HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources May 14 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
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 14, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Seth Fleetwood
Absent:
Sharon Roy
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
John Watts, Bellingham City Council
Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council
Grant Deger, Bellingham City Council
Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he wanted to discuss a
proposal from the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee.
This proposal is the next installment from the Dorrie Belisle group. This is a great
project that is being driven by the shellfish committee to create a partnership to
address shellfish issues that includes Trillium, the City of Blaine, many volunteers,
and County staff.
Ami Stillings, Resources Planner - Shellfish, stated the first task is dealing
with the community oyster farm that is in place. The work involves training the
volunteers on aspects of oyster farming.
Nelson asked if they already put some money into that task. Roll stated staff
time has been put into it, paid for by the last grant. There was not money
specifically for this task.
Stillings stated task two is stormwater sampling. The previous grant was for
a six -month volunteer to do drainages that go into the harbor. This is a
continuation of that monitoring. They want a full year's worth of data and to look
upstream.
Roll stated this is a great partnership with that group and the City of Blaine.
When that group sees something unusual, Blaine Public Works Director Grant
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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
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.
Stewart activates his response group to deal with it. The local government wants
to work with the volunteer group when it finds a problem and to follow up.
Stillings stated task three is storm event monitoring. They watch events to
see what the results provide. The City of Blaine offered to do lab analysis.
Task four is a tide flat tour. It involves the community and gets them
educated on the problems.
Task five is the Shellfish Protection District's third open house. It has been
very successful in the past.
Task six is community support for harbor projects, which involves one -on-
one discussions with different agencies to come up with ideas on effective
management tools to use to see changes in water quality.
Roll stated the Shucking on the Spit event was a huge success last weekend.
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, stated the next year is critical for Drayton Harbor. There is
community support like never before. The proposal focuses projects and partners.
One component is a series of tide flat tours that will broaden the outreach to city
councilmembers, planning commissioners, and others from the City and the County.
Another component is continuation of the volunteer stormwater sampling program
to develop a stormwater treatment best management practice (BMP) facility along
Peace Portal Way. Another component is to bring focus to the Blaine harbor and
work with all the partners in the Blaine harbor. Until they clean up the Blaine
harbor, they won't see a reclassification of the harbor. There are 20 groups that
have supported the community oyster harvest to date. The Shucking on the Spit
event was a big hit. Over 600 people attended. It was a celebration of marine
resources at the harbor. Two years from now is the target date for harvesting the
oysters.
Crawford asked if this funding would come out of water resources fund,
which comes from the flood fund.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the total of $14,747 would come
from the current Water Resources Division budget. It is not an additional
expenditure.
Roll stated approximately $30,000 was set aside for these types of special
projects.
Crawford moved to approve the proposal of the six tasks. This is an
outstanding opportunity for partnering. The 2 -to -1 contribution of the community
is an excellent deal for the taxpayers. If they could get the Drayton Harbor tours
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
for County Council going as soon as possible, he would appreciate it. He
encouraged doing it on a Saturday or Sunday.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RIVER AND FLOOD
Proposed Ordinance Banning Unauthorized Motorized Vehicles on Levees
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated a draft ordinance is
coming forward. This is a result of an increased tendency of motorized vehicles on
the levee, which is causing problems. The use gets rid of the sod on the levee, so
water can get under the sod if the dike over -tops. The Lynden /Everson Subzone
District created a proposal. They started drafting up some signs to post on the
levee. To enforce the signs, they need an ordinance to go with it.
Brenner stated the sign needs to be rewritten to catch peoples' attentions.
The phrase "unauthorized vehicles prosecuted" should be in larger letters. Get
people's attention about being prosecuted for trespassing. Cooper stated they can
rewrite the sign.
Crawford asked if people may walk on the levee. Cooper stated they can.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about some of the agricultural operations in the
area. Cooper stated it is for unauthorized use. It is not meant to preclude people
from getting onto their own property in support of their own agricultural operations.
