HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession July 17 20011
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
48
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
July 17, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:25 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Marlene Dawson
Connie Hoag
Robert Imhof
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Draft Plan Development RFP for Planning Unit Consideration
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated they are working toward
accomplishing paths germane to the actual creation of the plan. Those paths
include writing the plan, the accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS),
and analysis of the social- economic factors that influence decision - making in the
WRIA. The fourth component is providing resources for some of the public
information and education pieces needed to making the technical information
understandable to the public.
The Planning Unit met last month and provided direction to staff and a
subcommittee to craft a request for proposals (RFP). In the Council packet is a
description of the course taken on that RFP. He submitted the supplemental packet
that went to the Planning Unit (on file). He is seeking County Council direction to
support the RFP that is being proposed for accomplishing these tasks. This is one
of the last major large pieces needed to join the technical data with the other
components of the plan. At this point, they are looking at costs from $500,000 to
$1 million to carry the plan through to completion in 2003.
Scarlet Tang, Public Information and Education, stated they issued a request
for qualifications (RFQ) first to sort out the unqualified candidates from qualified
candidates. Before they ask firms to go through the effort of submitting a full -
length proposal, they are going to get qualifications first before requesting a
proposal.
Nelson asked how many groups would qualify. Tang stated she expected to
get proposals from six good consulting teams.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
Brenner questioned whether the County Council needed to approve the RFQ.
Tang stated that the RFP is going forward for approval at the Planning Unit
meeting. The RFQ has already gone out.
Roll stated there is a timeline for these things to transpire. It is a tight
timeline. The approval process will have to go through a number of people.
Nelson asked how long they anticipate the scope of work to take. Tang
stated it has to be done by June 2003.
Roll stated he has to provide information to his caucus, the County Council,
before the Planning Unit meeting. The Council packet includes a description of what
is being proposed.
Crawford asked if the money is something that has been part of past
financial discussions. Roll stated it has been.
Crawford questioned where they are on the financial continuum. Roll stated
they will need to find additional monies late next year, when there is a higher level
of expenditure.
Crawford asked if this is a big part of that higher level of expenditure. Roll
stated it is. There are two large components. This is one of the large components.
The other is the set of technical studies. This activity will determine how the
decision - support system (DSS) is going to interface with the planning efforts.
Crawford questioned whether there is a possibility that the final report will
say this process is not going to work. Roll stated this is an evaluation of options
and the feasibility of implementing such options. They will identify the options
germane to instream flow, fish habitat, quantity, and quality. Part of the EIS is to
look at the options and evaluate them for cost and feasibility. Only those
management options that are likely to be implemented will be included in the plan.
Expect a series of options that are coordinated through the development of the plan
and incorporated into the plan. A key component is acknowledgement that they
will not answer every water resource question that everyone wants an answer to.
On an annual basis, they will look at priorities and issues that transpire over the
next decade. This will provide more definition, based on science, as to the course
that could be chosen related to land use and water quality and quantity.
Crawford asked the kinds of companies that will respond to the RFP. Tang
stated planning and water resource management companies would respond.
Crawford asked how the RFP is advertised. Tang stated it is advertised
through the City of Bellingham RFP process.
Crawford asked if any local firms would respond. Tang stated that so far only
Seattle -area firms have responded.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated many of the local jurisdictions look to these firms for help.
There are only so many groups that can do these things. As the firms get picked
off, there are fewer and fewer to choose from. He appreciates staff keeping this
moving forward.
Brenner stated she couldn't vote yes on this today because there is not
enough time to read it. She suggested that it be scheduled before the Natural
Resource Committee and Council for approval at the next Council meeting.
Crawford questioned why they go through the City purchasing. Roll stated
the Joint Board designated the City's accounting department for the accounting
services. It's in the Joint Board contract to do all the accounting work.
