HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession October 16 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
October 16, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by Council Chair Sam
Crawford in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Connie Hoag
Marlene Dawson Bob Imhof
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated today is the beginning of the
administration's recommendations on where the County should go from this point
on.
Planning Unit Voting Process & Procedure
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is clarification of
language that was in the original process and procedure document that everyone
voted on. The proposed language defines when votes are going to be called. To
date, there has been 100 percent consensus on the decisions, but there may not be
so from this point on. Proposed language clarifies how decisions will be reached if
there is not consensus. They will continue to work toward consensus.
McShane moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. STORMWATER
Release of DOE Stormwater Manual
Monsen stated that many of the issues, questions, and confusion stem from
what the chart on Council packet page 50 explains. There is a good reason to be
confused. It is complicated. There is a relationship between the Federal Clean
Water Act and State Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered
Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The question is whether the County
is in compliance for stormwater. The County is in compliance, but there is not a lot
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, Page 1
1 to be in compliance with. There is a regulatory framework to comply with, but it is
2 not a requirement. Another question is whether the County should do more. The
3 answer is yes, even though they are in compliance now. Whatcom County is
4 required to do things that are not legally required. It is confusing. Most of
5 stormwater management consists of good ideas.
6
7 Council packet page 88 is a timeline of the creation of Puget Sound Water
8 Quality Authority, which created original stormwater management requirements for
9 all communities around the Puget Sound. The Water Quality Authority was never
10 given the authority to regulate, however. There is no statutory requirement that
11 the requirements shall be done. It was best described as a recommendation.
12
13 Brenner asked their authority, if they can't regulate. Monsen stated they
14 don't exist anymore because the legislature thought they were too heavy handed.
15 Now there is the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, which replaces the Water
16 Quality Authority. Their purpose is still to try to improve water quality around
17 Puget Sound generally. They have influence over state budgeting and agencies,
18 but no direct authority over local government. They form recommendations of how
19 the collective should function.
20
21 The State Department of Ecology (DOE) put together a stormwater
22 management manual for Western Washington, which replaces the original 1992
23 DOE manual, which was done in the context of the Puget Sound Water Quality
24 Authority and its programs.
25
26 The original plan talked about programs for local government being in place
27 by 1998. Work on the manual began in 1988. It was finished in the last few
28 weeks. All requirements for stormwater management are tied to the Clean Water
29 Act and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II program.
30 In that reference, item SW 1.4 says that the stormwater elements will be
31 incorporated by March 2003.
32
33 Crawford asked if this is what the technical team was waiting for before they
34 would do the stormwater standards. Monsen stated it is. Updates to the
35 Comprehensive Water Resource Plan made reference to this and other things that
36 they were waiting for the State to work on. It just happens to be a year later than
37 they thought it would be.
38
39 Crawford stated the Technical Advisory Team was postponing coming up with
40 standards because it was waiting for the manual.
41
42 Dawson asked who shall have programs in by March 2003 to comply with the
43 Clean Water Act. Monsen stated the Action Team recommends that this happen.
44 Also, the County is required in the Bellingham growth area by the federal Clean
45 Water Act to have a comprehensive stormwater program in by March 2003, but
46 only in the Bellingham growth area.
47
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.71 says local jurisdictions shall do this, subject to available
funding.
Monsen stated the "shall" game is to also avoid creating an unfunded
mandate. They are saying we have to take care of this, but they will obligated to
send money if they absolutely require it. Don't ignore the regulatory strength
behind the Clean Water Act, unfunded mandate or not.
Gibson stated the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, first
developed under the Water Quality Authority, continues to exist under the Action
Team. The Legislature adopts it every two years as a work plan. That plan is done
as the State's discharge of its responsibility under section 320 of the Clean Water
Act, which is the National Estuary Program. The fact that Whatcom County is in
Puget Sound ties Whatcom County in through the National Estuary Program,
through the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, in an additional way to
what other phase II jurisdictions are tied in. There is tie in through Phase II and
also through Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, called the National Estuary
Program, because of Whatcom County's proximity to Puget Sound. That is where
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority /Action Team work plan /management plan
comes in.
Brenner asked if Whatcom County is considered part of the Puget Sound
area. Gibson stated for purposes of the action plan /work plan, and water quality
management plan, Whatcom County is considered part of the Puget Sound area. It
also includes the straight of San Juan de Fuca.