Brenner stated it is an excellent ordinance, but she does not want to see the
words "prosecuted," "criminal," or "conviction." It should be a fine only. The
Council just heard from Dave McEachran about clogging up the court systems. This
should not go through the court system. She doesn't want to see someone going
to jail for doing this.
Fleetwood asked how the violation penalty was established.
Monsen stated the violation is a gross misdemeanor.
Cooper stated the language was based on advice from their attorney.
McShane stated he's fine with the language. The violation is a misdemeanor,
and there is no reason to not punish at that level if that is determined at the
discretion of the judge and the prosecutor. The Council should not mess with the
penalty.
Cooper stated the point now is to see if the Council is interested in pursuing
this legislation. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee recommends
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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
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 the funding for the initial sign installation be funded through the repair and
maintenance budget.
Brenner asked if the diking districts should pay for the signs. There are legal
limitations on how to use that fund. Monsen stated this is a project under the
repair and maintenance program. Those districts are pursuing that work with
financial assistance. It is work that can be done though the diking districts.
Brenner stated she doesn't have a problem with it as long as it is legal to use
the funds for this. Monsen stated they still have to go through the formal process
of ordinance review and approval.
Nelson stated the first issue is the penalty, and the second issue is funding
requirements.
Brenner stated she would absolutely not support an ordinance that considers
jail time and prosecution. She doesn't want to make it a criminal misdemeanor,
but make it a civil infraction.
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Moratorium
Roll stated they need to talk about BMP activities. They also need to discuss
how modeling and needs are coordinated. Also, Parametrix contactors will be here
at 2:00 p.m. They are looking for input on the components, issues, and questions
to develop the plan between now and June of 2003.
Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated they talked about the simple model
and the different land uses identified as areas to target with BMP's. There is a list
of BMP's to consider. One of those BMP's was community outreach. There has
been some progress on community outreach projects.
Scarlet Tang, Program Specialist, stated the councilmembers asked the cost
to distribute the kit to all households in the watershed. To print that number of kits
would cost $18,000. Postage to mail the kits would cost $11,000.
Brenner stated the Master Gardeners program does volunteer tasks. There
are many people in the Master Gardener program who would volunteer to distribute
the kits. Stroebel stated they would still have the cost for printing.
Roll stated $18,000 for that is not in the budget.
Crawford asked if there are any ideas to fund printing.
Brenner asked if the City of Bellingham would contribute funds.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
Watts stated there are a number of ways to distribute the kits that are
cheaper than mailing, including through the neighborhood associations and park
departments.
Ryan stated it is important for the City Council to put on their agenda.
Roll stated he could bring this up with the Inter - jurisdictional Coordinating
Team (ICT).
Stroebel on the pet waste program has been ongoing. It started in 2000
with six mutt mitt stations in the watershed. They now have ten mutt mitt stations.
There is a brochure that describes the impact of dog waste on water quality. She
and Ms. Tang are working on a sign at each mutt mitt station that will include some
of the information from the brochure. They are also going to target individuals to
pick up the pet waste in their own yards from their pets. That audience hasn't been
targeted yet.
Ryan suggested also working through veterinarians.
Brenner asked how they determined that dog waste is one of the major
contributors. Stroebel stated it comes from current literature. A lot of research has
been done on bacterial loading in watersheds nationwide.
Stroebel stated that roadways were identified as being a large source for
pollutant loading. The list of BMP's included street sweeping to address pollutant
loads coming from roadways. They need to target these areas because they are
one of the largest impervious surfaces in the watershed and can act as conduits for
other pollutants. There are issues with using the high efficiency street sweepers in
this region. There are no communities in the Pacific Northwest that use them.
They have a limited use during wet conditions. She outlined why street sweeping is
considered a BMP for reducing roadway pollutant loads and the different levels of
effectiveness, which include types of sweepers, roads, and frequency of sweeping.