Crawford asked if the County pays the City. Roll stated it is a Joint Board
budget item. The interlocal agreement specifies that the Joint Board has to adhere
to the same purchasing rules as the Washington State purchasing policy and the
County. The City is acting on behalf of the Joint Board, and not going out on its
own.
2. LAKE WHATCOM
Land Preservation Criteria
Roll stated they are trying to get adoption of joint criteria for land
preservation. Preservation means all those activities associated with preserving
and protecting land. It doesn't imply only acquisition. There are other methods,
such as conservation easements and the use of Conservation Futures funds. It
could also mean management practices and issues related to overlays. The
Citizens Task Force, charged by the Lake Whatcom Management Committee, came
up with criteria for this activity. From there, the recommended criteria went to
staff and jurisdictions. Some modifications were made. A proposal came out of
that process. Erika Stroebel would discuss the process that the criteria went
through. These criteria don't imply how they manage those areas. It is a way of
homing in on those properties most critical for watershed protection. The criteria
are not the management package for applying preservation strategies to the
watershed. This is a template for making sure they are targeting the appropriate
parcels for protection.
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated there are three maps showing the various
stages the criteria went through. The first map represents the Citizen Task Force
recommendations that came forward to the Lake Whatcom Management
Committee. The second map is a representation of their criteria before there was
an adjustment made to the range of scores. The third map represents where they
are now. The range of scores was from one to 312. They changed it to one to 100
to simplify the criteria. There was no intent to change the areas that were
identified as high, medium, and low priority. However, some of the areas did
change.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
Staff looked at both sets of scores and the maps that were generated. Some
of the areas that were scored has high or medium -high were lost. Staff
recommended going back to the original set of scores. That recommendation is
what came to the County Council. In addition, staff recommended that they look at
a one -mile radius distance from drinking water intakes. The Task Force
recommendations pulled out elements that were not included in the numeric
criteria, but were important to consider. Staff created site - specific assessments.
Staff recommendations included a concern about the one -mile radius around the
intakes. It is not included now.
Another concern was about the zoning scores. They felt the zoning scores
promoted urban sprawl rather than infill. A greater weight was given to zoning
designations. Scores were changed for more equality between zoning densities and
four sets of criteria.
Both Water District 10 and the City of Bellingham support the land
preservation criteria. They are hoping to adopt a resolution adopting these criteria
at the September 13 joint Council /Commission meeting.
Brenner asked if this information has been relayed to the Task Force
members for their input. Stroebel stated it has not.
Brenner stated it would be helpful to send the final map to the committee
members to request their questions and concerns, out of respect of the committee
members.
McShane stated he spoke to the committee chair. The committee members'
questioned why the numbers were changed. This explains why, and the answer
seems to be fitting.
Nelson stated it still looks like the same map. It doesn't really change what
they want to preserve. There are only a certain amount of resources available.
Riparian areas are going to be the top targets.
Brenner stated she agreed. However, she's served on committees before. It
is respectful to keep the committee members apprised of what has happened to
their recommendations.
Nelson stated many of these lands are forestlands owned by the state
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or are owned privately. Those areas would
be a high priority for purchase or preservation in some fashion. Ask the Forestry
Forum what that means to people doing forestry practices. Ask what the intent is
for those areas. This will have a great impact to DNR landscape planning and the
landscape plan group. Stroebel stated this is the first step to identify the areas
they want to protect. The land preservation criteria do not determine how they will
preserve these areas. Many of the DNR areas already have some level of
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
protection. Through other incentive programs and discussions and agreements,
they may be able to encourage a wider buffer around riparian areas.
McShane questioned the buffer on the streams. Stroebel stated it depends
on the distance from a water body. The buffers range from zero to 200 feet, 200
feet to 400 feet, or greater than 400 feet.
Nelson questioned which stream classifications are involved. Stroebel stated
it doesn't identify the different stream classifications. It identifies proximity to any
water body.
Brenner asked if some of the water bodies could be seasonal. Stroebel
stated they could be.
