HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession March 13 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
March 13, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
Marlene Dawson
Absent:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Land Preservation Criteria
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there is a joint
resolution with three components to a land preservation or acquisition strategy that
are being worked though the Joint Lake Whatcom Management group. One
component is on which parcels to target to provide the biggest benefit to the lake's
water quality. A second component is the marriage of the various options to
preserve and acquire land, whether it is through a conservation easement, transfer
of development rights, or conservation futures. Another option is the City of
Bellingham's $5 fee to fund those types of activities. The third component is
managing the criteria and options so the joint group can work together to target
these critical areas in the watershed.
The criteria are the first steps to seek unified approval. The other two
options will be refined. The goal is to have a resolution on March 22nd for joint
approval.
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, distributed a draft of the joint resolution. It has
been developed using staff's recommendations. The "Whereas" statements lay out
the framework for the land preservation criteria. The second page is the
description of the criteria, components that would be included in site assessments,
including cost benefit analysis, parcel size, connectivity to other public lands or
protected areas, and looking at other hazard areas.
She displayed a draft map that illustrates the areas that would be targeted
through the criteria. The map would be used as a tool to illustrate the types of
areas that would be prioritized. As with any geographic information system (GIS)
map, there are some limits to the data. Many targeted areas are the riparian
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
corridors. The staff is looking for Council review of these criteria and the joint
resolution. She asked councilmembers to send comments to her by Friday. She
would be happy to answer questions this morning. She would compile comments
from the County, the City of Bellingham, and Water District #10. They will bring a
new resolution to the joint Council meeting on Thursday and ask for joint adoption.
Roll stated staff doesn't need action from the Council today.
Stroebel stated proximity to intakes was added to the scoring of the criteria.
The score for this is 50. They are not sure it is the right score when they map it
out. There were comments on that at the city's council meeting.
Crawford asked why some of the shorelines are high priorities, and other
areas are medium priorities. He also questioned why the upper reaches of some
streams are a high priority, and the lower reaches are a lower priority.
Nelson asked the reasoning for the different priorities. Stroebel stated they
used the GIS data available for hydrology of watershed zoning designation, the
slopes, current land use, and proximity to intake in a one -mile radius. Each area of
land will get a score for each of the five criteria. A parcel of land less than 200 feet
from a water body would score 100 points for that criterion. Then, they looked at
zoning designation. Areas in the city would get the highest score for that
designation. Then they looked at the slope for the land. The highest score for
slope is 75 if the slope is greater than 35 percent.
Imhof asked why a high slope is high priority when it can't be built upon. It
may be better to put their money elsewhere. Stroebel stated the Citizen's Task
Force pulled numbers from the Critical Areas Ordinance, and looked at other land
preservation programs in the nation. The slope is a criterion that was used in a lot
of these areas. There is the potential that the slopes would not be developed on,
but new technologies are allowing people to build anywhere they can. Slopes have
incredible views, so people are going to do anything they can to build on them.
Nelson stated criteria are heavy on slope, but they will see more activity on
lesser slopes that are more likely to have development. Stroebel stated they added
the scores together. They hope to find areas with the potential for development,
but are vacant. Target areas that are not being used for an urban land use. When
they add the scores together, they will address these concerns.
Roll stated there would be more runoff from steeper slopes, from a water
quality standpoint.
Stroebel stated they divided the areas in to high, medium, and low priority
areas. It was further broken down to high medium and low medium priorities.
There are five categories of priorities.
Nelson asked if a large portion of the high priority areas is in state
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land. It is in a sense protected, depending
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
on what comes out of Forest Practices. He didn't see how to differentiate or
designate prioritizing areas that are already protected. Stroebel stated those are
elements to consider when they develop the next set of the land preservation
program. They have to balance management costs and acquisition costs. Because
lands are already protected, they will find through the implementation strategy that
they don't want to focus on it or they may want to focus on it because of the lower
cost.
Nelson stated the category of commercial forestry or recreational open space
zoning has only 18 points on the criteria. Rural Forestry zoning has 36 points.
Dawson stated it is interesting that Rural Forestry zoning could earn 60
points, yet five -acre zoning could earn 45 points.
Nelson stated he wanted to know how they developed the weights for the
criteria. Stroebel stated the Citizen's Task Force described how they got to the
break downs of each of the criteria in their memo. The focus with the zoning
designation is the potential land use. As they developed the scores, they thought
about the potential for development in the areas.
Nelson stated they have to make sure they get the best use of their dollars,
and make sure the dollars are not used in areas where the potential impact does
not exist or is negligible.
Roll stated they are looking at this in the context of not just outright
acquisition. Look at preservation. That also needs to be considered. Acquisition is
only one component. Other components will be tied to it. DNR is an example of
where there is a management strategy for high priority areas. The criteria are
intended to imply where to deal with preservation as a whole. Look at this in the
context of options, including TDR, conservation easements, and restrictions.
Crawford asked about the reason for designating a one -mile radius around
intakes. Stroebel stated other land preservation programs focused on time of
travel. They used data for each tributary. Whatcom County doesn't have that data
now, so they established a one -mile radius to protect the intake areas.