The three types of street sweepers include mechanical, regenerative air, and
high efficiency vacuum assisted dry sweepers. The City of Bellingham uses the
regenerative air, which is very effective at removing small particles as long as
sweeping is done frequently enough that there is not a large accumulation of the
fine materials. The types of roads affect the efficiencies. There are more materials
that accumulate on arterial roads than on residential roads. The removal rates on
residential roads are higher. A final consideration is frequency of sweeping. In the
Pacific Northwest, a frequency of weekly or every two weeks will create the optimal
removal rate for pollutant loads for roadways.
Much discussion of street sweeping is on removing sediments. Both
phosphorous and metals absorb to these fine particulates. When they remove
sediments, they also address the issue of these metals.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
In 1997, there was a study with the Port of Seattle for a marine cargo
container yard. The study looked at underground containment versus street
sweeping. They found that a sweeping program for the life of the program would
cost $2 million, as opposed to $18 million for installation of the underground
containment system.
Brenner asked about the comparative effectiveness. Stroebel stated she
would find out more information on that.
McShane asked if the information in handout is just on County roads.
Stroebel stated it is, excluding Sudden Valley. To be effective, the sweeper needs
to cover the entire road, which requires three passes on a two lane road. The total
number of miles would be 150 miles instead of 50 miles. Mike Roberts will speak
on the budgetary components to purchase a regenerative air sweeper, which is the
staff recommendation.
Mike Roberts, Assistant County Road Engineer, the cost to purchase a
regenerative air sweeper is around $130,000 to $140,000. If the sweeper has a
five -year life cycle, they are talking about $5,000 per month, including equipment,
maintenance, and fuel, plus an additional $5,000 month for labor and $1,500 per
month for waste disposal. The total is $11,500 to implement such a program. In
the Lake Whatcom watershed, they don't have a lot of sites that lend themselves to
underground vaults. Also, they hope to use the equipment in other areas as well,
such as at the Blaine harbor, or integrate the equipment into other operations
where total suspended solids is an issue regarding the environment and sensitive
areas.
Nelson asked how long it takes to sweep 150 miles with one sweeper.
Roberts stated they would sweep twice per month.
Nelson asked if that is normal. Roberts stated that would be based on one
eight -hour shift. They would have to see how it worked out once they begin
operation. The estimate is based on operation at two miles per hour, for 15 miles
per day. They might choose to do residential streets in the Lake Samish watershed
rather than major arterials in the Lake Whatcom watershed, based on the efficiency
they think they can get. They have to see how much material they actually pick
up.
Nelson asked if administration concurs with the recommendation. Monsen
stated it does.
Brenner stated she is concerned that they compare apples to apples, which is
why she wants to know the cost - effectiveness of the vault system versus the
sweeper. She is not suggesting they use a vault system.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
McShane stated that they would run the sweeper just about every day during
the week in the watershed if they sweep 150 miles of road at 15 miles per day.
Roberts stated they could operate two shifts.
Brenner stated she is concerned about whether this will be cost - effective,
given the amount of rain per year they receive. Roberts stated it is ideal to sweep
the roads before a rain event, so water doesn't pick up materials and put them in a
ditch or drainage system. They are looking at studying catch basins and installing
new ones with sumps.
Nelson stated this would have to come back as a supplemental. Monsen
stated this is a road activity, and funding would come from the road fund.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen continued to state that they still need to have more discussion with
the City of Bellingham on a joint venture. If the Council decides this is a worthwhile
investment, and they begin to use the equipment heavily, they have downtime.
Therefore, they need to look at how big the program will become.
Nelson stated that if the Council wishes, the administration could continue to
look at the street sweeping program using a regenerative sweeper.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the labor would also come from the road fund, and
if they can do something with the existing catch basin. Monsen stated labor would
come from the road fund, and they can do something with the existing catch
basins.
Crawford stated he would also like to see this expense in view of the bigger
picture of the road fund in general.
Brenner stated she wants to see more information if the City is interested in
working with the County. Monsen stated this is opening up a new service. The
question is how far they want to open up the new service.
Watts stated they received a presentation like this from their public works
department a few months ago. The numbers are the same. The door is always
open to work together on these things.
Crawford asked if the City equipment is operated at capacity. Watts stated
they have to ask that question. It is pretty close.
