HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession June 19 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
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
June 19, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Marlene Dawson
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Bob Imhof
Connie Hoag
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Letter to Joint Board Regarding Plan Elements
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated he wrote a letter to the Joint
Board to describe the plan elements they need to work on in conjunction with the
technical studies, which will be fed into the decision - support system (DSS) that will
be created by Utah State University (USU). How the data is used is the focal point
of the letter to the Joint Board, to ensure they are in line with having a watershed
management plan done by June 2003. He submitted a handout (on file) regarding
financial information for the management plan.
The management options are going to be analyzed through the DSS. One
element to work on is writing the plan. There is a requirement to do an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the plan. The first issue in plan
development is to get going on the EIS component.
The management options are what they propose to embrace in the first draft
of the watershed management plan. They recognized the need to make sure that
management options are packaged to only include the management options that
should be critiqued through the DSS. The DSS will evaluate different management
scenarios for water quantity, water quality, and in- stream flows. They will take all
they've learned from previous watershed planning efforts and work through the
DSS worksheets. Phase II deliverables describe what the options are that they may
want to pursue in the watershed management plan. When they implement these
elements, a singular contractor will tie them together.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
The socioeconomic component is based on the cultural livelihoods of people
and the relative costs for implementation of various management options. This
component has to be brought forward as they analyze the management options.
They don't want a management option that is not socially or economically viable.
Nelson questioned whether the DSS would be based on facts and
assumptions, or just facts. Roll stated both. The desire is to create as much
factual data in those focus areas where they want to make good decisions. There
will always be some assumptions in the modeling exercises. There will be a broad
WRIA -wide look at what is available. They also need to begin to focus in specific
areas. They are hoping to acquire sufficient data so people are comfortable making
decisions in critical areas. People have different perspectives on where they want
to see things occur. Looking through the management options and bringing DSS
worksheets forward will begin to show the overlaps. They are beginning to get to a
point to identify all the caucuses' interests, where they overlap, and where they are
exclusive to the others.
Dawson asked what management concerns are regarding water quality. Roll
stated that there are issues related to nitrate contamination of water supplies,
which are possibly drinking water supplies. There are also concerns regarding the
shellfish beds and water temperature for salmon recovery.
Dawson stated they are talking about locations for fish habitat. She asked if
people would manage those locations, or if they would acquire those locations. Roll
stated it is more of a coordination activity to ensure they know where the
opportunities for habitat recovery and preservation are. Habitat includes
preservation and restoration.
Roll continued to state that another issue is instream flow. They are going
into the second season of instream flow data collection. He suggested to the Joint
Board that they begin to have workshops to ask the question of how to move from
data ranges into a management strategy for instream flows for WRIA.
Dawson stated the state established the instream flow levels for this area.
Roll stated a concern is that the existing established instream flow levels by the
state are truly representative of what they should be. Also, once they acquire the
additional information, they would create a range of instream flows in critical areas
in the watershed to manage the resource around.
Dawson questioned what happens if the County disagrees with the state's
instream flow levels.
Nelson stated the County would have the data to challenge it.
Imhof stated that if the County is going to challenge the state's
determination, it has to have the documentation to back up the challenge.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is a difference from a
threshold number compared to how to manage the resource at different times of
the year, without crossing the instream flow threshold.
McShane stated there have been recent court decisions on how to manage
water within a stream so it does not affect the instream flow any further than it
already does. This will create that kind of opportunity.
Roll stated another issue is the early data needs. Data needs to be collected
before this field season and before the third phase of the watershed management
plan.
Monsen stated they had talked about an additional transfer from the Flood
fund into the Water Resource flood. The numbers in the chart are the same
numbers the Council had previously seen. The issue looks at how the needs occur
and how they are timed, because over time, the needs will influence the financial
requirements. The chart characterizes some of the project management decisions
that will need to occur and the sequencing of efforts that has an influence over cash
flow. As they begin to talk about early data needs, project options, and time
adjustments, the staff will talk to the Council about how it influences the overall
budget.
Crawford questioned what the ultimate goal is. Monsen stated the ultimate
goal is completion of a watershed management plan that selects certain locations
where they can manage the water, and then apply what they've learned to all areas
of the county.
Brenner stated the real goal is that the federal and state governments will let
the County manage itself.
Crawford stated the ultimate goal is local control. Monsen agreed.
Dawson stated she could see the County managing something effectively, but
not do something out of fear of the federal government.
Brenner stated it may not work. She didn't trust that the federal government
would approve.
Roll stated this DSS is based on the best available science, so they can run
different scenarios and provide the Council with the implications of each component
given the various management options. They are lacking the ability to describe the
potential impact to the components. The DSS will provide that ability.
Monsen stated a side benefit to this exercise is the positive influence in
getting permits for road and flood projects. It gives the County credibility with
other resource agencies.
McShane stated it is a good idea for the water.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated they are looking at the valuable resources in a comprehensive
fashion, which they've never done. The exercise can be applicable in other areas.
Crawford stated he heard a rumor that USU found that the complete water
take out of the Nooksack River for all human uses is two percent of the flow.
Nelson suggested they finish the presentation before answering
Councilmember Crawford's question.
USU Early Data Needs
Roll stated he provided information on what data they need this summer.