Monsen stated there are two challenges. First, there has to be state and
federal recognition that there has to be clear inter - relationships between programs.
One program should not stand by itself. At the same time, there are requirements
for the County to move ahead in things like the March 2003 stormwater
management program in the Bellingham growth area. At the same time, Whatcom
County must make sure it is dealing with watershed planning, because it is the right
thing to do. The year 2003 is a big year for concluding activities, including the
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) project, the Puget Sound shared strategy
regarding Puget Sound salmon recovery, the shoreline program update, and the
critical areas update in 2002 and 2003. Whatcom County is moving into a
challenging period of time in bringing these things to conclusion.
Brenner asked if there is a deadline for the urban growth areas (UGA's) for
the small cities to have to come into compliance.
Monsen stated phase I is for the big communities such as Seattle. Phase II is
for cities with populations of 10,000 and greater. There are two factors. Lynden
and Ferndale could be pulled into this requirement once they hit that population.
They don't know whether DOE, as an agent for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), can say that additional communities can be pulled in for certain
reasons. However, if they haven't said it now, they won't make it required by
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
March 2003. DOE said will be a year from now before they provide much guidance
at all. The priority is still to deal with the big picture.
Brenner asked the timeframe if the population doesn't reach 10,000 and DOE
doesn't make the mandate. Monsen stated that when a community reaches a
population of 10,000 is the threshold. It is a population threshold.
Dawson stated it is subject to funding. Monsen stated it is not. Funding will
influence how you say what you do and when you will do it. Funding will dictate
how rapidly you would do whatever you do. Being subject to available funding is in
the Puget Sound plan. It is a requirement for the Clean Water Act in the
Bellingham urban growth area.
Monsen stated he would discuss what the technical manual says. The State
said it is a reference document, not a regulatory requirement. If a jurisdiction is a
phase II community, it must adopt this or an equivalent. If a jurisdiction wants to
get a road construction state permit, it had better use this. The State can withhold
permits. They can create the conditions for the permits.
McShane asked if this could impact someone who is doing a Planned Unit
Development, for example, in their permitting. Monsen stated it would. Whatcom
County needs to adopt something like this for the Bellingham urban growth area,
and they should not have dramatically different standards for the other side of the
urban growth area line.
Brenner stated they would not conflict with it, but they can only do so much
with the money they have. Monsen stated the recommendation is to look seriously
at adopting this manual, with the appropriate exceptions, and make sure Whatcom
County is in sync with Bellingham, Lynden, and Ferndale, so there is some sense of
continuity across those boundaries.
Nelson asked if urban jurisdictions are adopting this. Monsen stated he was
not sure. Even Ferndale is not required to develop a stormwater program.
Ferndale is strongly encouraged by the Puget Sound Plan, and they are on notice
that they must meet these conditions for a state permit.
Brenner stated there is no way the small cities can do less than the plan and
get any permits or grants to do restoration or changes.
Roll stated Lake Whatcom is the urban growth area, but Whatcom County
has the whole watershed. It would be odd to imply that phase II would not also
apply to the whole watershed.
Brenner stated the watershed is a thing of its own, and there are cities that
don't have any money.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Crawford stated the redevelopment standards ought to kick in at zero. If
someone with inadequate stormwater standards wants to remodel, they need to
adopt this.
Richard Duane, Engineering Manager, stated he would discuss the
philosophies, differences, issues not addressed, and a timeline of projected
milestones.
The philosophy is to require more in terms of environmental protection than
the damage the new development will cause. New development will pay for the
sins of the past. They are trying to get a net gain out of development. Examples
include some maintained impervious surfaces will be treated as a new impervious
surface. For example, if Whatcom County overlays its chip sealed roads with
asphalt, this would be considered a 100 percent new impervious area. The County
would be required to put new stormwater requirements on that.
Monsen stated from that perspective, there is no change. This manual says
it is a trigger to require stormwater management that is not in place.
Nelson stated all new construction and all new development would kick in the
requirements.
Duane stated that when a gravel road becomes an asphalt road, the new
road would be considered 100 percent new and 100 percent impervious. There will
be stormwater facilities for the road when it is complete.
Brenner asked how long gravel roads have been considered impervious.