Imhof asked why it is a one -mile radius, and not one mile upstream.
Roll stated current data shows there is movement back and forth and
different circulation patterns. They will get a better handle on circulation patterns
that will be refined.
Crawford asked if one mile is different than .5 mile or two miles. He asked if
that designated distance is arbitrary. Roll stated it is somewhat arbitrary. It's
arbitrary to a point in time they have the science. They have to see how other
people approached it.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Crawford asked if they would have time at the March 22 joint council meeting
to have the Citizen Advisory Task Force make a presentation. He wanted to know
how the numbers were arrived at.
Roll stated the goal is to have the issue worked out by then to have a
resolution signed at that meeting. They will verify the information. There is a
letter from the task force about how they arrived at it, which was in the previous
Council packet.
2. MARINE RESOURCES UPDATE
MRC Open House
Stroebel stated the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) will have its first
open house at the end of the month, on March 31, 2001 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. at the Port of Bellingham Harbor Center. They will present the products from
the rapid shoreline inventory and will introduce themselves to the community to get
people involved. She invited the councilmembers to attend.
MRC Grant Application
Stroebel stated the MRC applied for a grant through the Northwest Straits
Commission. The grant was approved. The paperwork is being processed.
Dawson asked when they could suggest ideas for restoration projects. Roll
stated take suggestions to Councilmember Hoag, as the County representative on
the MRC.
Stroebel stated that the Marine Resources summit is in May. It will bring
together groups working on marine - related projects. From that summit, they will
identify high priority projects. It would be great to have input before that point.
3. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Water Rights Stage I Final Draft
Roll stated staff seeks Council direction on the final draft of the stage I water
rights review. The Council received drafts, and there was a comment period. This
represents the compilation of all the comments and is the product going to the
Planning Unit for approval.
John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, stated the comments received to
date are in the report and highlighted. They are in a position to move forward with
recommendations for approval. The Public Utility District (PUD) staff members are
available for questions.
Crawford asked if this was the item where there was concern by
councilmembers for people who are notified about their water rights.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Nelson stated that was stage II. They've talked about this often, and it is
well laid out.
Sproul stated the essence of the task was the identification of water rights
that are on paper. They report those rights based on delineated areas, as agreed
to on the WRIA 1 watershed management plan map. The report is geographically
oriented.
Dawson asked if instream flow changes from year to year because gravel is
filling up the river. Once that happens, the water seeps under ground. Sproul
stated that isn't a component of this report.
Tom Anderson, PUD Manager, stated instream flow is a rule that was set in
1986 that is a fixed number set on a two -week basis. They are fixed for the two -
week period. It is fixed for the same two weeks every year. There is no formula in
the rule to look at the changes. The flow is on a volume basis. He agreed that the
reality is that rainfall and runoff drive stream flow.
Dawson asked if instream flow is also driven by gravel that has built up.
Anderson stated minimally. The water rights that apply to instream flow are set by
rule. They don't take any fluctuations into account.
Sproul stated they are looking for a recommendation from the Council
Dawson moved approval of the draft.
Sproul stated the Water Quantity Technical Team was impressed and pleased
with the work.
Crawford stated it looks great. He asked for a summary.
Ann Atkeson, PUD Water Rights investigator, stated there is a summary of
water rights allocation down to an acre -foot per year that are on the state's records
on paper. It tallies how much water has been allocated per the delineated
geographic areas. Acre -feet is the volume that is 12 inches of water over an acre
of ground. The certificate also lists an instantaneous amount. They just added up
the amount that has been allocated on paper. Someday they want to compare
what is being allocated on paper versus what is being used. They are trying to get
a handle on what is on paper and what is being used. This is the first step to
understand those issues.
Crawford asked if there are detractors of this summary, or if everyone
agrees. Atkeson stated the summary was sent out to caucuses and the Planning
Unit. They have gotten no negative comments.
Anderson stated it is just a report of what exists in the public record. The
investigators haven't talked to anyone.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Crawford stated this is records research, not people research. Anderson
agreed.
Nelson asked if the estimated amount is the amount being used. Atkeson
stated it is not. The state has some older records where the state did not assign an
acre -foot amount. The state, in the early days, didn't specify the volume that the
water right is worth. If the report listed zero, it would be misleading. They went
through the record to determine the intent. Instead of zero, they made an
estimate on what the state Department of Ecology (DOE) would have put in those
blanks. Those estimates are kept separate.
Nelson asked what to he would look at to find the current usage. Atkeson
stated current usage is not a part of this. It is a separate project that Utah State
University (USU) and others are working on.
Motion carried unanimously.
Water Rights Stage II
Sproul submitted replacements for the packet materials. Stage II was
approved conceptually in November. They are moving to the next piece after what
is on paper, which is looking at the rights that are not in use. There is a lot of dead
paper. Another element for consideration is the material going out to water right
holders about how they can learn about what is in their record.
Atkeson stated the documents were changed as recently as last week by the
Water Quantity Technical Team. They are the materials to do stage II. The
purpose is to educate and inform current water right holders about their rights, and
to find water rights that are clearly not in use.
Anderson stated that in November they said they would come back to get
approval of the forms to take in the field. That is what this is. They are seeking
approval of the documents to be used to interface with the public.