Part of the existing budgetary needs were approved. They want to make sure they
collect information on hydraulic continuity of low flow years, this being a novel
year. The other needs are what should happen for phase III, which will set the
tone and work to be accomplished on technical studies through the end of the
project. The data needs make sure they have all information for phase III scoping,
and will provide the architect of the DSS, the management options, and highlight
any critical needs for phase III scoping.
Nelson questioned whether the amount of money they are spending on early
data needs is funded by the state. Roll stated some of it is. They just received
$250,000 to be used for a variety of tasks.
Nelson asked if the County is giving the data it collects to the state.
Monsen stated the data is public record.
Nelson stated a lot of effort of the local community is going to gathering
information, which should be given at a price. He questioned whether phase III is
contracted through a request for proposals (RFP). Roll stated it is part of the USU
technical piece. They will get a contractor to deal with management options, EIS,
and socioeconomic components to parallel with the technical studies. He advocates
a singular, large firm with experience in doing that.
Crawford questioned whether USU found that the complete water taken out
of the Nooksack River for all human uses is two percent of the flow.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated that idea came from the executive
summary. They now have phase II deliverables from USU. Phase II is the existing
information on the four components of water quality, water quantity, habitat, and
instream flows. A statement made was that on a total annual basis for entire
WRIA, the amount taken is a small percentage. That is deceiving because, in
certain areas in certain times of year, they are still likely to have low stream flows
in the summer, and water is not available for consumptive use.
Imhof stated they have lots of water, just at the wrong time of the year.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
Crawford stated the variable flow throughout the year is more than the two
percent. The variable between a dry year and a wet year is 30 percent. In that
vein, two percent seems like a small number when weather and snow pack have a
much bigger effect. Blake stated that is another point. Many factors need to be
considered in addition to how much water people are pulling out of the system.
Land use that affects flows in different areas will also be a factor.
Roll stated the point is a good example of a big picture and a small picture.
When they broke the entire WRIA down into the drainage areas. Now, they are
moving into management areas and where the water supply is tight during the
year.
Crawford asked if the critical key to the solution is storage, if the critical
issue is timing. Roll stated that is one solution. Another option may be drawing
from groundwater.
McShane stated many options could be identified to deal with the problem.
Look at the socioeconomic factor, cost, and planning to make a good, rational
decision to solve a problem.
Integrated Draft Recommendations for Planning Unit Consideration
Roll stated they are taking the different tasks and bringing them to the
Planning Unit.
Blake stated that section III of the work session packet has two pieces. One
piece of information is a decision related to criteria before the Planning Unit this
month. A second piece of information is the topic of how to pull the socioeconomic
component, the need for a plan, and the need for options into a strategy. The
Planning Unit has heard about all of these components. The Planning Unit asked
staff to come up with a proposal of how to blend all of these things together. How
they do this is in the hands of a small group of staff team members and a few
Planning Unit members. They are still trying to pull together a succinct proposal.
The Council will get involved in the decision later on.
Before the Planning Unit this month is Attachment II in the work session
packet. They received phase II deliverables and have gotten feedback from the
caucuses. All of these pieces help to focus on what success has to look like. In the
next two to three months, they will let USU know where they need more technical
information. That needs to be in the Phase III scope of work. To take in the USU
deliverables, feedback, and other deliverables, they need to screen the information.
A subcommittee of the Planning Unit put together criteria for looking at all of the
information. That will be the basis for the suggestions of what to pass on to phase
III for USU as what the County would like to see.
Brenner stated it is critical to stay on task and within the budget. She is
concerned about the first bullet on page two, "The action is not specifically required
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
by March 2000 SOW but is consistent with its intent." She would like to see the
criteria prioritized. Blake stated this is just guidance for USU. Staff and technical
teams will do the exercise. They run all the information through these criteria, and
then send recommendations to USU about what the County thinks needs to be in
the scope of work for phase three. The County recognizes that USU are the
technical experts. The proposed draft of phase III will not look exactly like this.
That will be the opportunity for the County to make changes. It won't be set in
stone until they adopt the phase III scope of work. This is just recognition of the
process for going through all the information.
Roll stated it is a filtering process.
Hoag stated language in the document says that an item should meet all the
criteria in step one for it to be considered. That language conflicts with the bullet
point mentioned by Councilmember Brenner. That language needs to be reworded.
Blake questioned whether the Council supports these criteria.
Nelson asked if the Council would see the criteria that are developed. Blake
stated the Council would see the criteria for the management options.
Nelson stated they should have criteria for each of the problems they are
going to try to solve. Identify the criteria for the particular problem, or it will get
very confusing. This is a complex issue. He was concerned that this is not
coherent. He suggested that they first try to understand the problem they are
trying to solve, the criteria that has been applied to that problem, and then find out
what they want to develop as criteria to use to solve that particular problem. Blake
stated she was not sure how that would ultimately happen. They are talking about
that now.
Roll stated a management group is beginning to do that.
Nelson stated there has to be criteria based on the facts and assumptions.
Roll asked if there was conceptual approval of the Council.
McShane moved to provide conceptual approval.
Brenner stated the one bullet point makes her nervous.
Roll stated he would make that note.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked for a definition of the phases. Roll stated it means different
things for different issues.