Nelson asked if this would be something that the Forestry Forum would have
questions about.
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley, stated it is.
Nelson stated this may have impacts to forestry practices, and the foresters
may want to provide input about their comments and concerns before the joint
councils make a decision. The private landowners will have to be involved. He
wants a clear definition of what it means. Stroebel stated there isn't a clear
definition of what it means.
Roll stated the land preservation criteria don't determine how they are going
to protect those areas. They need to create the tools necessary and to understand
where to apply those tools. That toolbox needs to be created. The map shows
what areas will be managed to not harm water quality.
Brenner stated that if the Forestry Forum gets on board early they won't
have any big shocks.
Nelson suggested that DNR have an opportunity to respond to the land
preservation criteria. He will also schedule it for the August Forestry Forum
meeting.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated it is appropriate to give
the criteria to the DNR's Landscape Committee also, which is looking now at DNR
lands. He asked if the riparian areas include all streams, including class IV and
Class V streams. Stroebel stated the criteria include any water body. The maps
are an educational tool, and they do not use them solely to determine whether a
site is a high priority. Staff from the City, the County, and Water District 10,
depending on who is bringing forward a proposal, would visit a site and look at the
other characteristics in the site - specific assessment.
Beddill stated that those categories of streams were never a part of the
major discussion by the Citizen Task Force. The discussion did not go to that level.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Stroebel stated that on September 13, staff will ask for approval of the joint
resolution that adopts the criteria. At that point, they are not asking for adoption of
any preservation tools or management strategies. They are only looking at the
land preservation criteria.
Nelson stated those potential tools are how people are going to respond to
whether or not they want to adopt this joint resolution. That discussion needs to
begin.
Roll stated staff is hoping to take the best science available to come up with
this first, and then drive the decisions based on the science instead of other issues.
Originally, they envisioned development of these criteria, then the options, and
then how they manage the options.
Nelson stated that the forestry industry would rather find mechanisms to
compensate and enhance the value of the areas rather than impose more
regulations.
McShane stated it is okay to adopt this as it is now. It closely represents
what the Citizen Task Force recommended. It would be important, after this is
adopted, to show that they don't need to worry about critical forestry areas
because they are already taken care of.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane continued to state that in certain areas, the DNR Landscape Plan
has identified areas much larger than those on the land preservation criteria map
for not harvesting timber. They are talking about buffers larger than the standard
buffer width. The ideal scenario is to take the map as it is to the Forestry Forum
and have a good discussion about those streams. They may find areas that fit the
preservation criteria. He moved to recommend approval of the land preservation
criteria.
Beddill suggested designating on the map those lands that are already in
public ownership.
Crawford stated he was concerned that areas with heavy human contact
have a lower priority. Stroebel stated many of those areas are already developed,
and the potential for protection is gone.
Watts stated the City Council approved the land preservation criteria at its
July 16 meeting.
Brenner stated she was not comfortable voting at this time. She has no
concerns about the criteria, but she wants to make sure everyone else feels
comfortable with it and is on board. The process needs to have people be involved.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
McShane amended his motion to make no changes to the criteria, and
approve it at the joint meeting on September 13
Motion failed 2 -1 -1 with Nelson opposed and Brenner abstaining.
Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management
Roll stated the state Department of Ecology is a TMDL for Lake Whatcom.
Last year, Congress felt there were a number of issues related to the nationwide
TMDL program that were of concern, and requested the National Academy of
Sciences do a thorough assessment of the TMDL approach in terms of water quality
management. He distributed a prepublication copy of the assessment. It is one of
the better reports that describes the history of the TMDL process. It is a very good
report.
Brenner asked if this would answer the question of the best available science.
Roll stated they need to consider the aspects of water quality stewardship and the
importance of being good stewards of the lake. They are never going to find data
that will make everyone happy. If they wait to find that data, they will wait too
long. He hopes that they gather enough scientific information to make hard
decisions now, and not wait until they've gathered enough science that everyone
agrees on.