Atkeson stated she'd made draft documents and visited caucuses that
represent water right holders to get input on the materials. Through volunteers,
they did test runs on speaking with people about their files. They did that with
about ten people consisting of mostly farmers, private well owners, and public
system managers. The green papers she submitted are the letters. There are four
versions of a letter that would get mailed out to the water right holder.
(Clerk's Note: McShane arrived at 10:45 a.m.)
Atkeson continued to state that the water right holder will also receive DOE
information that explains the basic terms about what a water right is; the difference
between a certificate, permit, and claim; and some of the rules that are a part of
the state law, such as "use it or lose it." The owner will get a letter inviting him or
her to communicate. The owner will get basic information and what is called the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Water Right Review Fact Sheet. It is something that Dan Gibson originally worked
up at the Council's request. It is an informational piece to give people an
understanding of their rights. The owners will get it in the mail before the
investigators show up. The owners will be asked to make an appointment to look
at their file. The interviewers will bring an entire copy of the file, which is the
official version that includes all historical documents. Many landowners have
bought property and never received a history of the water right.
With the water right holder, the interviewers will go through the groundwater
certificate and explain it. They've made a map of the area to show the landowner.
They will send the original letter to the parcel owner, based on assessor's data.
They will point out that the water right is for irrigation or its other designated
purpose; explain the priority date, which is the date the water right dates from in
terms of seniority; discuss quantities allocated; and go through the place of use.
Each water right has a legal description of where the water is allowed to be used.
They've found that, with many water rights, the place of use has been chopped up
into smaller parcels, and they will have to talk with all the owners. The water right
is appurtenant with the land. Some water rights have provisions, such as stream
flow or intake screening. If the landowners ask questions, the interviewers will
direct the landowners to the proper forms. They have also developed ways to help
the landowners understand how much water they are actually using with the water
use estimation worksheet, which was put together with the agricultural caucus.
They are in the process of adding a section for drip irrigation. It is meant as a tool
for the farmer to understand how much water he or she is using. They have tried
this out with folks. It takes time, but people have been receptive.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
The interviewers will no longer ask any direct questions. They are simply
giving the landowner the information. If the landowner asks questions, the
interviewers will respond based on what they know about the procedures. The
interviewers will not record how much the landowners are using. Most don't know
how much they are using. Instead, they are giving the landowner a tool to
calculate their use for future reference.
Nelson stated this is not for exempt wells. Atkeson stated it is only for
people with a water right certificate, permit, or claim. Because of the place of use
category, they may run into a 40 -acre parcel that is now eight five -acre parcels
with six wells. It will get messy about what happens to the original allocation.
Nelson asked who does that. Atkeson stated an owner would have to take
action to change the point or withdrawal to one of the newer wells. The DOE would
review the entire situation and information the other property owners.
Anderson stated the best outcome is if the Conservancy Board gets
functional, and then it would be the better place to make those changes. At the
moment, they are currently waiting on the legislature to make changes.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Dawson asked if a person could have a very old claim, but no real water
right. Atkeson stated a claim is different. They are talking about a certificate,
which is the most valid document showing a water right. A claim could become a
certificate if an adjudication is held. There has been no adjudication in this area.
All of the 4,900 claims from this area are unresolved. The interviewers will explain
this potential process to the people.
Anderson stated the PUD went through a process to select claims. The
majority of claims in the database are not worth a lot on their face because they
were filed for an exempt well or the applicant put the date of first use after the date
of the statute. That paper is not worth a lot. They went through to look at all
those documents and eliminated most of them. Out of the 4,800, they only
selected 800 to include in the stage II effort because they have a high probability of
being valid.
Dawson stated the Nooksack River doesn't go through the Lummi
Reservation. Anderson stated it does. The river is the boundary and the Tribe
claims a portion of it.
Atkeson stated adjudication could take place in smaller areas of the WRIA or
WRIA -wide. Some of the more successful adjudications around the state were in
smaller areas as opposed to the bigger areas. They have an opportunity to decide
whether this is something that would be useful, to get an accounting of all the
claims. It could be done on a smaller watershed scale.
Crawford asked how the state checks to make sure people don't use too
much water. Atkeson stated the state doesn't check.
Anderson stated the state would occasionally get complaints. If the state
thinks it is worthy of investigation, it will send in an investigator. That is how it
would happen. Typically, the state doesn't look for it. The system is complaint
driven.
Crawford asked if the state is actively issuing water rights. Atkinson stated
there have been no new certifications for awhile. There are 572 applications
pending for WRIA 1.
Crawford stated the document stated that DOE would issue certificates.
Anderson stated they are issuing certificates. The DOE has four permit writers for
the entire state. There is a backlog of 9,000 to 10,000 applications. They are
issuing water rights under certain circumstances to meet environmental needs and
public health needs, but they are glacially slow at issuing the water rights.
Atkeson stated they are issuing water rights in Whatcom County for surface
water withdrawals for single - family residences for Lake Whatcom. There is an
exemption in the closure that allows single family residents in the Lake Whatcom
watershed and Lake Samish watershed to apply for and get in a timely manner.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
McShane stated the DOE made an effort to prioritize how to do these a
number of years ago, which went to court. The DOE has to take them
chronologically.