Roberts stated both regenerative sweepers operated by the City of
Bellingham are being used fulltime. The City of Bellingham is currently sweeping its
portion of the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane asked how many roads are in Sudden Valley in miles. A significant
portion of the population is there. The question is whether they are going to ignore
it. They may also be talking about a stormwater district. He is not thrilled about
having the entire county paying for the special circumstances in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Make those who live there pay the cost more fully. At some point, they
need to think hard about Sudden Valley's streets and Sudden Valley's participation.
Nelson asked if there are contractors who use this equipment, with whom the
County could contract with. Roberts stated he would look into it.
Nelson stated a lot of businesses have sweepers for their lots. The County
may be able to contract for the service.
Brenner stated that the method by which they fund the program and what
they do about Sudden Valley should be part of the main decision.
Nelson stated the first step is to gather information. Staff is trying to
ascertain what type of things the Council wants to know. There may be other ways
of doing this. There was a concern raised about the effectiveness of the vault
system.
Brenner asked if any of the private contractors have sweepers.
Nelson stated that staff will find that out and get back to the Council. This
will still go through a budget process. He asked if the Council is interested in
pursuing this further.
The Council concurred.
Brenner stated they need to find out if there are any private contractors out
there who do this kind of work. Roberts stated he would find out. To be responsive
in terms of staff level, they need to get the County staff into the new areas that
open up. How they used to do business is going away.
Brenner stated the contract could require a contractor to be there in an
emergency. However, this is not about emergencies. It is about routine
operations.
Monsen stated that typically for routine maintenance, doing it in -house is
preferred. However, they may do a combination of in -house and contracted
sweeping to make sure the work can be accomplished. An advantage of
contracting, they only have to schedule it fulltime, because the contractor will have
other clients.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a natural vegetative buffer that can filtrate
some of the runoff. Stroebel stated she is now presenting one of the BMP's that
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
can be used. There are a number of BMP's that will have to be used together.
They will continue to use other tools such as bioswales and maintaining vegetation.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he had a
comment regarding funding the lake living kits that was discussed earlier. The
question is how to do this within the budget. Target the growth and permits that
are coming to the County now. Permits can pay for costs of printing the kits.
Stroebel stated she would update the Council on the progress being made
regarding land preservation. She's worked with the City of Bellingham and the
Land Trust to get a better estimate of costs associated with land preservation,
before they look at options for funding. She will summarize the different
preservation tools to use. The Council will receive a package in the next month
that will summarize the information.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated she would speak regarding land use
regulations. They are close to having a final draft. The Planning Division,
Engineering Division, and Land Use Division staff reviewed the current water
resource protection overlay district standards, stormwater special district standards,
the water resource special management area standards, and the basic zoning
regulations for the watershed. They have been reviewing all the standards and
regulations for reorganization, streamlining, and consistency with development
regulations. They've been looking at cluster subdivision regulations, open space
reserve tract regulations, and clearing and stormwater. They added seasonal
limitations for clearing, vegetation and tree retention, and phased clearing.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they can bring this
forward in draft form on the May 21 agenda. It can be on the Planning and
Development Committee agenda. The committee could get through part of it.
McShane stated he would schedule it.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 2:15 p.m.)
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Roll introduced the Parametrix project managers, Sydney Munger and John
Toll. They are having discussions with the various councils and the Joint Board.
They would discuss the detailed management areas, which are a part of the
Parametrix contract. The technical studies are being done by Utah State University
(USU). Those are the science models that will be used to create a decision - support
system (DSS), which is the computer -based DSS that will include the components
of water quantity, water quality, instream flow, and fisheries habitat. Parametrix is
determining how to craft an implementation plan of the WRIA Watershed
Management Project using the science and other issues in the watershed.
Parametrix is sorting through the multitude of management options that have been
identified into a package of options that can be addressed in the first iteration of
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
the plan. Draft one of the plan will come forward next year. They will have to use
the adaptive management process in subsequent years to provide more detail.
