HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources November 19 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
November 19, 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: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
WRIA 1 Parametrix SOW Clarification
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the Council should provide direction on
what to do with the adjustment to the Parametrix scope of work (SOW). She
recommended that the Council support it. Dr. Roll will need direction for the
Planning Unit meeting tomorrow night.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is no total increase in the
budget.
Blake stated there is $20,000, but they don't need additional funding.
Nelson stated they are asking for a modification of the SOW.
Fleetwood asked if Dr. Roll thinks the clarifications are reasonable. Blake
stated he does.
Blake stated the models won't be ready as soon as they thought. There are
issues with instream flow. As a result, the original plan had to be modified. The
modified document references the original SOW. Parametrix will still look at and
recommend management options, write the implementation and adaptive
management component, write the plan by June 2003, and do a socioeconomic
analysis. The main difference, in terms of management options, is that Parametrix
will not be able to use the models to evaluate scenarios for technical validity. They
could assist the County in evaluating the models as they get built and as they start
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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.
to use them as they run management scenarios. There is no longer an
environmental impact statement (EIS) section. They will rely on the work the State
is doing with Programmatic EIS. A substantial amount of money was tied to that
task in the original SOW. That has been shuffled to these other activities. The
models won't be ready in time to run the technical evaluations, so they are going to
have to develop management options outside of using the models. That's where
the pilot projects and WRIA -wide solutions will come in. More emphasis will be
placed on those activities in this SOW. With the socioeconomic analysis, they had
hoped to have more detailed socioeconomic analysis of the management options.
Because they won't have run them through the models, they won't have the
scenarios. They still have baseline information.
Nelson stated he was significantly concerned about that. The socioeconomic
impacts are the impacts to the community. He asked if the County would still
evaluate all the environmental, social, and economic ramifications. Blake stated
there is a way to do that evaluation in the future. There will be a baseline
evaluation. The dilemma has been that there is nothing for them to do if there is
no detail.
Crawford asked what non - market goods and services are. Blake stated she
would find out. They are things that are difficult to attach a funding value to.
Brenner stated there are no definitions. Blake stated she has definitions in
another document.
Brenner asked why they don't just change the date of the plan deadline.
They've had this focus on being the first for so long. Whatcom County is ahead of
everyone else. Blake stated it is the deadline under the legislation. They've
discussed trying to extend the deadline. At this point, they've agreed to stick with
the deadline. Because it includes implementation and adaptive management, there
is not a magic date when they are done. They are going to do as much as they
can. People have felt that the critical thing is to set up the long -term structure. In
setting that up, it is critical to know if there is any hope to continue working on
these things anyway.
Brenner stated people on the Planning Unit are becoming frustrated and
think they are losing focus. It's important to have faith in the process and the
public's trust.
Nelson stated the Council would like to have a hearing that includes staff, the
Planning Unit, and any others who are interested. There are concerns about
timeframes and the funding mechanism. They need to get back on the same page.
Brenner stated they are still talking about doing pilot projects. They are also
talking about discovering existing programs in the WRIA -wide area. She thought
they had already done that at the beginning of the process. She understood that
they hired consultants to help determine the order in which to do things. The kinds
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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.
of projects should have been done on a parallel track. Blake stated the value of
examining programs is to make sure tasks are not being duplicated.
Brenner asked how they would duplicate anything if they'd identified the
programs up front. Blake stated they are doing that now with the assistance of the
technical team. People have been busy with other things, so this is where this
evaluation fits into the process now.
Fleetwood asked for an example of a pilot project. Blake stated the draft list
of ideas from Parametrix includes things like agricultural drainage, assistance to
landowners for habitat enhancements, and off - channel habitat restoration and
storage. There are 17 things on the list at this point.
Fleetwood asked if there are any pilot projects regarding the socioeconomic
analysis. Blake stated these projects are listed by how they would affect quality,
quantity, instream flow, and habitat.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
Government Affairs Officer, stated low- impact development is an example, such as
using areas identified as those where growth is likely to occur, identify the water
resources there, and identify a different style of housing cluster.
Nelson asked how they evaluate those programs.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated it
focuses on the four areas. The objective of the pilots is to identify a project that
will address as many of those four components as they can. Part of the evaluation
of the pilot project is to identify whether they have hit their targets. There will be a
baseline. They will also ask the question of whether the project is cost - effective.
One criterion for the pilot projects is whether people can afford it.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated there are three answers
for why this needs to be done now. There is a legislative deadline. Time is money.
Continuity of effort is necessary.