Atkeson stated the DOE can do a public health emergency request faster.
Roll stated he was seeking to get moving on stage II. The issue he's looking
for is whether Council willing to endorse stage II.
Anderson stated these documents have been scrubbed pretty hard. They wil
seek approval at the Planning Unit meeting this month. They may make more
changes as they get out into the field. This will still be a learning process, and they
will keep people posted.
Dawson moved to approve the substitute draft stage II documents for water
rights delineation in the WRIA.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 11 :05 a.m.)
Caucus Support
Roll stated the Small Cities Caucus representatives are present. There was a
request for financial support proposals that the Council could consider. During the
process of submitting applications for support, the Small Cities Caucus asked to talk
to the Council about this. They are at a point where they have acquired most of
the applications. Today, they are going to hear from this caucus and then talk
about the process of taking the applications and moving them forward through a
Council approval process.
Crawford asked if applications submitted included funding for small cities.
Roll stated he did not receive that Council direction. The Council direction was to
receive applications. He's received those applications. His charge was to make
sure the applications were complete before forwarding them for Council
consideration. He is very close to that. The Small Cities Caucus is one applicant
among others. They requested to talk to the Council about this issue.
Dawson stated the councilmembers felt that those who could fund
themselves should. Roll stated there was no unified Council direction about that.
Certain councilmembers spoke to that issue.
David Davidson, Sumas City Administrator and Small Cities Caucus
representative, questioned how the County feels about an unfunded mandate. The
small cities are wrestling with new shoreline regulations that have come through
with no money. This process put the cities in the position of receiving an unfunded
mandate from the County Council and Initiating Governments. The Initiating
Governments launched the process, applied for state grant funds, put together the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, Page 9
1 framework of how the cities participate, and called them to the table. The County
2 is relying on the small cities to implement this plan when done. He asked who in
3 Whatcom County is a general purpose authority to set land use and environmental
4 regulations and enforcement. It is the County, the cities, and tribes. The County
5 needs the small cities to participate to enforce this plan when adopted. This
6 process is the only game in town, and they have to come. It is a two -way
7 dependence. Think about what the County Comprehensive Plan has that impacts
8 the small cities. They expect the small cities to accommodate an additional 23,000
9 people in next 20 years. The cities have to provide water, residential land, sewage
10 service, and more. They are in the midst of implementing the County
11 Comprehensive Plan for the county. They are the folks who have the large
12 municipal water rights and who care about augmenting the rights. They are the
13 folks with sewer treatment plants. They are different form other caucuses in that
14 way. Some area stakeholders are sharing their thoughts. The cities are
15 governmental entities the County is counting on to do things when this is done. A
16 fair chunk of what the County is doing to fund its own effort is being done with a
17 large chuck of the countywide flood tax that is charged per parcel and is collected
18 out of the cities. They are part of the tax base to generate a resource to fund the
19 County's effort to do this process. They ask for some of the tax money from the
20 cities to fund the staff they need to gear up and be the capable participants in all of
21 this in order to make all of this work. They are all in it together, and the cities will
22 have to implement the plan for the County.
23
24 Steve ]ilk, City of Lynden, stated that, in Lynden, the amount of dollars
25 collected on the flood tax is short of $200,000 annually. The question is whether
26 the other governments can tax the property owners to pay their share. They could.
27 They could take dollars out of water and sewer budgets to pay for process. In the
28 case of Lynden and one other small city, that is financially possible without affecting
29 ratepayers or taxpayers directly. At least three other cities are not in a financial
30 position to reallocate funds to provide these resources. The question comes back to
31 what was the County's intention for public involvement and decision - making and
32 how it was to be funded when the County is the lead agency that took this role on.
33 If they were to develop a process by which they would ask the Planning Unit
34 members to take on some of that responsibility to inform and engage the public,
35 then he would ask how they would go about funding it. They would do so by
36 funding the caucuses, including the small cities caucus, at a certain level.
37 Implementation of the final plan is going to be the most difficult part of the process.
38 Funding the process is responsible. They are asking the County Council to
39 recognize that it already collected the taxes from the small communities, who have
40 not had anything to say about how the dollars are to be used.
41
42 Crawford questioned whether the flood tax already existed before the Water
43 Resources fund. Roll stated yes.
44
45 Crawford stated they have taken funds out of the existing revenue stream
46 and allocated them for this whole thing.
47
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Monsen stated that at the time the County created the Water Resource fund,
the flood fee was doubled. One hundred percent of the increase went into the
Water Resource fund. The flood tax was doubled years ago, then cut in half. It
was doubled again for the Water Resources fund.
Dawson stated the Small Cities Caucus representatives make a good
argument.
McShane stated the City of Bellingham has staff working on this as well. He
asked how the city funds those positions and efforts.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council member, stated the funds come out of
the Public Works Water fund. Their total budget for water resources last year was
$750,000.
Don Peterson, Sumas Mayor, stated all government is faced with rising costs.
The small cities have taken a bigger hit than Bellingham. In Sumas:
• In 1993, the $.01 fuel tax revenue generated $103,000. In 2000, it was
$17,000.