The first version of the plan will include a programmatic approach across the
entire WRIA. There will also be some areas where they get more specific. Those
specific areas are called the detailed management areas. There are a number of
things Parametrix does to get more specific. Sue Blake will discuss the detailed
management areas. The goal today is to discuss the specific management areas
and how to move forward with coordinating the Joint Lake Whatcom Management
Group with the large WRIA planning process.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, referenced page 13 of Council's packet. This
is a discussion paper put together by the staff team for the WRIA project. It
discussed the thought process used to narrow down all the geographic areas and to
come up with the five detailed management areas. Several evaluation criteria were
used. The areas must:
1. have significant issues and problems that are representative of other
areas.
2. have more detailed modeling work being done by USU.
3. include representative economic sectors.
4. be areas that people were interested in, based on the DSS worksheets.
5. have some data associated with it.
The Council recommended that they focus on the south fork, Lake Whatcom,
middle fork, Lynden North, Sumas, and the Frasier Basin. The Frasier Basin and
Sumas areas did not become one of the five areas for consideration. The final five
areas are the Lynden North, South Fork, Ten Mile, Drayton Harbor, and Lake
Whatcom areas. The areas have been presented to the Planning Unit for detailed
management. There was agreement among the staff team members that Lynden
North, South Fork, Ten Mile, and Drayton Harbor if possible.
Lake Whatcom is considered important, but that is the area that has been
the subject of the most debate. A detailed management area means that
Parametrix will have come up with management recommendations related to the
lake. Because they can only do three, or maybe four, areas, some people are
concerned that they don't do Lake Whatcom because it may kick another area off
the list, it already has a management process, and it may bog down the process.
Don't walk away from the WRIA project without having some reference and actions
taken in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The County pushed to have it included as a
detailed management area because of its limited staff resources. At the Joint Board
meeting, that wasn't supported by other Joint Board members.
Brenner stated they are dealing with Lake Whatcom, just not through this
process. Blake stated that is the proposal.
Brenner stated she would rather do a detailed management area of the
Middle Fork instead of including it with Lake Whatcom.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
Blake stated staff proposes to have a parallel process for Lake Whatcom that
wouldn't be handled by Parametrix. Staff would go through similar steps. It would
be an independent process. USU would run the scenarios that would go to the
jurisdictions for discussion on how to best handle Lake Whatcom and what to do in
terms of implementation. They would have a section in the June 2003 plan that
says what they did with Lake Whatcom. It would be included but not as an
approval item. Parametrix would deal with the Middle Fork and diversion issues.
Fleetwood asked the assurance that the County report would be the same
quality as Parametrix. Roll stated his staff can clearly do this work. In the same
context, they've gone through the tasks outlined during the moratorium, which are
in line with what they propose. They are going from the simplistic modeling to the
more complex modeling. They are also going to run scenarios through these
models. Their ability to get this information is dependent upon the Council giving
staff information on the types of scenarios they should run. As long as they can
keep a venue similar to this, with engagement by the City, they can make a lot of
headway. This will be cumbersome if they have to have a lot of meetings in
addition to what they currently have.
Brenner asked if they are going to address existing problems, not just future
problems. Blake stated they are. This is a starting point. They will need to be
more specific about some of the questions and management options. They will
definitely look at many existing issues. What ultimately comes out of the process
depends on the participation of all of the stakeholders in the process.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Government Affairs
Officer, stated he had an opportunity to attend a workshop in Lynden last week
regarding Lake Whatcom. He was sent an email today on the economic factors
influencing the use of the watershed. The suggested economic factors to be
considered in WRIA 1 are agriculture, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, trade and
services, government, tourism, and recreation. There is an absence on that list on
construction. He asked for an explanation.
John Sproul, Program Specialist - Watershed, stated construction is included
in trade and services category.
Emerson stated that given concerns about over - development, being listed
under the trade and services category gives it an unhealthy visibility.