Nelson stated phase I was predominantly data gathering.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
Blake stated USU in phase I discussed what the County needed for its phase
II.
Roll stated that the USU phase II produced all the deliverables of the data
collection. Phase III will take the data and marriage it with the management
options for the DSS.
Crawford asked if phase III is much bigger than phases I and II. Roll stated
that is correct. This will go through to the end of the project
Nelson stated it is a biological world. They have to take in all the influences
on that world, which is what was done during phase I and phase II. Based on that
result, they can simulate results.
Roll stated they would not have an end to this in June 2003. The goal is to
have the DSS and the rest of the plan crafted to be self - perpetuating as much as
possible. In June 2003, the adaptive management will kick in. Getting a plan on
the ground is what is going to transpire.
Crawford questioned whether they would end up with a product that leads to
a process and a method that would get to go on autopilot at some point.
(Clerk's Note: End of tap one, side A.)
Roll stated he hoped to have the framework, the blueprints, for how they
manage the resource with the first version of the plan. It might not be as detailed
for the entire WRIA for the next few decades. It will provide clear details in certain
areas about the options for managing the resource, and what to do to implement
the options.
Crawford asked if that is the June 2003 project. Roll stated it is. They are
always going to want more data, and there will always be more scenarios to run
through the DSS.
Nelson asked if USU would always have to do this. Roll stated there is a DSS
administrator position in the County. He hoped to hire someone to maintain that
system. The DSS administrator would set the quality assurance and data collection
methods. He wants someone now to be a part of the resource development.
Monsen stated everyone involved in this process would gain a tool to use.
The Public Utility District will have tools to deal with water right applications, for
example. This would be a toolbox that creates opportunities for resolution.
McShane stated the toolbox would be available for a lot of people, not just
the County.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
2. SALMON RECOVERY
Update on Citizens Habitat Committee
Monsen submitted handouts (on file). He requested a reaction from the
Council on the formal consolidation of the Citizen Habitat Committee and Nooksack
Recovery Team (NRT). In late 1998 or early 1999, they got support from the cities
and tribes for the County to be the lead entity under ESHB 2496, Salmon Recovery.
In the spring, they created the Citizen Habitat Committee. It is clear that the
purpose of ESHB 2496 has been as a grant program through the Salmon Recovery
Funding (SRF) Board. While the Citizen Habitat Committee is constructive, its
exclusive purpose today is access to the particular, narrowly focused grant program
of the SRF Board. Five separate entities are involved in salmon recovery funding
through the SRF Board, the County, the Conservation District as the County's
contractor, the NRT that existed before all of this, the co- managers, and the Joint
Board. The proposal now is to reduce the number of those points to make it a little
simpler and easier to coordinate, and also reduce administrative time. Consolidate
the Citizen Habitat Committee with the NRT. Formally designate the NRT as the
Citizen Habitat Committee, as long as citizen involvement is maintained. Also, the
NRT has an organizational structure that would allow the County to hire them
instead of the Conservation District. If the Council is willing to consider that
concept, it needs to determine the conditions for that change.
Hugh Lewis, Nooksack Recovery Team and the Citizen's Habitat Committee
Member, provided background information on the NRT.
Imhof moved to approve the proposal and come back with any
recommendations for organizational changes.
Lewis stated the NRT was established in 1994. Local businesses met with
tribes to find commonality of interests. After the NRT started, it accomplished
cooperative, voluntary salmon recovery efforts. Many people began to join. There
is a diverse membership.
Brenner asked who decided the membership. Lewis stated the membership
evolved. This is a private, non - profit corporation. It is not part of the government.
People could see the NRT was achieving success on the ground, and they keep
coming back.
Brenner stated the list of members looks like the list of WRIA members.
Lewis stated the legislature imposed a requirement for the structure of a citizen
habitat committee to ensure that local efforts contributed to the process. That type
of group already existed in Whatcom County. The legislature wasn't aware of that
local group. The legislature established this committee structure so government
doesn't have to dictate what will be done locally. It gives the opportunity for any
community in the state to take advantage of this process. Once the lead entity is
established, the committee would ensure that there is integrity in the process.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
Brenner asked if this change will make it easier for this community to get
grants, because the NRT is more organized. Lewis stated the NRT has received
many kinds of grants. That is how it has operated since 1994. The criteria
established by the legislature for the composition of a citizen habitat committee
matches the membership of the NRT. The NRT does need more involvement from
the smaller cities. Also, participants in the NRT include the government agencies
that either regulate these activities or whose land activities impact salmon
recovery.
The Council has followed the statute and solicited membership in a
committee that is participating in this process. A question is what happens if it
shifts these functions to someone who is not appointed by the County. The Council
may want oversight to ensure integrity of the process. As a solution, he suggested
that there be a contract between the NRT and the County to specify what the NRT
is going to do. The NRT will perform the functions described in the statute, but
there should be additional requirements that the Council would impose upon any
group to do the job for the citizens of the county. One condition would be to
separate the functions of project origination, project review, and project
prioritization. Right now, the habitat committee is supposed to do that. In theory,
the committee just meets and figures all of this stuff out. He thought that was
inefficient. This process lends itself to backdoor deals. They don't want that. The
proposal is that the NRT agency structure be modified from a corporate structure to
a committee structure. Amend the bylaws to explicitly accommodate the kind of
committee structure that would separate the functions. Project origination would
be conducted by a subgroup of the NRT. A separate subcommittee would work with
co- managers and the technical review team. That review would ensure the
scientific integrity that would take place, separate from project originators. Finally,
ranking is performed not by the person who developed the project, but ranked
according to protocols established by another committee isolated from project
development and review. They have work to do on the proposal yet. This is what
they are thinking about conceptually.