Brenner asked if this would give them more of a definitive understanding of
doing a moratorium. Roll stated this won't.
Nelson stated this only describes what TMDL means and how they should be
evaluated.
Roll stated he didn't want people to think that any one thing would help
preserve Lake Whatcom. A TMDL is a tool, it is not a savior. It is a tool they can
apply.
McShane asked the timeframe of the TMDL process, based on this point. Roll
stated the timeline is six to eight months. There is a tight timeline.
3. RIVER AND FLOOD
Saar Creek Update
Paula Cooper, River /Flood Engineering Manager, stated she has had several
site visits with the Fisheries agent. She is having a difference of opinion with the
agent, who insists on putting the trap at the downstream end of the reach, which
will do nothing to solve the problem. She has talked to the agent's boss, who has
identified their issues with putting the trap at the upstream reach. There are three
issues. The County's consultant is preparing a response to those three issues. If
that response doesn't work, she is at a loss. Their permit for a project they
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
constructed last year said they must build a sediment trap this summer. If they
don't, they will not be allowed to clean Saar Creek again. The Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) has identified it as a chum spawning reach, and fears that the
project will affect the habitat. She is not convinced that chum can't spawn in the
sediment trap.
Brenner asked if their concerns are reasonable. She questioned whether the
County could ask to see their science supporting their fear. Cooper stated she
talked to their scientist, who agreed with her reasoning. One of the three issues is
that the current habitat features will be lost. They can fix that with an intensive
replanting program. The second issue is that the gravel will not be there.
However, they don't have to dig out all the gravel. The third issue is that too much
gravel deposition will bury the reds.
McShane asked if they are worried about the area downstream of the trap
having a lack of gravel. Cooper stated they are worried about that. The County
addressed that with adaptive management, which is the part of the plan where they
will monitor the sediment gradation downstream.
Nelson questioned how large the trap is. Cooper stated the trap is 200 feet
long and 60 to 70 feet wide. They visited the Smith Creek sediment trap, which is
functioning well and provides fish habitat. The person who is going to issue the
permit is convinced about the plan, but that person's boss says that they need to
address the issue of the chum spawning area. Hopefully they can address the
issue.
Levee Repair and Maintenance Program Policies
Cooper stated this comes from the Flood Advisory Committee. The program
is prepared to fit under the auspice of Whatcom County Code (WCC) 17.20, the
flood Control Repair and Maintenance Program. This is a project that is
programmatic in nature. These policies include a description of the repair and
maintenance program. The vegetation maintenance component is new. Special
districts can apply for funding to get the levees into shape, which allows for flood
fighting and inspection.
Brenner questioned who does the spraying. Cooper stated local contractors
would do the spraying.
Crawford asked if the surface is more stable if it is maintained. Cooper
stated blackberries have bare earth underneath. It can be eroded more easily.
Also, one can't fight a flood in a blackberry patch.
McShane stated blackberries don't hold soil well.
Cooper stated this is a new direction in terms of helping the districts do
maintenance. There are budgetary implications.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated the funding amount is approximately $300,000 to $400,000
over three years. Cooper stated that is a rough estimate.
Nelson stated they will have to budget for it as a multi -year program, with
funding being dedicated in the first year for the full amount, recognizing that not all
expenditures will occur in the first year.
Brenner asked if they contract out the hydroseeding services. Cooper stated
they do.
Nelson questioned whether the work release programs could work on this.
Cooper stated the work release crews work on planting and maintaining plantings.
They need more work crews to do this. They don't have the capacity with the two
existing crews. She was not sure using the work release crews would be more cost
effective. They are not allowed to use certain equipment. This activity would be
contracted by the special districts, which would ask for reimbursement from the
County.
Crawford questioned whether the cost would cover all the levees in the
County. Cooper stated it does not. There are a couple of miles of levees that
missed an inspection.