Roll stated it is time for the councils to ask specific questions of the
contractors. Questions are related to narrowing the management options, and how
the management options would be included in the plan. The contractor wants to
hear the councilmembers' expectations on things they might like to see or
emphasize in the plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
Blake stated a few more details need to be worked out on things like
economic issues and environmental impact statement (EIS) stuff.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are supporting the Lynden North and South
Fork areas. She asked if they need to identify a third area. Roll stated the third
area is Ten Mile.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Drayton Harbor and Lake Whatcom would follow.
Blake stated they hope that the Ten Mile and Lynden North areas have enough
similarities that Parametrix would be able to add Drayton Harbor, given the existing
budget and scope of work.
Brenner stated she is not comfortable including the Middle Fork with Lake
Whatcom. Consider the Middle Fork separately. Roll stated they will be able to do
this. This is a county staff recommendation right now. They need to get it
approved by the larger group. Staff just wanted to update the County Council on
the proposal that is on the table. He and city staff will work out other pieces that
need to be included.
Clair Fogelsong, City of Bellingham Superintendent of Environmental
Resources, stated the City of Bellingham's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is being
done to address all the questions on that second and third sheet that was handed
out regarding water quantity as a part of the HCP process. He hopes to get done
with it in 2004. As they go through the process, they will explore the quantity
issues associated with the diversion, how they affect Lake Whatcom, the Middle
Fork, and Whatcom Creek. Data collection will fit into the modeling. They hope the
modeling will be provided by USU. They want to add the quantity data sets to the
modeling capability, to help him develop the options for their HCP. The target with
the HCP is called an incidental take permit. The conditions they come to agree on
with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(USFW) will direct their operation of the diversion system. There is a public process
involved in the HCP. The next public meeting is on June 6 to scope the EIS. They
don't want to duplicate efforts. They will not get to the quality issues. They will
have better data on the quantity issues to inform the model.
Nelson asked how they tie this together in the WRIA process to determine
instream flows, the concerns about middle fork, and water rights on the Nooksack
River. Fogelsong stated the HCP will look at their area of influences. They have
preliminary opinions on the area of influence and how far downstream are quantity
and quality issues influenced by the diversion. A set of consultants is looking at
that. The HCP will address those issues, as the diversion dam affects them. WRIA
is an iterative process. The first version comes out in June 2003. They all expect it
to be an adaptive management process to keep validating the model, adding
information to the model, and improving options produced out of the model.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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
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 asked if the various Planning Unit participants have received this
information on the HCP. Fogelsong stated he has given them updates. It's been a
while since the last. They will discuss the HCP process with them whenever they
talk about Lake Whatcom as a focus area.
Blake stated the USU work would answer quantity questions. The City is
collecting more extensive information that will improve reliability of some of the
answers.
Roll stated this has to go through the WRIA process. Next week is the
Planning Unit meeting. From there, they will see how the Planning Unit receives it.
Ultimately, it comes forward as an item for Joint Board consideration. Each of the
Council's will provide policy direction to their WRIA person at the Joint Board
meetings. They are on a tight timeframe. They need to get this worked out over
the next month so Parametrix can get going on their work.
Nelson asked how they are going to weight and narrow the criteria to deal
specifically with the problem that is being addressed.
Sydney Munger, Parametrix, stated Parametrix made a presentation to the
Joint Board on Friday. They talked about some proposed water management
solutions that are still in the long list of possible ways to manage water. They
talked about how they have been able to exclude some of those management
options from the list, based on criteria that exist. The reaction to the list of
examples of solutions was that some management options are too controversial,
and the Joint Board has already excluded them in concept. However, based on the
criteria that have been approved, they won't be excluded because there is not a
political criterion.
Parametrix decided at the Joint Board meeting that it needed to get guidance
from each of the intiating governments on how they want Parametrix to deal with
management options that could be controversial, but do not fall off the list based
on any of the technical, legal, or quality of life criteria.
John Toll, Parametrix, stated the weighting of criteria is to provide an
objective process for evaluating (inaudible). However the choice of weights isn't a
choice that one can make objectively. It has to be in the context of the people who
are going to be affected by the plan. That's why Parametrix needs to know the
values that the councils want to see come to the top.