Monsen stated it is a new requirement, but in reality they are impervious.
Crawford stated chip sealing a chip sealed road is not new construction.
Duane agreed.
Nelson stated a new bike path would require a stormwater system. Duane
stated a new bike path would require retention and detention facilities for
stormwater management. They will not be required to build stormwater facilities
for an existing road. If they widen a road, the new impervious area will have
stormwater treatment for the new area.
Monsen stated there is a retrofit requirement.
Duane stated he was not sure of the retrofit threshold.
Nelson stated that as they go through the process, they need to know the
cost assessment for the construction projects. Duane stated they always run a cost
analysis on any project.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Brenner asked if they would need stormwater management on a bike path.
Duane stated yes. There would be a threshold of 5,000 square feet of impervious
area.
Roll stated there are two issues that include water quality and water
quantity, and how water quantity is conveyed off the impervious surface. If there
is a lot of impervious surface that is funneled directly into a critical area, one could
destroy an entire area. It is not just about water quality. It is also about the
conveyance of the quantity of water from the impervious surface.
Brenner asked if there is a threshold on exact locations. Duane stated yes.
If the area is 2,000 square feet, there is a specific threshold of requirements. An
area of 5,000 square feet has higher requirements, and an area of 10,000 square
feet has even higher requirements.
(McShane left at 10:45 a.m.)
Brenner asked if there are area requirements, such as steep areas. Monsen
stated most of the technical standards can also be influenced by a basin plan.
Brenner asked if the County could get leeway for something if it is not in as
critical a place. Monsen stated that as long as it is not part of an entire plan, there
are some exceptions.
Nelson stated costs have just gone up. That was to be expected.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Operations, stated that on a road project,
50 percent of cost could be for stormwater treatment and water quality.
Brenner asked if there is an alternative material that is pervious and can be
used for bike paths, except gravel. Duane stated engineering would look at each
project, review who is going to use it, and the most appropriate surfacing.
Duane continued to state that stormwater retrofits are required on projects
that improve above 50 percent of the assessed value. If a building is modified
above 50 percent of the assessed value, even if they don't increase impervious
surfaces, then the owner must retrofit the entire building for stormwater.
Brenner asked if Whatcom County could go stricter than 50 percent. Duane
stated yes.
Brenner suggested retrofitting if there is a cost that is more than 25 percent
of the assessed value.
Crawford stated they may want to require an upgrade with any improvement
in the Lake Whatcom watershed. There could be a disincentive for people to do
anything to their houses, because it is an expense. The building industry supports
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
retrofitting. Whatcom County may have enforcement issues from people getting
away without permits.
Brenner asked what the hammer is for someone who built something without
permits. She asked if it would overload the system. Duane stated compliance
would be from the Land Use Division.
Duane stated the manual requirements must be adopted. If a lesser
standard is adopted, they must show how the environmental standards would be
picked up by the public. If the County requires lesser standards of a developer, the
County must show how the public will pick it up. The County can carry the
standards or put the standards on the developer. The County must adopt these
standards or like standards.
Nelson stated the standards may create an expense that drives away
potential industries in the community. There could be a policy direction to provide
the stormwater treatment facilities for site locations to make it easier for industry
to locate here. They may decide to handle the stormwater issues, wetland issues,
and other issues. Duane stated that is correct. If the County adopts something
less now, it will have specific standards the County will have to meet when the
NPDES comes about. If the developer doesn't meet the standards, the County will
have to meet them.
Nelson stated the County may want to carry some of the standards rather
than burden the developer.
Duane stated there are differences between existing County regulations and
the new manual. The existing threshold is of 2,000 square feet for a single family
dwelling, and then 5,000 square feet. The County requirement to treat water does
not occur until there is 20,000 square feet of impervious area. The manual
requirement says 5,000 square feet of impervious area, and 10,000 square feet
with stricter requirements.
Monsen stated that when they talk about a manual, there are two reasons to
collect and handle the stormwater. One is from a water quality standpoint, and for
the flow rates. The other reason is to collect and treat it for the pollutants. Those
two can be dealt with through the same system at times, and at times not.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Duane stated one of the differences is that Whatcom County exempts single
family development, except for in the overlay protection areas. The new manual
requires treatment of 2,000 square feet of impervious area or a disturbance of
7,000 square feet of land. Most single family housing is going to be picked up
anywhere the manual is applied. That is a large issue for the Building Services
Division and Land Use Division.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Brenner questioned whether the County would be below the standards
outlined in the manual if it applies the standards of the manual in the Lake
Whatcom watershed and not in the rest of the county. She questioned whether the
County would have to make up those standards in the other areas of the county.