• The sales tax revenue in 1994 generated $172,000. In 2000, it
generated $111,000.
• The gambling tax revenue in 1993 was $312,000. In 2000, it was
$62,000.
The state Department of Ecology (DOE) is paying to update the shoreline
master program, which is fine. However, Sumas is struggling to do the day -to -day
operations. The WRIA program is fantastic, and the small cities need to be
involved. To be involved, they need to be informed and have consulting advice and
legal advice to make the decisions to end up with best plan. They need to be there
and represented. To do that, they need to be informed.
Nelson asked what the small cities were requesting. Roll stated it is a variety
of things.
Jilk stated it is equivalent to a half -time staff person and an engineering
technician to:
• provide attendance at technical team meetings and the Planning Unit meetings,
• review any effort from those meetings to provide updates and recommendations
to the caucus of the mayors,
• advise on positions to take as appropriate, and
• do additional follow up between meetings in terms of information being
generated at meetings.
The request would provide for 100 hours total for a year for clerical
assistance, communication within the caucus, and mileage and some office
expenses. The combination of staffing and office expenses was about $36,000.
Legal expenses and consulting services totaling $10,000.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Crawford asked the number of small cities. ]ilk stated there are six. In
terms of the small cities' willingness to partner with the County and other IG's in
this process, there has never been a question as to whether or not the small cities
want to be a part of and need to be a part of the process. This is a frugal budget
looking at what it takes in terms of the needs for the small cities as municipal
governments, and looking at each one of the issues as they go through this
process. It is different than most other caucuses. It is a fairly effective and
efficient way of carrying the load.
Darryl Brennick, City of Lynden Mayor, stated Mr. Davidson did an excellent
job of laying out the facts. The small cities' responsibility to provide water and
treatment is huge in the context of the entire county. The six small cities came
together concerned about many issues in the county, and joined to discuss those
issues. Now, there are several issues they are discussing. This is one of the top
issues. It is brought up at every meeting. They spend a lot of time on it. The
mayors and administrative staff are at the meetings. This proposed budget is very
conservative. The many hours spent preparing for the meetings are not included in
the budget. Hours are spent preparing the agenda and packet. This budget is
extremely conservative. He agreed with the points made regarding the flood tax
and small cities budgets being cut back, especially for the cities of Nooksack,
Sumas, and Everson. This is not something the small cities can walk away from. It
is a mandate, but it is also needed to look out for the interests of the small cities.
Nelson stated there are many caucus support applications. He asked for an
overview. Roll stated the Council allowed for $50,000 in the current budget. The
total request, based on annual estimation, is approximately $140,000. Now, they
are somewhat into the year and could scale back from there to the end of the year,
to an amount around $100,000. That would be 100 percent funding of all requests
received.
Nelson stated the Council could look at future requests next year through the
budget process, and at outcomes and deliverables.
McShane asked the impacts that funding would have on County programs.
Roll stated they currently have $50,000 budgeted for support. They would have to
look for opportunities for more funds. One opportunity is that they are not having
as many meetings as anticipated. There may be additional funds from that.
Nelson suggested putting together a Council sub - committee to review the
applications.
Councilmembers Crawford, McShane, and Dawson volunteered to go through
the packets of information, based on what the Council discussed previously and the
needs brought forward from various caucuses. They would meet before the next
Council meeting.
Roll stated he wanted to get the response to the Planning Unit by March 28.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
McShane stated they could meet this week or a have a special meeting next
Tuesday.
Nelson stated there is no intention to cut off any of the caucuses. They want
to use the resources wisely to accomplish the unfunded mandate from the federal
and state level.
Crawford stated the Small Cities Caucus is not the first group that feels
strongly that it should be considered as much or more as other groups. Most
groups feel that way.
Davidson stated no other groups are going to have to carry out the work.
Roll stated he applied for a grant. During the Centennial application process,
they are applying for two components of work, one for WRIA and one for salmon
recovery. Any questions should be directed to Sue Blake.
Nelson asked if grants are available for small cities from the federal or state
governments for caucus support. Roll stated he has not found any.
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ESA
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Revisions
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated he asked Matt
Aamot and Sylvia Goodwin to review what they talked about last week and provide
additional information.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there is a Comprehensive
Plan docket process annually. Their choice is whether to address Comprehensive
Plan policy on shoreline /ESA issues this year or next year. That is the big decision
now. It is timely because they have to start this year on the shoreline update.
They have to decide whether they are going with path A or path B, or start doing
the inventory work to leave options open and decide later on path A or path B.
Staff thought it was timely to do Comprehensive Plan policies to give staff direction
on how to integrate shorelines, ESA, and other zoning and land use decisions within
the corridors that might effect the ESA, which is why they docketed the issue. They
are at a fork in the road on the ESA stuff. They just got a grant from the state
Department of Ecology (DOE) to begin work on the shoreline inventory this
summer. Their proposal is to just do the marine shoreline this year. They are still
finalizing it. They have to decide whether or not to inventory all the requirements
for path A only, or everything that would be required for path B to have all the
options open.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin continued to state that they have to decide on the Comprehensive
Plan docket items at the next meeting. They are going to need direction on paths A
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
48
and B. They discussed a comparison between paths A and B at a previous Natural
Resources Committee meeting. She distributed a chart that talks about the
inventory requirements for paths A and B. Staff has another idea. It sounded like
there was still some indecision about whether to go with path A or B. They have a
flow chart that shows the eight -step process they are going to go through with
shorelines.