Nelson asked how the legislative bodies provide information on the
importance of the areas for weighting. Toll stated they could characterize the
uncertainties in the data, but then there has to be some policy and political
guidance as to which way they go. It's not clear to Parametrix what the process is.
It's not part of the process that has been approved so far. As soon as they got to
the point to talk of examples of specific problems, then the questions of weights
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
has become important to people as well as the priorities of the different
governments who will be asked to approve the plan.
Nelson asked if they have identified criteria. They've identified three areas,
South Fork, Ten Mile, and Lynden north. Specific problems exist for each area.
The criteria for solving the problems will have different weights for different areas,
depending on the needs. He asked who would determine those needs and how.
Munger stated they are trying to select from amongst about 200 management
options to evaluate in some detail. They haven't excluded many management
options at this point. The question is whether it is okay to not exclude some of
those management options that will be controversial in the end.
Roll explained what they are looking for. Parametrix had a list of examples
presented to the Joint Board. One example was how they deal with Guide Meridian
water for future development, in the context of the Deer Creek Water Association
versus the City of Bellingham. There is an issue that needs to be address. That
issue was yanked off the table because a lot of the groups didn't want to deal with
it.
They are at a point when they begin to see these issues erupt, and they have
to ask which items are controversial. They are at a point in the process where they
have to go from the 200 feel -good options and narrow it down to the ones they can
implement. That is a huge struggle. Parametrix brings forward a list of proposed
management options that meet the criteria and get shot down.
Nelson stated they should have narrowed that scope of criteria before. Roll
stated it is one thing they can do to get further down the path.
Nelson stated they never go into problem - solving without fine - tuning the
criteria.
Roll stated the Joint Board has also struggled with how the information is
worked through the Joint Board. They are still working on that. All the groups
have very different interests. One of the things that Parametrix is trying to do with
this discussion is to get more movement in where the government sits regarding
the different issues. They are trying to feel out the different groups to see which
issues the government officials won't want to deal with.
Brenner stated the Guide Meridian issue has to be of interest to the City of
Bellingham and Whatcom County. She asked how it got bumped off. Roll stated it
is not bumped off. The concern is that if there is not support of the Joint Board
members to move it forward, then it won't go anywhere.
Brenner stated the major players in WRIA are the City of Bellingham,
Whatcom County, and the tribes. The tribes should be interested in this issue. She
doesn't understand where these decisions are coming from.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is consensus from the Joint Board about
where they want to go. Roll stated they will find areas with consensus.
Toll stated that at the Joint Board meeting, it was recommended that
Parametrix talk to each of the individual governments before talking to them
collectively as a group.
Munger stated they want to talk about their interests and where they don't
want Parametrix to go.
Nelson stated they can't evaluate the management options until they look at
the criteria and decide what the important criteria are. Roll stated the Council
adopted general criteria. Parametrix brought a bunch of these issues forward and
ran them through the criteria that were mutually adopted, and it doesn't triage
them down to five or ten. As they start to discuss these management options that
make it through the criteria, there is a political reluctance to engage some of the
issues.
Toll stated they really need to talk about which problems the governments
want Parametrix to apply the criteria for evaluating potential solutions.
Roll stated the Council has an interest in pursuing water quantity issues,
especially in the Lynden north area, as they pertain to existing water rights,
proposed water rights, and the balance between agricultural water use during
critical salmon habitat times. They want to make sure there is enough water for
the beneficial users in this critical area, so there are alternatives during periods of
the years when there is a low water quantity. Another quantity issue is sustaining
and maintaining critical salmon habitats in the South Fork areas. There are not
sufficient quantities of water in the South Fork to meet the existing instream flow
level. That is one of the arguments for looking at instream flows in that area. A
third issue is how to deal with the diversion at Lake Whatcom, it's impact on water
quantity and quality in the lake, and its relationship to providing water for salmon
in the Nooksack.