Brenner stated that is correct. However, previous processes ended up losing
people. She's concerned that everyone is able to understand what is going on.
Brenner asked if they have done anything with groundwater quantities.
Blake stated they have. There is still discussion about the appropriate groundwater
quantity model to use. They have basin data. They don't have an extensive
amount of data.
Brenner asked why the County couldn't start doing the pilot projects before
the plan is finished. Blake stated funding, resources, and staff are attached to the
projects. It will take time to figure that out for the projects. They want to make
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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.
sure everyone has the opportunity to endorse the plan before going forward with
projects. They have implemented a couple of early- action projects.
Brenner stated she was under the impression that the State Department of
Ecology (DOE) already defined all water with hydraulic continuity as groundwater.
Blake stated it doesn't alleviate the hydraulic continuity issue, but it is an
opportunity to see if there are ways to do that without adverse effects to instream
flow. They want to see if they can still do this management option under some
circumstances. They still have to deal with groundwater issues.
Nelson asked if there are options for groundwater study that may not parallel
the State requirement. Monsen stated hydraulic continuity is a simplistic model
within State law, which should not be applied simply in many cases.
Blake stated one thing they are going to have to look at is the extent to
which the programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) will be sufficient,
how it will relate, and whether additional work will be needed. They didn't say they
are not going to do more work on this. They are suggesting a pause right now until
they have a reason to pursue this further.
Roy asked about the emphasis. If they get deeply into this, it could lead to
changes in legislation. Someone with expertise has said it is not optimistic to affect
legislative change. She asked the amount of resources they are putting into this
piece. Blake stated it is an idea now. Criteria are being developed against which
each project will be evaluated.
Brenner asked how far they are over the timeline and budget. Blake stated
she doesn't have an answer to that. She is working hard to keep them on task and
on budget. It is clear there is no additional money.
Brenner asked how they are going to get the criteria in the application
process going. Thompson stated the watershed technical team is developing those
criteria. It is not a task Parametrix is responsible for.
Monsen stated a Parametrix deliverable is not a specific task, but is spending
some time offering review and comments.
Blake stated the criteria for screening pilot projects would have to be in the
plan.
Brenner stated there is no need to have acronyms. Blake stated they could
expand it out.
Nelson stated he preferred to have a page with the acronyms listed along
with their meanings.
Brenner moved to amend the document so the acronyms are spelled out.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Roy, and Caskey- Schreiber in favor.
McShane moved to have a page of acronym definitions.
Brenner stated they would inadvertently leave some out.
Monsen stated that for documents he receives from someone else, staff
would always include an acronym sheet specific to that document.
Brenner asked for a friendly amendment that small acronyms just be spelled
out.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment and stated a master list is critical.
The people who provide comments and replies are not going to spell out the
phrases that are represented by acronyms.
Brenner suggested that the motion apply only to the staff team.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced the information on page 18, Subtask 1.1.6.1.1, regarding
baseline conditions. She asked if the information on anthropogenic changes
already exists.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Blake stated it needs to be looked at and handled differently to be integrated
into the models. This subtask is an existing item for USU to work with Parametrix
on.
Brenner asked why they are doing a "no action" scenario. Blake stated it
provides a basis of comparison. They don't have that information for all the
questions that will be posed. They haven't run the models on those kinds of
questions yet.
Monsen stated a no- action scenario is because things still happen, even if
they don't change what they do.
Roy stated there could be socio- economic and other implications to no- action
scenarios.
Brenner asked how adoption of the watershed plan is likely to have an
adverse impact on the environment. Blake stated she doesn't have an explanation.
She will find out.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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.
Fleetwood asked for a description of a Statewide programmatic EIS. Monsen
stated it is very common to go through environmental impact analysis in planning
concepts. Depending on the projects, there may not need to be further
environmental review.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the key to making this work is the cooperation of
implementing agencies. Blake stated the draft plan would include an
implementation strategy.
Fleetwood asked the final process. Blake stated the County Council would
require that the other legislative bodies, which are the initiating governments,
approve it.
Fleetwood asked what happens if there is not consensus on the plan.
Monsen stated there won't be a plan under the legislation. There will still exist a
body of work that can be used on the project.
Crawford stated he would like there to be some kind of project dealing with
economic impacts to agriculture. The agriculture community's number one concern
is availability of water. Address the concerns of the community with a pilot project
addressing the agricultural issue and future water availability.
Nelson asked if the agricultural community is represented on the Planning
Unit. Blake stated it is. There are a number of pilot projects regarding agriculture.