Hoag questioned the structure of the Citizens Habitat Committee. She also
questioned who is on the NRT Board of Directors. Lewis stated the Board currently
includes Pat Smith from Crown Pacific as president; Randy Bartelt from Trillium as
treasurer, he is the secretary and works with Washington Trout, and Jim Hanson
from Lummi Nation as the vice - president.
Steve Seymour, Department of Fish and Wildlife, stated the NRT needs to
broaden its membership and do away with the board structure and membership
fee, which would include more citizens and broaden the NRT perspective. The
frustration has been that the citizen committee has not functioned well. It has
many of the same members as the NRT. Much of state salmon recovery is based
on statewide strategies. The strength of NRT will be to develop local strategies that
help them to define those key projects for salmon recovery.
Hoag stated her concern with the proposal is that the items that the law asks
the citizens habitat committee to do have huge implications. She wanted to be
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 9
1 certain that they are not agenda driven and that they reflect the County Council. It
2 should reflect the agenda of the County Council and Joint Board. She was
3 concerned about giving this function to NRT, although the NRT has done an
4 excellent job. Lewis stated most of the members on the Citizen Habitat Committee
5 are also members of the Nooksack Recovery Team. Given that everyone is a
6 volunteer, the process gets the best use out of the volunteers when the volunteers
7 have as few burdens as possible between what they desire to happen versus what
8 they actually see happening. The process hopes to achieve a greater level of
9 participation overall by the volunteers. There hasn't been the best participation on
10 the Citizens Habitat Committee. When five or six people show up, it is a big
11 meeting. However, the NRT has dozens of people who show up.
12
13 Hoag agreed about not burning out volunteers. However, the board of the
14 NRT makes decisions and presents the decisions to the membership.
15
16 Seymour stated the membership votes on decisions. The Board is just an
17 executive board.
18
19 Lewis stated the board could technically make these decisions, but it doesn't.
20 It tries to operate by consensus. In the context of redefining what the Nooksack
21 Recovery Team will look like, they know that they have to restructure the NRT to
22 function as the citizens habitat committee. They want to do away with the
23 membership fee and not be an exclusive club.
24
25 McShane questioned whether they would separate out the technical review
26 from restructuring. The question is whether the Council supports going down that
27 road and making that effort. Lewis stated there are two reasons for it. One reason
28 is just for efficiency. People are interested in either ranking or project
29 development, but not both. They can separate interest in function, and achieve
30 something better.
31
32 McShane questioned whether there is the perceived problem of the project
33 applicants who are reviewing on a technical level. Lewis stated no. The problem
34 with the committee is that who shows up is not the breadth of people appointed. It
35 is fallacious that a group of citizens are going to originate projects and then review
36 those projects. They have given those people too many tasks without enough
37 support or expertise.
38
39 Crawford asked what direction John Thompson wanted to go, and what the
40 County is doing with this information. Monsen stated he would speak for Mr.
41 Thompson. Mr. Thompson was not hired to be devoted to this full -time. Mr.
42 Thompson spends little time on this. The Conservation District provides more
43 administrative support than Mr. Thompson, who spent more time in the
44 development of the criteria for how this would work. Mr. Thompson is as frustrated
45 as anyone else making sure a consistent number of people come to the table. That
46 is very important to sequence projects and set priorities. A committee structure
47 that is hit - and -miss at best is not stable enough to think long -term. There is no
48 County recommendation yet because they need to set boundaries if this
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
consolidation should occur. He and Mr. Thompson agree that consolidation should
occur. A significant part of studying a scientific boundary relies on the state and
tribe as co- managers. Regarding community priorities, they rely on the watershed
project and County Council to create that boundary. If the NRT takes over, it will
operate within policy boundaries set by other folks. The NRT does not set policy.
Nelson questioned what happens if the NRT disagrees with those boundaries.
Monsen stated the NRT has a high level of technical competence. They would
challenge and debate those matters so policy folks can deal with matters. There is
a difference between technically being capable of raising an issue, and having the
broad perspectives for policy issues to create the boundaries.
Crawford stated it might be good to ask for answers on a specific set of
questions, then come up with a proposal for the reformation of the citizen habitat
committee for Council review, based on those answers. Now, he didn't know what
the County Council could do here. Have the NRT come back with proposals,
including the reformation of the NRT.
Nelson stated that is what they are proposing now.
Brenner stated she was convinced that the NRT could do this. She is
concerned about people having to go through too many meetings. Restructure the
NRT and let the people on the citizen habitat committee join the NRT and be
involved. They don't need to bring this back to the Council.