McShane stated the idea is that the maintenance on the levees has gotten
behind schedule. The districts need some help to catch up. He questioned how the
County is going to be assured that the districts will continue the maintenance after
three years. Cooper stated the typical flood works agreement says that the local
sponsors are responsible for long -term maintenance. If they didn't maintain the
levees, and asked for more money in five years, that lack of maintenance activity
would be a reason to deny a request.
McShane stated they need a solution to ensure that the County does not
have to keep paying for maintenance.
Nelson questioned whether the County can impose a tax on a diking district,
or if the County could dissolve a diking district.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, stated a diking district can be
dissolved, but he would not advise that the County do it.
Nelson questioned whether the County could change a diking district to make
it a Countywide diking district. In the context of flood control and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the County is being forced into positions that have not
traditionally been County responsibilities. Gibson stated diking districts are special
purpose districts. The Flood Control Zone is a countywide district.
Nelson stated the County Council could set up approval criteria to be used
during the next request.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
McShane stated that the Diking Districts could be required to demonstrate
that they are financially viable and have a taxing rate that would generate enough
revenues to pay for ongoing maintenance. Not all the diking districts have been
doing the maintenance. Cooper stated these districts are new districts.
Nelson stated that there could be an agreement with the diking districts
before the funds are released. The agreement would outline a maintenance plan
and show a source for appropriate funding for future maintenance.
Cooper questioned whether this program needs any revisions before
adoption.
Nelson stated that it should be brought forward during the budget process as
a multi -year project.
Flood Hazard Reduction Program
Cooper stated this falls under WCC 17.20. It is a new program that is a sub-
program of the flood maintenance program. Repair and maintenance is aimed at
keeping damage level at historic levels. This Flood Hazard Reduction Program is
aimed at reducing flood damage levels.
Cooper questioned whether the Council wants to lock this program in at a
cost share of 80/20 or 85/15. This Committee of the Whole had stated it didn't
want to include land acquisition as an eligible cost. Those are the two questions.
This language is similar to language in a Corps of Engineers pamphlet. The eligible
costs include design, permitting, preparaton of plan, specification, and construction.
For all structural projects, the local sponsor must provide all lands, easements,
rights -of -way, and relocations of permitted disposable areas. For non - structural
projects, land acquisition can be a part of the cost. For structural projects, the local
sponsor needs to provide the land acquisition. She questioned whether they want
to make the applicant purchase the land.
Brenner stated she prefers to make the program more flexible.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8)
Brenner questioned why they would not include land acquisition as an eligible
cost. Cooper stated the Flood Advisory Committee looked at land costs being
different in the different cities. They felt it was more equal.
Brenner stated they could designate different areas in the county, and make
sure they are not spending more money in one area than another area. They don't
want to benefit only a certain area. She did not want to be locked into not being
able to pay for land acquisition in the total project cost that the County cost - shares.
Generally, she doesn't want to pay for land acquisition, but she doesn't want to say
she never will.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated he didn't want these to be political decisions. They need strict
criteria. He asked if land acquisition would become a difficult tool for them in the
future. They could leave the 80/20 program as it is, and make land acquisition a
separate decision. Cooper stated they could include language that land acquisition
would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis, but is generally not approved.
McShane stated he preferred to drop the prohibition and say that if the
sponsor cannot provide the land, then the project will be reviewed on a case -by-
case basis by the Flood Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors.
Nelson stated they would need a recommendation from the Flood Advisory
Committee, but the Board of Supervisors would make the decision.
Cooper stated she would work with the Flood Advisory Committee to
prioritize the recommendations. The Board of Supervisors would approve the final
allocation. She questioned whether the Council preferred the 80/20 cost - share.
Nelson stated they should keep the 80/20 cost -share and use the guidelines
for prioritization of projects.
Cooper stated the code cannot preclude the County from funding a project at
100 percent if it has a great public benefit and there is no sponsor. Also, a sponsor
can contribute more than its 15 or 20 percent if it wants too.