Nelson asked if there is something more that Councilmember Crawford is
asking for.
Crawford stated the County Council needs to communicate to staff that
agriculture is a higher priority than tourism, for example. Blake stated the County
has not advocated for one group over another at this point. To do that is going to
be a shift in how the County comes to the table, which they should think about
carefully. There are larger implications to doing that.
Crawford stated the County should talk about its priorities for pilot projects.
As a Council, they have struggled with how residential development should occur in
the rural areas. Water availability is critical to residential development. That is
something they need to discuss.
Brenner stated there are comments from Skip Richards about setting up a
taxing district or a water user's fee, based on the amount of usage. The
agricultural community is a big water user. If the County tacks on more fees just
because the agriculture community is a big water user, it defeats the purpose of
trying to keep agriculture viable. She would rather stick within the funds that exist
now and pace themselves.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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 asked if the Council would be able to give input on proposed pilot
projects. Blake stated staff is on a tight timeframe for narrowing down the list of
projects. They want to have a narrowed list be December.
Crawford stated he would like to see what those projects are at their next
meeting.
Monsen stated it is appropriate for the Council to convey its priorities on the
pilot projects.
Fleetwood stated quantity and supply of water drives all of this. He's hearing
that they don't have baseline quantity assessments. Blake stated it is not that
black and white. They know a fair amount about quantity. More needs to be
understood. Models are being built for that. They will know a lot more by June.
There is sufficient data to make assumptions. When they get results from the
models, the results will contain a certainty factor.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would be difficult to truly assess the quantity of
water that the agricultural community uses because of the water right issue. She
asked if farmers are really coming forward and admitting how much they use.
Blake stated part of this project involved doing water use estimates. The Public
Utility District (PUD) came up with some estimates.
McShane moved to direct the Water Resources Division staff to vote in favor
of the Parametrix scope of work amendment at the Planning Unit meeting.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 11:25 a.m.)
WRIA 1 Utah State University SOW Clarification
Blake stated they are looking at the Utah State University (USU) phase III
scope of work (SOW). Staff will come back with recommendations for changes.
They are likely to see an extended timeline because the models will need more
time.
Independent Peer Review for USU Work
Blake stated staff would also recommend a change to how the peer review
process is handled. Instead of leaving it in Utah State University's hands, staff
would coordinate the peer review work locally with existing resources. The peer
reviewers were chosen through a process long ago. They are going to have to
review who was selected for each area to see if those people are still available and
still have the skills they need to do peer review. More work needs to be done to
make sure they have the right people.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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 how the selection process was done. Blake stated staff asked
the Planning Unit and polled the initiating governments and staff for a list of names.
Criteria were applied to each. Two or three were chosen for each of the four
components.
Robin Dexter, Planning Unit Environmental Caucus member, asked the
Council to take an interest in the Utah State University staff to get some idea of the
ongoing care and feeding of this model and the budget implications three and four
years out. These are a significant budgetary item. He doesn't want any threat of
unraveling the work that has gone on by an inability to fund this on an ongoing
basis. The care and feeding of the model is no good if they don't keep up on it.
Blake stated that generating and using data continuously has to be part of
implementation.
Brenner stated there are other options instead of creating a new source of
funding, such as using the funding sources they have and pacing themselves.
Instream Flows Update
Thompson stated there are two pieces of information. The summary report
from the instream flow methodology proposal is in the Council's packet. It is the
final draft for review.
Monsen stated staff would continue discussion of this in the Council's next
Natural Resource Committee meeting. The recommendation now is to have legal
review of these concepts and issues, which can be included in the discussions.
Brenner asked whom the summary was for. Thompson stated the summary
was for the staff team, technical team, leads, and Planning Unit. The outcome of
the symposium was identifying a process that would identify an action plan. The
draft in the packet is the draft action plan. The intent is to get policy and legal
review, have entities work on it and bring it back to the work group, and finalize a
draft for review. The results of the report are fairly technical in how they are
presented. They are leading into the substance. The intent of the action plan is to
identify the steps they are going to need to take, how people are represented in
selecting the instream flows they will use for water management in WRIA 1.
Brenner asked for a summary of the summary for lay people. Thompson
stated it would be beyond what USU is tasked with.
Monsen stated the discussion at the Natural Resources Committee would be
to consolidate this information and bring it forward in a legal context as well.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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.
WRIA Implementation
Monsen stated two work groups are discussing implementation, one
associated with the initiating governments and one associated with the Planning
Unit. Now that they are beginning to understand the direction of the planning, they
need to decide what to do with that knowledge and how to implement the planning.