Nelson stated that path B would be the data collection of the information that
is needed for decisions. Goodwin stated that was correct. Staff's proposal at this
point is, if it's premature to make a decision on which path to go with, to proceed
with the inventory requirements for path B. Collect all the data, which is a one to
two year process. If they collected all the data to know whether to choose path A
or B, then revisit the decision once they see the information needed to make the
decision. Revisit the issue next fall.
Dawson questioned whether the grant was contingent upon going with one
path or the other. Goodwin stated the grant is not. It is for shoreline inventory.
At the time they wrote the grant application, staff assumed that they would be
inventorying everything they need for path B. It is not too late to alter it if they
want.
Nelson stated he was a proponent of path A, and is willing to accept
collecting the data for path B. It doesn't matter whether they choose path A or B
now because they need that information countywide right now for whatever
decisions they make in the future. He would advocate getting the inventory
collected and getting the information necessary for making the proper decisions.
They will probably find that many of those decisions are going to impact public
projects more than private projects, which is what they are trying to protect. It is
the perception in the community that they need to be aware of. Many of the rural
people in the community are going to prefer to see path A. He would endorse
collecting the data, preparing the inventory, and begin working on how to apply
that to their projects under path B, but not adopt either one at this time or
recognize that path A is their current process. Hart stated that by having
information, they would be able to gauge what that impact is.
Goodwin stated there are a couple of issues to deal with. The Council needs
to decide whether to docket the item. The other issue is the direction on beginning
the inventory work. Councilmember Nelson said he would support the first few
steps of beginning the inventory to leave their options open, and revisit the choice
of whether to go with path A or path B once the inventory is complete. That would
be an appropriate motion so staff has that policy direction.
Nelson stated his perception was that paths A and B were what the DOE
looked at for whether or not to rubber stamp local actions. If the data and
information comes forward with projects under path A, then they would have the
information necessary to make a decision. Goodwin stated they might, but if they
choose path A, they would still have to do a habitat conservation plan and
additional work for each project. However, they will at least have the background
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
information so they won't have to begin from scratch each time. They would do the
Public Works Department and the citizens a big favor by going ahead and doing the
inventory work now for the GIS.
Nelson moved to direct staff to develop the inventory and prepare an
analysis for the various pathways.
McShane stated there is going to be a big issue of public perception. Having
this information about which path to take will provide the argument to support the
Council's decision. Hart stated that part of that is a public participation plan about
how to display data once it is gathered.
Goodwin stated hoped they can tag on and coordinate with the efforts of the
Marine Resources Committee for public participation. John Thompson already has
ongoing work with other programs on fisheries issues. Hopefully, they will not have
a third public process, but will coordinate with those existing processes for data and
salmon recovery efforts.
Crawford asked if the suggestion was that today was not to decide which
path to take, but only to collect data that supports the most restrictive path.
Dawson stated they need the inventory to do projects.
Nelson stated that regardless of which path they choose, they will need the
inventory and data analysis.
Crawford asked if they can do the inventory with existing staff. Goodwin
stated no. They are getting a grant of $17,000 to do the marine inventory. It will
fund a global positioning system (GPS) unit, some extra help, and some consultant
work. The plan was to walk the entire shoreline and get the marine portion done.
They will not get the riparian stuff done.
Nelson asked if they plan to use interns. Goodwin stated they will. They will
also submit another grant application to do riparian stuff. As soon as they can get
the issue of the Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance resolved, it will free the
County up to apply for grants. They may have to come back with a supplemental
request to do some of that riparian inventory.
Nelson stated that would occur regardless of which path they choose.
Goodwin stated it would be more expensive to go with path B.
Crawford asked when they have to make a decision on the paths. Goodwin
stated before they begin writing the policies in the autumn, unless the legislature
grants an extension.
Crawford asked if there was a letter to state representatives recently from
Executive Kremen regarding funding. He questioned what that letter was about.
Goodwin stated the letter said that the County supported the additional money.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Hart stated it asked for legislative support.
McShane stated they are waiting to find out if the legislature will provide
funding. Last year, they chose not to provide funding.
Goodwin stated they hope to get another year or two to do it and to receive
some funding. It is unrealistic to do it by the end of 2002 without additional
funding. It is going to take close to a year once the policies are written, which
a re n't.
Hart stated there are opportunities to work with the cities to get grant dollars
to do the same inventory.
Goodwin stated they are having a joint meeting at the end of this month to
work with the small cities on the buildable lands inventory to update the
Comprehensive Plan, which also has to be done next year. They are meeting
monthly with city planners to talk about coordinating shoreline, ESA, and inventory
work.
Nelson restated the motion to move forward with data collection and to
support staff in that effort. It will give the County information and tools to make an
informed decision on the pathways.