Nelson stated it is worthwhile to look into this. If the NRT is going to
restructure, he would like to see the mission statement and goals. He preferred to
wait and see how a mission statement and goals are tied in. The NRT Board needs
to evaluate this as well. Lewis stated that the NRT perceived that there would be
benefits in merging with citizens habitat committee, and approved a resolution a
year ago. He could speak for both organizations, and they both prefer a merger.
Nelson asked if restructure would be done by vote of the members. Lewis
stated it would.
Hoag stated they need to not lose any of the representation on the Citizens
Habitat Committee. Also, a process should be adopted similar to what was
mentioned. She does not think this is in the best interest long -term. Having
project origination, review, and ranking be done by separate people is very
important. The subcommittee structure is very important. She would want to see
that structure. She also wanted to see a clearly defined decision - making process
with a flow chart to show who would be responsible.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hoag continued to state that she wanted to know who would make final
approval. The projects brought forward last year for the SRF Board included stuff
from the City of Bellingham that had nothing to do with Spring Chinook, but were
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
48
ranked very high. The Citizens Habitat Committee was supposed to have a broad
enough interest so that all the interests are represented. There is no
representation by a commercial fisherman in the NRT. Lewis stated that Bert
Webber is a commercial fisherman, and was more active before the death of his
son. They recognize that there are gaps in the NRT membership. Part of this
process that they are proposing is a continuous outreach program. Half the
members on the Citizen Habitat Committee don't attend. A much smaller group
does the ranking. One reason they are proposing this is because it will achieve
more breadth of values and interests than the existing structure.
Brenner stated this could have long -term success.
(Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting at 11 :45 a.m.)
Brenner stated she wanted the people from the Citizen Habitat Committee to
be included in the NRT membership. Lewis stated that would happen.
Monsen stated the proposal is to improve efficiency and make it more
constructive. Also, they are not talking about a new concept. There is a
substantial difference in how areas are organizing their citizen habitat committees.
The Skagit Watershed Council is not only the citizen habitat committee, but is also
the lead entity.
Nelson moved that more information is gathered and get staff input, and
then bring forward a proposal including the councilmembers' concerns. He would
support the motion to move forward with getting more information. They are not
affirming this change.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated he attended a meeting recently in which he received
comments from a group petitioning the City of Bellingham on its stormwater fee.
The Council often gets bogged down on process. He would be much more
enlightened by having the County Council's attorney and John Thompson respond
to a presentation by Mr. Zender. He asked for a presentation by Mr. Zender at the
next meeting in response to John Thompson's presentation last month.
Hoag stated she was concerned about what County legal staff could say,
since a lawsuit is involved; however, she would be interested in hearing the
information.
Nelson stated the administration could set that presentation up. The County
is the lead agency, but does not make the ultimate decision. All of the groups
should be informed of this.
3. LAKE WHATCOM
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
Mercury Follow Up Study
Roll stated they talked about this during the last work session. A fish
advisory was proposed for Lake Whatcom. A task identified by Lake Whatcom
Management Committee was to identify potential sources of mercury in the lake.
There is an RFP from the Health Department to seek services necessary to address
some of the questions regarding fish tissue. Staff wants to know how much effort
the Council wants to put into this effort. They expect that both the City of
Bellingham and Water District 10 will help fund such an activity.
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Services Manager, stated the RFP is
designed to identify potential sources of mercury, and whether there is something
they can do about those sources. Look in the watershed for defined sources that
they can stop. She guessed that a lot of the mercury has to do with atmospheric
deposition.
Brenner asked about scheduling a panel presentation. Roll stated a
presentation is set for mid -July.
Brenner stated this is a pressing issue. It shouldn't take until mid -July to put
together the same people on the original panel. Jim Johnson should be included.
Nelson stated they need to get the community involved in the education. He
didn't want to identify who specifically would be on a panel.
Brenner stated she wanted the panel to be the same people who originally
presented information. Roll stated the goal is to have similar people at the panel
discussion. It is a scheduling issue with many entities.
Hoag stated this is the summer season, and kids are fishing. There is a
pressing need to get going on this. She asked if the signs are in place and posted
frequently. Delahunt stated they are. There are about 15 different locations that
are posted. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is checking the signs.
Nelson questioned the concentration level in the bass. Delahunt stated the
bass had .5 parts per million (ppm), which is over the limit. Canned tuna has about
.2 ppm. The danger level depends on the concentration and also the amount of fish
eaten.
Hoag stated it is important that there be plenty of signs. Many people don't
listen to the radio or read the paper and aren't aware of what's going on in the
community. Also, she has been getting letters regarding allegations that Georgia -
Pacific (GP) has dumpsites that are leaching mercury into the lake, and that the
sites have been identified. Delahunt stated she has also gotten some of that
information. Some of her staff has gotten information on addresses where people
believe material may have been disposed. If the Health Department doesn't get
the information from Friends of Lake Whatcom, then it will go with the information
it has and try to put those sites that are potentially contaminated on the state's site
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
hazard assessment list. The Health Department got a list of sites, will follow -up on
those sites, and try to get those sites on the site hazard assessment list. Mindy
Miller from the Health Department will do an initial investigation of those sites.
McShane stated he was comfortable with the County checking the site, but
not with putting it on a list. Delahunt stated putting it on the list is the only way to
investigate the site. The investigation and the site hazard assessment would be
paid for by the state.