The Council concurred not to change the 80/20 cost share.
Cooper stated the Flood Advisory Committee's role will be to review and
prioritize projects. If there is a recommendation for an alternate funding share,
they can make it work.
4. SALMON RECOVERY
Lead Entity Citizens Habitat Committee
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated they are in the second year
of the Lead Entity Program. Whatcom County is in the second tier, and is eligible
for $60,000 to $70,000 per year for next two years. That money goes toward
defraying the costs of administering the Lead Entity Program. The main focus is
the Salmon Recovery Funding Board application process and administering the
Citizens Habitat Committee.
Nelson asked how Skagit County became a higher tier. Thompson stated the
rank is based also in part on the size of the basin. Also, the Skagit Watershed
Council is very well established. They have a well - formulated strategy that is
beyond the Whatcom County strategy. They've got a very good scientific technical
basis for their watershed restoration strategy.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
Whatcom County is in the process of looking at draft agreements with the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to contract for this
money. The agreement would be routed for approval. Part of the proposal for a
portion of the funding is to help the Nooksack Recovery Team (NRT) form and
partially fund a coordinator position to help fill core functions of the Citizen Habitat
Committee. The NRT is coordinating project identification and development.
Nelson stated there were concerns by the councilmembers at the last
presentation about the NRT board membership. Thompson stated there will be a
change in the bylaws to waive the membership fee or eliminate the fee altogether.
Barriers to membership would be eliminated. The County will have to negotiate a
lead entity contract with WDFW for the money. Possibly the County would write a
contract with NRT to perform some of those services.
Brenner asked Dan Gibson whether it would be legal to form this committee
to work with the County, and then require them to pay $100.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the $100 fee may be
waived.
Brenner stated it is not waived right now.
Thompson stated there would not be fees required for the citizen
participation positions.
Gibson stated other counties have used nonprofits to achieve the conditions
of the Citizens Habitat Committee.
Thompson stated there was also a question of the independence of technical
review. Currently, technical review is from agencies. That technical advisory group
is not part of the NRT. It operates more under the Joint Board, although there is
not a direct link. The Technical Advisory Group would retain its independence for
technical review. They are trying to identify the points where they really need
independence.
Nelson stated they need to have good criteria for the citizens group to work
with on the project ranking.
Visser, Zender, & Thurston Comments re_ aq rding ESA
Roll stated Councilmember Crawford is interested in discussing this letter.
He questioned whether the Council wants to discuss this letter at the September
Water Resources work session.
Nelson stated Mr. Zender wrote this letter. He questioned whether Mr.
Zender was contacted.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
48
Crawford stated he has talked to Mr. Zender. He suggested having a
discussion with Mr. Zender and others who have reached the same conclusions as
Mr. Zender. This letter was sent to the Planning Commission, which held a hearing
on the letter.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Planning Commission
discussed this letter. There was no public input, other than from Councilmember
Crawford, who recommended that the County not proceed with the Comprehensive
Plan policies this year. The Planning Commission, due to lack of input, began to
work on the policies and has made substantial changes. The Planning Commission
deleted about half of the policies and removed most of the reference to wanting to
restore or protect habitat. The Planning Commission left alone the policies that
talked about County road building process and advisory or voluntary types of
regulations. Those policies will come to the County Council.
Nelson questioned the direction the County Council gave regarding the choice
between path A and path B.
Crawford stated he recalled that the Council suggested that the Planning
Commission look at path B, which is more restrictive, and come up with what would
work out of that.
Goodwin stated the County Council docketed the policies for Planning
Commission review.
Crawford stated his position is that they should look carefully at habitat
restoration, not protection of the species.
Brenner stated that if they have this discussion with Zender and others, it
shouldn't be a one -sided discussion. They should invite an expert with a differing
position.