Crawford stated that with this motion, they don't know if they are going to
come forward with a supplemental budget request. Goodwin stated they are
probably not going to this summer to do the riparian work. They will do the marine
inventory this summer with current funding. They are waiting for work on channel
migration zones, which will provide some background. They will continue to work
with other groups on their data on riparian work. The soonest they will see a
supplemental budget is in the fall to begin the rest of the riparian work.
Crawford asked if the motion is inclusive of proceeding the riparian work.
Nelson stated it is. The County will need it regardless of what they do. They
will hope to find funding elsewhere. The inventory is going to be necessary to
make informed decisions and to develop the policies necessary for the entire
Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated the River and Flood Division is also getting a lot of work
regarding the floods. They will get that work. They've been spending time putting
together the information on all the data requirements they need, and all of the
different sources from where they might get that data. They have a good inventory
of what information is available and where the holes are.
Motion carried unanimously.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Goodwin stated a second issue is what to do with the Comprehensive Plan
docket item that was brought forward.
Dawson moved to save it until the autumn.
Goodwin stated one option is to wait until next year and docket it in 2002,
which means they are doing the Comprehensive Plan policy direction at the same
time they are developing the program. The reason staff brought it forward now is
to get direction in ahead of time.
Nelson stated the Planning Commission would also look at this if it is
docketed. They will need to have the information to address the concerns. He
asked if they are making the timeline too tight to do what they need to do to
develop their projects regarding WRIA. He questioned when they plan to bring the
projects forward. If they have to have an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the environmental impacts, they might bunch this schedule too tight.
Monsen stated no. They approach project implementation so that every time
they know of something that could lead to constructive activity, they will implement
it subject to financial constraints. They always look for action items, which are
projects.
Nelson asked if they would do the easy projects first. Monsen stated the
easy ones are the ones that are clear. They are still sorting through regulatory
issues. Nothing is easy procedurally.
Nelson asked if they could wait until fall.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there was some question
among the councilmembers last Tuesday about the process that will be pursued.
They asked if policy direction is first given by the Council, and then staff would
execute the policy direction, or it would first go to the Planning Commission for
their direction, then go to the Council, then go to the staff. He was not suggesting
one process or the other, but it is something that should be grappled with soon.
Don't delay too long if they are going to go to the Planning Commission to start the
process.
Dawson stated the recommendation was to do a hybrid path, working from
plan A and incorporating items from plan B.
McShane stated the committee had that discussion. The conclusion in the
Natural Resources Committee was that the discussion needed to go before the full
Council. They didn't have a recommendation.
Nelson asked if they want to tackle the Comprehensive Plan amendment, not
having all the information needed to make the decisions, or put it to the Planning
Commission as the information becomes available to look at the Comprehensive
Plan amendment, and then to Council to rehash again.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
McShane stated an issue with a hybrid path is that the Council needs to give
some guidance to the Planning Commission about its leanings toward or away from
path A or B. The question is whether to have the Planning Commission look at
amending the Comprehensive Plan this year, then have a framework to look at the
shoreline program, versus having them do the two at the same time.
Goodwin stated the amendment was brought forward now to have the policy
direction decided and then begin on the shoreline policy. That would be easiest.
McShane stated that by voting on this, they are not amending the
Comprehensive Plan now, just docketing it.
Goodwin stated another option is the "ESA Light" policies. The policy as it is
written strongly uses the term "properly functioning condition," and they are trying
to retain and restore properly functioning conditions. The term is defined and
refers to ESA. It will be tied to path B. If they don't feel like they want to go that
strongly, but still want to docket polices to give direction on shoreline, they could
modify the proposal to talk about protecting and restoring fish habitat, but without
the "properly functioning condition" term and modify the policy on shorelines that
say they are going to begin working on a shoreline program that would meet the
requirements of path A or B. There is wording that would not commit them to path
B at this time, but would begin work on that public involvement and policy
threshold.
McShane stated it is action item number 54 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated it is another option. If they want to have that discussion with the
Planning Commission, but not commit to path B, staff could have that ready.
Nelson stated the question is how to address this in a policy fashion with a
lack of information.
Dawson they could go through path B and see if there are any they feel
strongly about.
Nelson asked if they are uncomfortable with path B.
McShane stated the consensus of the committee was to look at a hybrid.
Nelson stated there is an uncomfortable level with path B. They know that
much. He preferred to send this to the Planning Committee with direction to begin
digesting it. The Council is giving the direction to do a hybrid of the paths. They
need to get the information for path B. The Council would want the Planning
Commission to look at path B, but remember that they are leaning toward path A.
That would be the policy direction for the Planning Commission, which doesn't
provide much direct information to work with. That can be difficult.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Crawford suggested telling the Planning Commission that they are not
adopting path B, but to act as if they are.
Nelson stated they should look at the elements of the policies.
Goodwin stated that the amendment is just policy direction on what they are
prescribing to do. Once they get that done, then they do a shoreline program that
has the shoreline rules, which implement this.
Nelson stated that the Council needs to let the Planning Commission begin
work on this.
McShane agreed. Otherwise the Planning Commission will look at shorelines
without any tools or any introduction to it.
