addresses agriculture along the river fairly thoroughly, in terms of how
they build floodways. That may be something to incorporate into the plan now.
There is benefit to agriculture by opening this area up, because the agriculture on
the other side of the river, which is more active, will be enhanced. That might need
to include language to take care of that lingering question.
Nelson asked if the level of the land will be raised if it is consistently flooded.
Cooper stated it gets flooded now anyway because the dikes are lower than on the
other side.
McShane stated this is one of the fastest growing river deltas in the United
States. It is something that they might have to watch, over time.
Cooper stated another opportunity is the Betty Lou Close property. It is on
the South Fork of the Nooksack River. It is a repetitive loss property, and has had
significant problems with erosion, as well. There is a sizeable back channel located
on the property. There have been numerous past rip rap projects to try and protect
her property. Ms. Close has a recreational vehicle (RV) park that she is trying to
maintain as her source of income and retirement. Ms. Close continues to lose land.
In the County's future efforts to protect Mosquito Lake Road, they will need to
roughen up that rip rap job, which will cause more impact on Ms. Close's land.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, 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
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.
This was the highest - priority project that the buyout committee identified,
based on all of the repetitive loss properties and anyone who has ever voiced an
interest in the buyout program with the county. She talked to the Parks
Department about their level of interest in contributing Conservation Futures
funding and developing a low- impact, day use park.
Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the
County owns property on the other side of the river, which is the 262 acres donated
by David Syre. Also, the State Department of Natural Resources is eliminating their
campground. This stretch of the river will be the day use and recreation property.
Because of the flooding, all structures would have to come off of the property. The
park would be day use only, would allow some fishing, and would have some trails.
Nelson stated people inner tube along the river, and asked if there is a way
to optimize resources to provide economic help to that community. DeSpain stated
that is a real issue.
Nelson asked if inner tubing would no longer be allowed as a recreation
option. DeSpain stated that is correct.
Nelson asked what they are going to do. The County purchased recreational
properties in that area. He asked what the County is going to do with the property
other than preservation, in regards to economic stimulus to this area. DeSpain
stated that on the other side of the river is 262 acres, which will allow intensive
recreation, including camping.
Nelson stated that Betty Lou Close's property provides economic revenue to
the community. When the County buys the property, it is eliminating that
economic benefit to the community. It's for a good reason, but they are not
helping that community at all by taking away the revenue and not providing
another stimulus to the area. He is concerned about that.
Crawford stated they are talking about developing a campground on the
other side of the river some day. He asked if that would replace what Betty Lou
Close is doing.
Nelson stated they are taking it away today.
DeSpain stated the Parks Department will look for a concessionaire to
provide that opportunity.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how large the parcel is, and the amount of money
the project will cost. Cooper stated the parcel is 8.6 acres, and they don't know the
amount of money at this point. The recommendation from the advisory committee
was to commission an appraisal and to see if the property owner would be
interested in that value.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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.
The Council concurred with the recommendation to go forward with obtaining
an appraisal.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:12 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 21 , 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 4/16/2002, Page 20