Monsen stated the County would not have to make it up elsewhere. It is not offsite
mitigation. It is water quality in that proximity.
Nelson asked if this was developed in context of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) problem.
Gibson stated it was developed in that context, but the impetus for
development came from the Puget Sound Action Plan.
Nelson stated looking at one water body is not the intent of this plan. It was
developed, perhaps, for countywide application. Monsen stated a big difference in
this manual is that the original manual was done in the context of the Puget Sound
area. This is now the Western Washington manual. A number of communities are
within this guidance document that were not in the previous technical manual.
Brenner stated they will end up having to have the same standard
countywide. Duane stated the special district standards are similar to the Western
Washington manual. That was planned.
Monsen stated the overlays are close to what the manual suggests now.
Brenner asked if the County will have to do the exact same thing in the
County. Monsen stated the only areas where the County needs to make dramatic
changes is the balance of the Bellingham UGA.
Dawson stated timber cutting is land disturbance. Duane stated some types
of timber and forestry uses are exempt. Other land clearing is exempt.
Gibson stated commercial forest timber operations are under the Forest
Practice Act.
Nelson stated there are different overlays for Lake Samish, Lake Whatcom,
and Drayton Harbor. The programs for salmon enhancement may be another
overlay. Stormwater affects salmon. That is part of the process.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Manager, asked about the rest
of the UGA's. Monsen stated it does not apply because they are not over a
population of 10,000. The differences is what is required versus what the County
may want to do inside Ferndale and Lynden. They are trying to make this as
general as possible.
Gibson stated the NPDES phase II is a 10,000 population threshold. It may
or may not pick up Ferndale. However, under section 320 of the Clean Water Act,
the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team work plan, there is no question that
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
DOE views it as having a comprehensive application throughout the Puget Sound
basin. The question is the accountability mechanism. Currently, the law says it is
subject to available funding. They can push the requirements practically through
permitting and grant funding.
Duane stated there are other differences. These are the major differences.
The post - development runoff of a developed site will have to maintain 50 percent of
the six -month pre - development condition. This manual has called all pre -
development conditions the old growth forest. There is already a low runoff
coefficient. One must match up with that flow. Stormwater ponds are going to get
larger. Stormwater facilities will get larger.
Nelson asked if the County could develop engineered facilities for single
family developments and certain other size developments that the public can select
from for the government to offset some of the costs. Hart stated that is a policy
question.
Crawford stated the Technical Advisory Team was to discuss that, but they
were waiting for this plan to come out.
Duane stated they are doing that, but not specific to single family homes.
Nelson questioned whether there are selection materials available for the
public to use to remodel or build instead of hiring an engineer, if the County doesn't
do countywide. Duane stated yes. Many of these things are in place already. The
County already has a fill and grade permit process, which requires temporary
erosion and sediment control. That ordinance covers a lot of what is in the manual.
Nelson stated he is talking about stormwater. They don't have retention
plans. Sudden Valley has done a good job in setting up types of methods for
retention many years ago. Duane stated the County does not have retention
requirements for single family residential housing.
Dawson stated the County permits a building. The DOE will come in by
saying the County is not doing this right and forcing a person into litigation and
appeal to the Hearing Examiner. She questioned whether that is how DOE will
become obstructionist. Duane stated issuing a building permit is not a problem.
The County, if it builds a road project that requires a DOE permit, will have
problems. Businesses will not be required to have a permit from DOE generally.
Duane stated retention and detention facilities will get larger, but he was not
sure how much larger. Ponds in Washington State will be increased by about 30
percent.
Paula Cooper, Engineering Manager - River /Flood, stated this was prompted
because King County found it was getting a lot of erosion downstream of ponds.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Monsen stated ties to the water quantity elements look at different channel
stability downstream.
Duane stated ponds will appear bigger in the short term, but engineers will
learn to size them down.
Nelson asked who is taking on the maintenance.
Monsen stated there is not ongoing assurance that there is monitoring and
maintenance. Those are two big holes in the plan.