McShane stated he was concerned if nothing was found, and the site would
be on the list. Delahunt stated the responsible party would have to clean up the
site if needed. If the County does the site hazard assessment and does not find a
problem, it could issue a No Further Action (NFA) notice, and take it off the list.
Brenner asked about a GP dump that the County took over in 1997. Monsen
stated Y Road 1 was an old mixed waste landfill. Somehow, GP gained ownership
of that parcel. The County owned it to begin with. It doesn't appear that GP used
the site. The County knew there was mixed waste and that the County would be
responsible. The County acquired the site to protect County interests. He didn't
know how GP managed the site when it owned the site.
Crawford asked if there is any correlation between the GP pulp mill and the
GP Timberlands, which is operated separately. Delahunt stated the Health
Department asked the pulp mill about any disposal that may have gone on at the Y
road properties, and they did not know anything.
Hoag questioned whether they were legally obligated to tell the County.
Delahunt stated yes.
Monsen stated the only reason the County obtained the site was because of
the presence of mixed waste that it would be held responsible for.
Nelson stated this RFP has not been budgeted for. He asked for information
on how much it would cost. Delahunt stated she guessed it would cost about
$100,000 for the study.
Roll stated he got a verbal confirmation that the City of Bellingham would
pay for half of the cost, and the Public Utility District (PUD) would also contribute.
Some of the money budgeted for the two positions, the DSS position and the
shellfish position, that they are in the process of hiring and that has not been spent
yet can go to this purpose.
Delahunt stated the Health Department also has unspent personnel funds to
use.
Brenner stated the County needs to do this. The County looks bad when this
comes up. This should be an investigation, not a study. Delahunt stated they
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
48
would not collect much data with this money. The contractor would not do field
sampling.
Crawford asked what the contractor would do. Delahunt stated the
contractor will look at all the potential sources, including air emissions, the Y Road
landfill, all existing data, and any local emission sources to see who contributes to
the mercury in the lake. There could be a naturally occurring contribution from the
Nooksack River. The study would also look at lake characteristics that may cause
the fish to uptake the mercury faster. The contractor would also look at other
information about lakes in the regions to see if Lake Whatcom is unusual.
Crawford asked who did the initial fish study. Delahunt stated the County,
state Department of Ecology (DOE), state Department of Health (DOH), and the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The cost of the original study was $40,000 to
$50,000 to analyze the fish study.
Roll stated the County's contribution was about $4,000. They did that study
because of the DOE report that came out to support the DOE justification of the
303(d) listing. There were some spot checks of fish and fish tissues. That spawned
this work to look at a larger sample size.
Crawford stated that DOE did the fish tissue study, which turned up an
elevated level of mercury. Now, the DOE is throwing this on the County's shoulders
to hire a consultant and find out where the mercury is coming from. He questioned
whether DOE could back out at this point. Roll stated it could. It is the same as
the WRIA process.
Crawford asks what happens if the County does nothing due to a lack of
funding. Roll stated the County needs to make sure there are no point sources,
and to mitigate any potential sources. It is helpful to place this in the context of
what is happening regionally and locally. It is also important to describe the lack of
relationship between fish tissue and drinking water quality. They will find that
there are a number of sources.
Crawford stated the DOE got the ball rolling on this issue, and questioned
why the County is now debating where it will find the money to do this. He
questioned whether DOE would finish what it started.
Brenner stated this is not the DOE's county. It is the citizens' county.
Delahunt stated the County would go on the list if it didn't do anything.
Something may be done at some point in time.
Nelson stated DOE might take action that is not in the best interest of the
County's residents. Delahunt stated the DOE has statewide priorities. He didn't
know that, statewide, this would meet their priority of doing this right away. It
may be on their list for 20 or 30 years. At some point, they may take a look at it.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
48
Nelson stated it doesn't mean that the DOE won't take some form of action
even after the County does its study. However, the County will have the
information gathered and the resources to take the proper course of action.
Crawford stated it might be more prudent to discourage people from eating
the fish and test again in five years to see if things are getting worse or better.
Delahunt stated they are not looking to see if there are any sources of mercury
contribution that they can stop at this time. People are looking at protection of the
resources. The community is looking at resource protection.
Brenner stated the government should not ignore a potential problem. The
problem may be nothing, but people are concerned. Someone said that perception
is reality. The County needs to figure out what is going on with the mercury. A lot
of attention has been given to it, and it may be a problem.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane stated the site hazard assessment is going to be good at focusing
on potential identified sources. He was not sure that the tasks don't go too far. He
wasn't sure he wanted to go into it to that extent. He liked the idea of comparing
Lake Whatcom to other lakes to see what else is out there, to be put together in a
coherent report. Now, the only mercury sampling done on a regular basis is the
city's testing. Review the city's water sampling for mercury, make
recommendations, and provide a rationale for future sampling to keep an eye on
things. His chief concern is whether they are going continue to look at this, and if
they are either going to spend a lot of money turning over every rock or else do
nothing.
Roll summarized what he hears as direction. There is a concern about
comparison with other areas. Be aggressive finding point sources. Information on
global deposition is a lesser priority.
The Council concurred.
Roll stated this is a County contract, but is tied to other Lake Whatcom
Management Committee members. They need direction to negotiate with this
group.