Sproul stated the criteria for use that the Council approved at the first cut
was to come back in another iteration. If that's the case, they are describing how
they refine the criteria for use by adding to the list of all the management options a
column that describes that option was chosen to be removed from the list, by
whom, and why.
Nelson stated they need to have the facts and assumptions to establish the
criteria. They don't include criteria that are not backed up by facts and
assumptions. He asked if that was done. Toll stated that is how they were
developed.
Munger stated the criteria were developed through this process.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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.
Nelson asked if they were backed up by facts and assumptions that they
have collected. For example, if one criterion is financial, then they should have the
facts on the costs of the various criteria they are going to use.
Toll stated they are not going to know everything.
Nelson stated that might be a way to remove criteria, if there isn't anything
to support the criteria. Toll stated it's not the criteria that would come out. It
would be the problems. They are problems that aren't feasible to address.
Nelson stated he isn't focusing on that yet. He's still trying to understand the
criteria. Roll stated he would provide the criteria to the councilmembers.
Nelson asked what they want to do today. Munger stated the proposal was
that Parametrix would have all the management options and all the criteria.
Parametrix has been screening the management options based on preliminary
information. Parametrix doesn't intend to get rid of very many at this point. This is
just the very beginning. They are going to apply the criteria several times through
the process as they get more and more information. They have to screen the
management options with the criteria. At this point, they don't have a lot of
information, so they want to screen the very obvious ones. They are wondering if
another criterion, which addresses whether a management option is politically
viable, needs to be added to the list.
Nelson stated he doesn't want to go there.
Brenner stated that's what the County Council needs to do when it comes
forward.
Nelson stated that is what they are asking. They're asking if that is an
appropriate way to make decisions.
Brenner stated it is. Everything is political.
Sproul suggested that they add a column listing other reasons best defined
by the political leaders, so it would not be a starter for the first version of
watershed management, but it doesn't remove it from possibility later on. It would
be a box saying that, for that particular management option, it is not perceived as
appropriate for the first version of the plan. The box would identify which decision -
making entity had that position. They still carry the entire list forward, so the next
group can see that information.
Nelson stated the criteria should take care of that. Sproul stated not all of
the criteria are as technically defensible. Some are political.
Brenner stated there are going to be options that are preferred politically.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated water quality, for example, is an issue in an area. They may
say they have to downzone. It would be a management option for water quality.
The criteria for downzones would be to go from agriculture to open space, or that
they limit it to a certain zone size. That might be politically something he would not
want to consider. The question is whether that is a good way for him to make
decisions. What he can do is weight it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they should be able to consider it.
Sproul stated they have a way, best defined by the decision - maker, to
determine which routes are not appropriate to go first.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that means that someone is already assigning a
weight to it.
Brenner stated that is not the only way to get what they want. There may
be other ways that are more palatable.
Nelson stated the councilmembers need to see what they are talking about.
Roll stated they will spend some time at the next opportunity to go through
the criteria and the management options. At this point, he doesn't hear the Council
saying that there are specific areas to stay away from.
Nelson stated his concern is the extent of the criteria.
Brenner stated another option is to leave the criteria in, and include weights
for affordability, public acceptance, and other factors. They can still get the result
they want.
Economic Sectors for Inclusion in Socio- Economic Analysis of Watershed
Management Plan
Roll stated he will need a decision on this at some point. This item will go
into the Planning and Development Committee for discussion next week.
Brenner stated she got a letter from some committee that was concerned
about how they evaluate the work plan economically. She asked if that was
incorporated into the recommendations. Sproul stated it was
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A. Side B is blank. Beginning of tape
three, side A.)
WRIA 1 Revised Structure & Function Diaaram Modifications
Roll stated this is just the watershed management plan development
structure function update. There have been some changes to it.
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked that there be an explanation of the changes next time.
Nelson moved to approve the current structure and function document.
Motion carried unanimously with McShane absent.
Watershed Plan Focus Area Status
Roll stated this would be discussed at the next Planning and Development
Committee meeting.
Watershed Plan Development Schedule
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on , 2002.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 5/14/2002, Page 18