The information in the packet was produced by Parametrix and intends to list all
options and every possibility. The two work groups are asking "what if" questions.
In the context of water resource management, things like the watershed
project are going forward. A significant part of that is instream flow. They've
already done work on flood hazard planning, Lake Whatcom, stormwater
management, and shellfish issues. Make sure they understand that there is more
than just implementing the larger plan. While the plan is big, it is not everything.
They also have to make sure all the water resource management issues are
connected, they only do things once, and they share, consolidate, or separate for
efficiency reasons. Someone needs to step back and make sure all the pieces truly
fit together before they can finish the implementation design for the watershed
project. The term "governance" is the local governments. Governance is also used
to describe the parts of a government structure. It isn't meant to imply full
authority to enact and carry out. They could substitute the word "process."
Brenner stated they should not include the federal government and State
involved in the day -to -day approval. Monsen stated he agreed. He's checking
about things like that with everyone involved in the process. The federal
government has a direct interest to instream flows because of treaty issues. That
doesn't mean they have authority over any of the pieces.
Nelson stated he would want to hear from the State and federal side before
the County spends a lot of money on issues that concern the State and federal
governments' governance authorities.
Brenner stated the governance board will consist of many members doing
many functions, and the County has to hold up the processes until the federal and
State representatives show up. Monsen stated the tone implies they are creating
authority to act. It is more accurate to say they only have authority if it was given
to them. The County can take that authority away at any moment.
Monsen asked for Council support to make sure staff is not forgetting the big
picture regarding implementation. There are organizational and financing issues
out there.
Nelson stated they are first dealing with the organizational structure. The
concern is what is meant by the term "governing body." Monsen stated the concept
of governance doesn't convey independent authority to change everything. The
concept is that every legislative body of the agencies on the government assembly
has approved the document.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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.
Fleetwood asked if the governance structure might be created by interlocal
agreement. There will not be the ability to create law. He hoped that they would
use that entity to create consensus. Each entity will go back to their governments
to implement with law. Monsen stated that is correct. Monsen stated the
governments approve the watershed implementation plan, which is handed to the
government assembly to implement. If something isn't in the plan, the government
assembly doesn't have the authority to act.
Crawford asked what would happen if the County Council adopted the
Parametrix Implementation Strategy Attachment A, governing body membership,
with the choice of number one as amended, "...Joint Board" possibly expanded to
0 nelude representatives of State and federal interests� This body would...."
However, they should make reference to State and federal interests under an
advisory or other group, not a governing group. Monsen stated the effect would be
to define a portion of one of the lower boxes on his chart. The focus of the motion
is implementing the watershed management project.
Crawford asked if it is appropriate for the County Council to take a position at
this time. Monsen stated it is not because they are not ready for that kind of
endorsement. Staff needs to hear from the County Council about the parameters of
where staff should continue to work so staff does not present anything that the
County Council would automatically reject.
Crawford stated they should make sure no one is excluded from the process.
Fleetwood stated he would like to have some assurance that, whatever the
governance structure is, it is written so that whatever comes out of the governance
structure is binding to implement. He's concerned that consensus will fall apart
when it goes to the various governments.
Nelson asked where something goes once it goes into the refinement process
through the decision support system (DSS). Monsen stated those who originally
adopted the plan will need to reconsider and re- adopt. This is meant to explain the
work within the adopted process. The government assembly will never have the
authority to change the plan. The crux of the debate is when new information falls
into the purview of the administration and when it has to go to policymakers for
change in authority.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 12:20 p.m.)
Monsen stated a debate about governance is the premise that someone will
create a funding source. They are talking now about how to decide to spend the
funds. The assumption is that there will be money to spend on those in the
process. Everyone involved in WRIA, salmon, and all the other issues want
assurance that there will be money to spend.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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 current flood district and flood fee formula was put in place to deal with
flood hazard planning, and adjusted to deal with comprehensive water resource
planning. The fee formula was never designed to implement the plan. The flood
district fee would need to be rebuilt if it is used for that purpose.
McShane stated they should think about doing that anyway for current flood
projects. Look at the fees in the context of who is benefiting from the fee.
Monsen stated fee based revenue is designed only when they know exactly
what they are going to do with it.
Brenner stated the flood fee as it is now is not a fee. It is a tax based on
property value assessment.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they are very aware and
sensitive to that concern, which is why this is coming forward. They have to
rethink the method of raising revenue to fund implementation.