Nelson moved to approve going forward with the scope of work, given the
concerns, with a maximum County contribution of $50,000.
Crawford stated they need to see the state to participate in funding. He was
against the motion. He suggested that they contact the state first to find out what
the state is willing to participate in.
Nelson accepted a friendly amendment to check with DOE and potentially
acquire their financial support.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford stated he did not offer that as a friendly amendment. He wanted
the County Council's decision based on the state's decision. He would rather make
a financial decision based on the direct knowledge of whether or not the state is
going to participate.
Hoag stated she supported the motion, but wants to readdress the priorities.
The regional discussion is a lower priority. Roll agreed.
Hoag stated the main priority is making sure there are no point sources. If
looking at regional lakes, then also identify how far inland the lakes are and if there
are any suspected point sources on those lakes.
Brenner asked Councilmember Nelson to accept Councilmember Crawford's
suggestion to check with DOE about their willingness to contribute funding.
Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner stated this is a health issue more than a financial issue. It is not
DOE's job to come in and pay for everything if the County contaminated the lake.
Motion carried 4 -2 with Crawford and McShane opposed.
McShane stated he supported tasks two and six. He was not comfortable
setting up $50,000 for this. He would like to see the Council support those two
items, but not the others. It is fine if the City of Bellingham or Water District 10
wants to support those tasks.
Nelson stated those are contract issues that can be worked out.
Delahunt stated that once they see the proposals and deal with the city and
water district, then staff will come back with an entire package.
Land Preservation Criteria
Roll suggested that, because of lack of time, they put this discussion into
next Council Committee of the Whole meeting for half an hour.
Hoag stated the chart goes in the opposite direction from the concerns she
stated at previous meetings. The Bellingham City Council said it shared her
concerns. However, the revision goes in the opposite direction. She received
information from the committee who worked on this, which said the revisions don't
reflect what the committee tried to get at. There is a problem. The proposal is
geared to preserving and buying forestry land.
Nelson asked if the recommendations came from the committee. Roll stated
they did. These recommendations came from the jurisdictions. The jurisdictions
took what the citizen task force proposed. The task force was an advisory group to
the Lake Whatcom Management Committee. From there, it went to the
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
jurisdictions. What they need is to look at the map and specific areas. The criteria
are used in the geographic information system (GIS) overlay. Staff will get the
map to the Council and argue from the standpoint of the map to see if there are
areas that don't make sense. It is difficult to just use the point system. They need
to look specifically at the map and riparian areas that are present.
Phosphorus -Free Fertilizer Update
Staff will provide written information. This item was not discussed.
Lake Whatcom DNR Landscape Plan Committee
Staff will provide written information. This item was not discussed.
4. MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Update on Administrative Grant
Staff will provide written information. This item was not discussed.
S. RIVER AND FLOOD
Flood Hazard Reduction Implementation Program
Monsen stated the County is being more proactive in the flood hazard
reduction program. The Flood Advisory Committee has been working on the criteria
to implement such a program. In addition, the City of Bellingham made an
application for that program, which will be scheduled on the Finance Committee
agenda. The city needs a decision by the County for cost - sharing the program,
before they will have the program for final adoption. That is scheduled the Finance
Committee next Tuesday. The Flood Advisory Committee recommendation is to
support the Bellingham project, with the reservation about whether or not the
program should include the cost of land.
Crawford stated there are two programs, hazard reduction and repair and
maintenance.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated the Flood Advisory
Committee had difficulty deciding on the Bellingham project. The Flood Advisory
Committee worked on the policies for this and for a levee maintenance program.
They were not comfortable with the land acquisition, which is the majority of the
cost of the Bellingham project.
Bill Reilly, City of Bellingham Utility Engineer - Surface Water, stated
Bellingham conducted a study from 1992 to 1994 of Squalicum Creek, between
Meridian and Hannegan. Development was occurring east of the Guide Meridian
that was done per the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) requirements.
Buildings were elevated. They should have been properly protected from flooding.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
However, they found instead that those properties actually flooded under lesser
storms than a 100 -year event, and found potential for harm to a number of
businesses, including Bellingham Cold Storage. They did a study and came up with
recommended improvements. The study went through the EIS process, and in
1994 the Bellingham City Council adopted the improvements. To date, they have
implemented one of the improvements, the upgrade to the culvert at Squalicum
Creek and Meridian Street. That improvement served two purposes. One purpose
was for flood control. It also did away with the largest fish barrier in this stretch of
the creek.
The Flood Advisory Committee voiced a couple of concerns. One of the
concerns is that there is the potential need for downstream analysis. When the full
study was done, it did not include a downstream analysis from Meridian to the bay.
However, the city and its consultant looked at the actual amount of flood storage
available within this valley. The amount was considered somewhat negligible
compared to the large drainage basin that feeds into the city from the county.
The city is endeavoring to create a berm that would go from the corner of
Squalicum Parkway and would tie into the embankment of Interstate 5. It would
redirect floodwaters that currently go through the area of improvements to the Bug
Lake area. The berm would not only provide protection, but there is an increased
amount of storage that is happening in Bug Lake itself. For that reason also, they
feel that the concern for a downstream effect is mitigated.