Prieve stated that currently, homeowners' associations maintain those
facilities.
Monsen stated related to that is the role of public financing versus individual
financing. There are scenarios where they have to decide if it is better to do
regional collection treatment management or site -by -site management. They need
to understand those things better.
Nelson stated that is why the point was brought up that, where they adopt
the criteria, they need to decide how much of the regulation is on the public sector
and how much is on the private sector. It may be easier to apply if some of the
burden is transferred to the public sector, as far as maintenance and operations
goes.
Brenner suggested different levels for requiring stormwater treatment. For
instance, a private home would not do something as intense as a large facility.
Nelson stated it needs to be a good balance between private sector and
public sector efforts to meet standards and goals. The question is how they fund it,
and whether there are tools for local communities to fund it.
Dawson suggested rural economic development funds.
Gibson stated there is currently a countywide flood control zone district. A
countywide stormwater utility or a regional stormwater utility is one funding
mechanism for regional stormwater facilities. The State will point to the RCW when
the County asks how it is to fund this activity.
Monsen stated that if there is an area where it makes sense to create a
regional collection treatment, they may want to create a specific assessment for
that area. They are looking for revenue enhancements location by location rather
than passing a countywide tax.
Brenner stated they are talking about standards and also enforcement. They
need to put money into enforcement. Don't dump money into a one - size - fits -all
program. Monsen stated he agreed. They need to deal with the monitoring and
enforcement elements before having the answer on what to do next.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Brenner asked if they are looking at a tiered regulation for different levels.
Monsen stated they will look at those elements, but not today.
Mike Roberts, Assistant County Road Engineer, showed slides of how they are
already changing road maintenance and construction. One best management
practice (BMP) for water quality is the triangular silt dike. A catch basin insert
filters out the oil, chemicals, and silt.
Brenner asked how many culverts need to be fixed to allow fish passage.
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated they are working on a more
comprehensive inventory.
Roberts stated the County did five culverts this year.
Monsen stated the Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Division works on it,
and grant funds work on it for specific salmon recovery.
Thompson stated the County has fixed about 30 culverts in the last several
years.
Crawford asked if these culverts were originally good for fish. Roberts stated
they met the standard of the day.
Brenner stated some were never under water.
Prieve stated fish wasn't part of the equation.
Monsen stated they were first designed to get the water through, then they
were made bigger to allow for debris, and now bigger for fish passage.
Roberts stated they replaced a three -foot diameter pipe with a six -foot high
by eight -foot wide squashed pipe.
Nelson asked the cost difference between the two systems. Roberts stated
the three -foot diameter pipe costs $11.90 per foot. The six foot by eight foot pipe
is $130 per foot. The larger pipe models the width of the stream upstream as the
width of the culvert. There is gravel at the bottom of the culvert for spawning. It is
not just for fish passage. It is also for hydraulics and sediment.
Crawford asked if the larger pipe accommodates the same vehicle weight.
Roberts stated the it does accommodate the same weight.
Roberts continued to state that, under the Slater Road bridge over the
Nooksack River, they filtered the runoff water from the bridge surface before the
runoff goes into the river. Anytime they do work on a bridge, they put a blanket
underneath to capture anything that might fall off the bridge.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Anytime they are in a critical area, they use a chainsaw with peanut oil
instead of regular oil, and they use a hydraulic lopper in lieu of the wand saw. The
new striper can use water -based paint in the watershed instead of regular paint.
They are adapting to ESA and the Clean Water Act, and will have to reevaluate the
fleet and equipment, based on how they do their work.
They are tracking costs in the Lake Whatcom watershed. They spend
$73,000 for setting up the best management practices, having a spill- prevention
plan, and having a response crew onsite doing the work. That represents 20
percent of the project cost. If they use traditional measurements, it will cost 20
percent more to do the same amount of work.
Dawson suggested having Mr. Roberts' presentation at a County Council
meeting for the public.
Roberts stated the M &O staff is adapting well to the new requirements.
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
RFP Status
Roll stated they are moving forward on the request for proposals (RFP).
There was a Joint Board meeting to discuss the Lummi Nation's response about four
of the six request for qualifications (RFQ) respondents. The group agreed to
continue and stay the course of the RFP that everyone approved. The RFP went
out. He will come back to the Council with a proposed contractor.