Gibson stated he made comments almost identical to Mr. Zender's comments
to the Council a couple of years ago.
Brenner stated she recalled that someone on staff recommended taking the
most restrictive path so the County would be guaranteed of getting through the
process. Gibson stated there are two different issues. One issue is the general
approach to ESA compliance. Whatcom County's position was that a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) would be time consuming and cost prohibitive. The Tri-
county experience has noted that. A second issue is the shoreline issue, which is
not unrelated to ESA compliance, but it is different. The recommendation was to
keep their options open. Don't chose path A or path B. Think about shoreline
changes in relation to ESA. However, the legal counsel to the County Council has
always said it does not want to be either in front or lagging in the rear. Set their
sights on realistic achievable goals that are economically and environmentally
sound.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
Nelson questioned whether that was the direction the Planning Commission
received. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission hasn't received a lot of
direction. They've attended presentations on ESA, but they feel like they don't
have the information the Council has. She suggested having joint work sessions
with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is making one kind of
decision, they are having public hearings with no public input, and they are not
going to get anywhere with any coordination if everyone is doing things separately
with different information. In the end, the Planning Commission recommendation
will just be the opinion of those members who were there, and not be anything that
is going to be of value to the Council.
They have a Comprehensive Plan docket item that has to move forward with
all of the others. The idea was that these would be the policy direction to use for
the next step, which is the Shoreline Ordinance and Critical Area Ordinance. If
Councilmember Crawford's recommendation to delay it a year is taken, then they
will just begin work on the policy that is the direction for the Shoreline and Critical
Areas ordinances at the same time they reach the deadline for having those
ordinances done.
Nelson suggested forming a Planning Commission subcommittee that would
work with the Council's Natural Resources Committee at an evening meeting.
Brenner stated she preferred that the full Planning Commission and the full
Council attend.
McShane stated they could have a joint committee meeting, and encourage
all commissioners and councilmembers to attend.
Gibson stated his advice regarding ESA was given to the Council, and not the
Planning Commission. He questioned whether Mr. Crawford felt that the Planning
Commission was not properly advised.
Crawford stated the staff report with recommended changes to the
Comprehensive Plan was premature. Zoning changes are based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to put the brakes on it a bit to make sure they are
changing a document that has profound consequences with the most enlightened
and cautious approach. Delay in this situation is preferable to error. Providing an
opportunity for the Council to listen to a forum of opinions would educate them all.
Nelson stated this would be scheduled for Planning Commission and Council
committees.
Gibson stated that they politicize the process by bringing in private Council.
Also, he does not advise the Planning Commission. He will consult with counsel to
the Planning Commission to make sure the Planning Commission is fully advised on
what the law is.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
Crawford stated he would go along with the wish of the Council. However,
he was not certain they would harm themselves by politicizing the process. He
wanted to hear the extreme points of view, and then see if they can compromise.
Nelson stated these are public meetings, and the public can comment at that
time through the public process.
The Council concurred on the process discussed.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 12:45 p.m. The quorum was lost.
End of tape two, side A.)
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission will finish looking at the policies
during their August meeting. The joint committee can look at the original policies,
what the Planning Commission recommended, and can work through the policies.
McShane stated this is something that would come forward to the Natural
Resources Committee. Including the Planning Commission and having that
dialogue may ease a lot of the tension.
Thompson stated part of the reason the Planning Commission did these
detailed amendments was because they were concerned that the Council would not
understand their original recommendation to deny. A joint meeting would allow the
Planning Commission to interact with the Council.
5. UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE PLAN
Roll stated the plan was introduced in February of 1999. The reason for
creating the plan was to coordinate water resource efforts in the county. A number
of issues needed to be addressed in the context of coordinated water resource
management, such as salmon recovery, the WRIA process, and shellfish. All issues
must be addressed. Since the adoption of the plan, they have had two updates to
the plan to describe the progress they are making. Now, they are at a point in
time, when they need to create a revision, which gets at the issue of defining the
objectives and services that the division will provide to the community. Describe
how they are getting to all the issues. As the Public Works Department combines in
the Olympic Building, the Water Resources Division and the flood staff will combine.