McShane asked if the increase in storage in Bug Lake is because of the
buildup of the berm. Reilly stated it is. The berm is about six -foot high.
Monsen stated this is a project application for the 80/20 or 85/15 cost -
sharing match.
Hoag questioned whether the natural topography protects the hospital.
Reilly stated yes. The first phases of the hospital were built without detention
facilities. Any new construction has included detention facilities.
Nelson asked how much detention the hospital could hold. Reilly stated he
couldn't say. The flooding effect is not attributable to the improvements in the city
portion, but the large area in the county where farmland has been cleared and has
high runoff potential, particularly during freezing conditions. The city has current
regulations for detention and water quality.
Nelson questioned whether the horse farm would detain a lot of water. Reilly
stated the current floodway is centered in that area. Improvements are to protect
improved areas that were on the flood fringe and that should not encounter these
problems. The horse farm area is where the current floodway is. It is part of the
flood area.
Crawford stated the primary contributing stream fills the capacity that can
get under the roads when they have a typical, yearly rain event. He asked if the
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 19
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
roads would also flood during a 100 -year flood. He also asked if they are also
talking about an event that would have impacts upstream. Monsen stated Van
Wyck Road, for example, is covered with water regularly. One issue is an
investment in properties that deserve protection because of value. It does not say
that nothing else is important.
Hoag asked how much of the Kmart and the Bakerview Road development
areas contribute to the problem. Reilly stated that area was developed under
County standards. The city did require that a mitigation pond be constructed when
the area was annexed. Standards have changed. Sunset Square has some
detention to lesser standards from years ago.
Crawford asked what the Council is being asked. Monsen stated there are
three options. One option is to not make any decision until the Council adopts the
entire flood reduction program. Another option is to use the draft program to make
a decision on this project. The third option is to decide to apply judgement on this
project specifically. Bellingham needs an answer so they know what to do. The
recommendation from the Flood Advisory Committee is to cost -share 80/20 for
engineering, but not for land acquisition.
Reilly stated the project cost is $1.2 million with the land acquisition. The
cost is $300,000 to $400,000 without the land acquisition. The city feels that land
acquisition should be a part of the project. Many of these large flood projects in the
future will have that component.
Monsen stated he believed it was appropriate to include land acquisition.
(Clerk's Note: Nelson and Crawford left the meeting at 1:11 p.m.)
McShane stated an issue is that they are struggling with land acquisition, and
if it should be a general policy.
Hoag stated the decision should be site - specific.
McShane stated that is the issue before the Flood Advisory Committee, which
hasn't resolved that issue yet. In the meantime, the City of Bellingham has come
forward with a project. The city is dealing with a very difficult issue regarding
stormwater management. This is a project that was identified for using that
stormwater fee. In their planning, the city wants to know where the money will
come from to fix this. Every resident in the city is paying into the flood fee. The
question is whether or not this is a good project. Also, look at the property and
think about how much it generates in taxes.
Hoag stated she preferred to look at projects on a project -by- project basis
and whether or not they would participate in land acquisition. There might be
situations in which it is justified using public funds. Not every project would meet
that threshold.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 20
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
Brenner stated she needed a benefit comparison. Also, she didn't like taking
land off the tax roles.
Reilly stated they looked at the impact to Bellingham Cold Storage itself.
They can foresee that water would get underneath their warehouses, which would
ruin them. Between their product and facilities, they would lose $150 million.
Hoag asked who approved the building. Reilly stated the City of Bellingham
permitted the building based on information from FEMA that dictated the elevations
to which people had to build. That information was incorrect. The point of this
project is to bring protection to the people who believed in good faith that they
were protected.
Hoag asked if the businesses applied for FEMA funds. Reilly stated they tried
both FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers.
Hoag questioned whether the businesses would consider suing FEMA because
FEMA said that its standards would suffice. Reilly stated the County knows how that
is, because it had some of the same issues regarding flood elevations in its basins.
Brenner asked how much money is in the flood fund. Monsen stated there is
about $10 million.
Brenner questioned whether this would have an impact on all county
residents to warrant ten percent of the County Flood fund.
McShane stated past projects have had more expense than this.
Monsen stated there is $10 million of undesignated funds in the fund
balance. If they were to finance 100 percent of this project, they would not go
much beyond the new revenue collected this year. He recommended doing the
land acquisition in this case.
Reilly stated this is a project that they can show the residents of the city for
their contribution to the Flood fund.
Dawson questioned why the project is not viable if they don't purchase the
land. Reilly stated they couldn't purchase the property to build the berm.
Dawson questioned the amount of land. Reilly stated there are seven or eight
acres.
Hoag stated that, in terms of taxes and revenue, the City of Bellingham is
better set than the County.
Brenner stated the Bellingham residents are paying into this Flood fund.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 21
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
Hoag stated the City residents would pay for 20 percent of the cost, and the
County would pay for 80 percent of the cost.
McShane stated that Bellingham residents also pay the flood tax. If they are
politically worried about the flood fee, it is something that they should think about.
Dawson stated she preferred to include the cost of the land acquisition.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B. The meeting lost the quorum when
Councilmember Hoag left at 1:20 p.m.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on July 10_, 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 6/19/2001, Page 22