Nelson asked how development of a new funding mechanism would go to the
Planning Unit. Monsen stated they would have to define what they are going to do
with the revenue. Then he will provide advice on the alternatives and options.
Now, it is still unclear on what the County intends to do.
Nelson asked if the State or other jurisdictions have looked at this problem.
Monsen stated the State would rather talk about other financial issues.
Brenner asked if the County could legally do away with the flood fee and
have a WRIA -based fee that flood projects would fall under. Gibson stated they
need an authority to do that. The current authority is through RCW 86.15.
Application of those monies has to fit in the scope and intent of flood management.
There is no other general WRIA authority for a fee.
Nelson stated it is the State's responsibility to allow local funding
mechanisms.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Monsen stated the general agreement is that the basic infrastructure to
implement the WRIA project needs to be a countywide revenue source. There are
four basic options for a countywide revenue source: the County general fund, Public
Utility District (PUD), Port of Bellingham, and a countywide special district. Those
options exist in concept. Until they decide what they want to do for
implementation, some of the basic options may fall off the table.
Brenner asked if they could eliminate the flood fee and roll it into a
countywide special district that encompasses flood issues. Gibson stated there is
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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.
no fundraising authority for a WRIA district. The County can fund WRIA
implementation through the general fund.
Brenner stated that is not a fee. Gibson stated there has to be a link
between a benefit to a particular group of people and the money they are spending.
They should not use fees to fund administrative infrastructure, which is part of what
they are talking about.
Monsen stated support of programs would influence funding alternatives. He
read the five prime categories of programs, which include water supply and water
rights, instream flows, near shore marine issues, flood hazard management, and
stormwater. Depending on how they design the programs, they may use the same
revenue source to deal with some of the administrative infrastructure, or they may
use a different source.
Nelson asked if there are funding capabilities for those areas. Monsen stated
the County has legal authority for funding those categories. Some of those funding
mechanisms may be different for each area. It depends on the priorities they
choose to implement. There could also be a single source for funding. In January
and February, they will begin to discuss alternatives for programmatic actions and
including financial information. They can begin to design the programs and decide
how much money will be allocated to the programs. The Water Resources Division
staff is focused on the WRIA plan and its implementation. He is trying to focus on
the big picture and comply with stormwater management federal laws. He assumes
they will continue something like the current flood hazard program.
Fleetwood asked if part of this process includes asking the legislators for
more authority. Monsen stated he would recommend that the Council asks for
more authority. There is a lot of authority out there.
Brenner asked if the Council should really ask the legislature not to give the
County unfunded mandates. This needs to be funded at the federal and State level.
This is something they are requiring of the County. Gibson stated one comment
was that the County is relatively far along in the process, comparatively speaking,
to other WRIA's in the State. There is always the implied promise that there may
be assistance from other levels when they get to that point. He would not count on
that. They shouldn't build a program on it. Just hope it happens.
2. LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Update on WRIA Parallel Process
Blake stated this is the staff's recommended approach for dealing with Lake
Whatcom. They've had to do the same thing as Parametrix, which is looking at
what they are doing based on the information from the models. She presented an
update of what they are doing. They are going to work on five tasks. They want to
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, 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
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.
continue working with USU and completing the technical models. They will do
preliminary work on technical evaluations and management options with USU.
They know they may not be able to come up with management actions in the short
term, but they want to keep working with USU. Another task is to identify interim
work in the watershed. Task four refers to establishing benchmarks. This is the
main item they are working on now. Unless the Council has other ideas for what
staff should work on in the watershed now, the focus is on establishing
benchmarks. The last task is the socioeconomic analysis. Money was earmarked
for Lake Whatcom. Hal Hart is the main contact for that. That task will come to
the Council as a scope of work. Those are the five tasks that staff is working on for
the parallel process. There will be additional information on benchmarking in the
coming months.
Brenner asked who is making the recommendations and suggestions noted in
the handout. Blake stated that recommendation and comment came from
everyone in the public who commented. Not all were related to management
changes. She pulled out all the recommendations for management changes and
included them in this handout.
Brenner stated the word "recommendations" should be changed to
"comments."
Blake stated one of the more challenging discussions relates to surface water
quality. One of the dilemmas is knowing how far they want to go, whether meeting
the standards is good enough, and whether they want to go beyond meeting
standards. They need to discuss that more.
Sudden Valley Community Association Agreement
This item was held to the next Natural Resources Committee.
3. MARINE RESOURCES
Whatcom County Marine Resources Grant Application
This item was held to the next Natural Resources Committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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.
These minutes were approved by Council on January 14 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 11/19/2002, Page 14