In this draft, they are beginning to describe tasks that have common themes
and benchmarks. They are beginning to be able to identify orders of magnitude on
things that need to be addressed. One of those areas is stormwater management.
The original plan did not include stormwater management. Updates identified
stormwater management as an emerging topic that the County would need to
address. The City of Bellingham has formed a utility for stormwater. Regulations
are coming out of the state Department of Ecology (DOE). The County will need to
do an evaluation of what the County is doing in relationship to these new
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, Page 15
1 regulations. Sort through the issue with the Planning Commission. Issues need to
2 be addressed in the context of stormwater management.
3
4 He cannot predict what they will ultimately have to do. It needs to be
5 defined in the context of the pending regulations of ESA and other impacts that
6 impair water bodies. As he goes through the budget process, he will bring forward
7 an additional service request (ASR) for what needs to be accomplished on
8 stormwater management in the coming year, so the Council can respond to
9 stormwater issues. There is nothing in the budget now for anything other than
10 tracking impending regulations. They may need to take it a step further and
11 determine what the regulations mean to County practices.
12
13 Nelson asked what they use the $250,000 for that is designated for
14 stormwater activities in Lake Whatcom. Roll stated the contract has been
15 completed, but not all components were completed. They were not able to provide
16 enough guidance to the contractor on the pending DOE regulations. They finished
17 the water quality assessment and identifying data gaps, which has been the
18 framework for dealing with loading response modeling. That has been handed off
19 through the WRIA effort. Activities have been implemented regarding stormwater
20 and best management practices (BMP's) for roads.
21
22 Nelson stated the Council allocated money to develop a stormwater
23 management plan for Lake Whatcom. He asked when there would be a plan
24 specifically for Lake Whatcom. Roll stated they have defined the issues and the
25 data gaps that exist. There are countywide issues that have to be done
26 concurrently, such as the un- maintained detention facilities. They can't create the
27 plan without understanding what it means to all the other critical areas related to
28 stormwater in the county.
29
30 Nelson stated that could take a considerable amount of time. He asked Mr.
31 Roll's advice to the Council on projects in the watershed. They held off on
32 discussing the road connector that has been a major issue for many years. There is
33 no longer any accurate information. He asked how to resolve this issue. Roll
34 stated there is information about what they need to do to ensure water quality. He
35 questioned what the Council is willing to invest in terms of time, energy, and
36 resources to adhere to BMP's. There is enough information. The question to be
37 answered is what the Council is willing to do to deal with the stormwater issues that
38 come from any of these types of capital improvement projects.
39
40 This has not been a charge in the original Comprehensive Water Resource
41 Plan. It is emerging as something larger. This is a good example of the
42 engagement they are going to need during the budget process.
43
44 Nelson stated the County is going to need this to do public and private
45 projects in both rural and urban growth areas. He hoped this has been money well
46 spent. They are going into the process to develop the management plans needed
47 countywide. They can move forward in a timeframe that would also address ESA
48 issues by 2003.
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, 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
Roll stated he would want prioritization of activities in terms of time and
resources.
Nelson asked what kind of funding they are looking at. Roll stated an ASR
would request funding a project next year that would describe the magnitude of
stormwater stuff that needs to be considered countywide, and also in the context of
Lake Whatcom.
Nelson asked Mr. Roll to work with the private sector to develop that ASR
because it will impact them as well. Roll stated they need to have a consultant that
has the ability to look at the existing programs. That is something he can pursue.
He agreed that they need the public's cooperation to implement stormwater
strategies. However, what he is proposing is describing the options. That is up to
the Council to decide.
Nelson stated the Council will do that, but the Council will also want to know
what input the involved parties provided.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September 11 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 7/17/2001, Page 17