Nelson moved to let this go forward with the direction that the Council is not
comfortable with all of path B, take into consideration the impacts for making future
decisions, and gear that toward these amendments.
Imhof stated that would be difficult. They need to go through each item on
the paths and decide on the critical items from path B.
Crawford questioned whether anything they end up with short of path B is
considered a path A if path B is a higher level of regulation. The net result is a
modified path A. Have the Planning Commission look at the most restrictive level,
and Council could then look at a modified path A.
Nelson stated the Planning Commission would not look at anything the
Council takes out.
Imhof stated that is what the Planning Commission will do if they modify it.
They would be trying to second -guess the Council's vote.
Nelson stated he wanted the Planning Commissioners to form their own
opinions for the Council to look at. That is their job.
McShane suggested looking at the alternate language for action item 54.
What they have in the packet locks them into path B.
Aamot stated he drafted new language that would not bind them to path B.
They were proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to set a general direction to
embark upon. They didn't envision going through every part of the shoreline
guidelines with the Planning Commission this year. The first part of the
amendment to action item 54 would say they are going with path A, but would
review path B to implement it where appropriate. They would adopt this
Comprehensive Plan amendment. As they go along with the shoreline
amendments, they would engage in that process to review the DOE rules section by
section.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
Nelson asked if that would require them to amend it again. Aamot stated it
would not require them to amend the Comprehensive Plan again. They would do
that as they amend the shoreline program. There are two processes going on here.
One is the policy for the Comprehensive Plan and the other is getting the regulation
for the shorelines.
Nelson asked if the Planning Commission would work on them together.
Aamot stated they would.
Goodwin stated she hoped they would be able to finish the Comprehensive
Plan discussion with the Planning Commission this summer, send it to the Council,
and begin working on the shoreline policy in the fall, after they finish the
Comprehensive Plan discussion. They have until the end of 2002 to do the
shoreline policy. The Comprehensive Plan policy, if docketed this year, would have
to be done by the end of 2001. They wouldn't be simultaneous processes.
Nelson asked how they would work on this amendment. Aamot stated he
envisioned getting a general direction on path A or path B, so they can start on that
eight -step process. They have to have a public participation component. They
have to do an inventory, which would take 18 months. They have to analyze the
shorelines. This is going to be a very lengthy process. At the end of this they get
into actually developing the shoreline program regulations. The over - arching issue
is the language regarding "properly functioning conditions." It is language in the
federal government rules of the National Marine Fisheries Service. They say that
any local regulations that they sign off on have to include properly functioning
conditions.
Nelson stated that once they begin on a particular path, they are stuck with
it. He wasn't sure they had enough information to get on that pathway. Aamot
suggested that they could remove that language from the amendment, such as
"Ensure that new and existing land uses do not degrade habitat conditions of
threatened and endangered species." They could revisit the term "properly
functioning conditions."
Nelson stated that is what he preferred, if this goes to the Planning
Commission, that they have a chance to work on it in accordance with what the
Council is looking at. At the same time, understand the citizens' concerns.
Aamot stated the concept of "properly functioning conditions" coincides with
part IV (Path B) regulations. That is the whole foundation of them. Path A doesn't
mention them.
Dawson stated this is a mandate from the government to ensure properly
functioning conditions. They can encourage those conditions. It is hard to prove a
take without properly functioning conditions.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, 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
48
Imhof stated policy 2M -2 reads, "ensure that new land use uses restore
degraded habitat on parcels to properly functioning conditions...." They will hold
someone hostage with that.
Nelson stated that no one at this meeting can digest everything in the
regulations now. This idea has to go through the Planning Commission.
Aamot stated that it gets back to whether they want to pursue the idea of
having properly functioning conditions as a rule for Whatcom County.
Dawson stated they could encourage it, but not mandate it with public
government activities.
Goodwin stated there are two options. One option is to docket the
amendment as it is or with the amendments, or give the staff direction to remove
some of the references to properly functioning conditions and bring it back to the
Council at its next meeting, before they docket it.
McShane stated he liked the idea of changing the language in action item 54
because it provides flexibility. In taking that flexible approach, they might need to
go through some of the other policy statements to make sure they are kept in that
flexible position. They could still choose most of path B, and still be consistent with
their policy. Under chapter eight, resource lands - agricultural lands, goal 8E says
"ensure agricultural land uses." He was not sure they want to use the word
"ensure" because of agricultural lands being exempt. He suggested, "€nsuFe
Encourage agricultural land uses...." Make other word changes under the goal to
make the sentence correct. On policy 8E -1, also make that change, ""Ensure that
Encourage the development and maintenance of adequate riparian buffers a-re
int.,;., along rivers and streams." The agriculture is exempt.
Nelson stated it was for current agricultural practices. Aamot stated staff
could break it down to new uses having buffer requirements.
Nelson stated this needs more work on the language regarding the Council's
concerns on the pathways, then come back to the Council on Tuesday, and then
docket it for the Planning Commission.
McShane moved to consider the amendment to action item 54 to provide
flexibility and other language changes.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Roll stated they would discuss financials at the next meeting in April.
Nelson thanked City of Bellingham Councilmember John Watts for attending.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 17 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 3/13/2001, Page 22