Draft Phase III Scope of Work, Status
Roll stated he received yesterday the draft phase III scope of work. It will be
available in the County Council office, on a compact disc version and a hard copy.
This is going to go through the Planning Unit, technical teams, and the entire
group. He will come back to the County Council at times saying that he has to go
before the Planning Unit in support of this piece. He will come back with monthly
updates on the status. This is the last phase of the technical study. This will take
the County to the completion of the date in 2003. There will be visits from the
project team from Utah for questions and answers. He encouraged the
councilmembers to be thinking about the questions they want answered by the
decision support system (DSS) in order to have clarity on policy and direction
related to land use, fisheries, and other issues.
2. LAKE WHATCOM
Land Preservation Criteria
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Roll stated there is a resolution for adopting the land preservation priority
ratings. This will go forward to the Natural Resources Committee in a week. Staff
recommends moving this forward for formal approval. The City already adopted it.
Nelson stated this has been before the Council two or three times. Before
the Council is the final criteria. A map reflects the criteria. Roll stated this allows
them to leverage more money from grants and others. They've gone through this
exercise to determine priority areas. This is a potential to identify critical areas.
Anytime they do any work from a water quality perspective, they should start at
the map and identify the critical areas.
Dawson asked the difference between a conservation easement and the
purchase of a development right. There is nothing in the resolution about the
purchase of development rights. Roll stated the information just gives examples.
The original work plan was to first set up the map, then work on the tool box of
preservation strategies, which include transfer of development rights, conservation
easements, and land purchases. The goal it to create the toolbox so the County
uses the appropriate tool for the particular opportunity that comes up.
Brenner stated she proposed a deadline for a ban for pesticide and chemical
use in the watershed. The person, Alice Cyr, who submitted an email should know
that someone is bringing this up. The Council is doing a lot of things. She asked
why this letter was distributed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner continued to state that someone should write this person a letter
and tell her what the Council and the County are doing. Roll stated this letter was
sent to him personally, he is forwarding it to the Council. This person is looking for
a response from the Council. He can provide a listing of all the actions the Council
is taking.
Nelson stated there are perceptions in the community about how much is
going on. The County needs to keep focused and make sure it is monitoring and
maintaining the systems they have. He asked Dr. Roll to put together a piece of
information on what is going on in Lake Whatcom. Roll stated there has been an
enormous amount of work over the last two years. Erika Stroebel is putting
together a hard copy binder that is the binder of what they've done.
Brenner asked for a summary.
Nelson stated the Council needs a condensed form to send to the public.
Roll stated an issue is being able to discuss all the activities that they are
doing for many issues. In terms of strategy, he is hoping to provide the tool so
there are lake friendly alternatives and get people schooled on how they are used.
People will have lake friendly alternatives that are shared and embraced in the
community.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Brenner stated that if a ban is headed their way, people would have more
incentive to use those tools.
Nelson asked how a ban would be enforced.
Brenner stated people could see ban violations. It would be complaint
driven.
Nelson questioned who would do the policing.
Brenner stated there are speed limits, but there are not police officers out on
every corner.
Nelson stated draconian measures don't necessarily solve the problems, they
create more problems.
Brenner stated a pesticide ban is not a draconian measure.
(Clerk's Note: Dawson and Nelson left the meeting at 11 :50 a.m. The
quorum was lost)
3. RIVER AND FLOOD
Update on Canyon Creek Alluvial Fan Acquisition and Relocation Project
Monsen stated he thought they might have to make an adjustment, now they
don't have to.
(Clerk's Note: A break was taken at 11:56 a.m. until 12:10 p.m.)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Ten Mile Creek Proiect Earlv Action Proiect
Roll stated the WRIA process felt there was a need to begin putting things on
the ground, ahead of the plan development. They looked for early action items that
could embody the collective desire to deal with water resource salmon fisheries
issues to jump start the process. The intent is to implement projects of great value
to show the community and that epitomize the grass roots approach with buy -in
throughout the constituency. This project was supported by all 18 caucuses and all
Joint Board members, including the tribes.
Dorrie Belisle, citizen, thanked the Council for its support of this project.
Because of the early action funds, the project received a matching grant and a
State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant for two years. It is now a three -year
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, Page 14
1 program. This project has been supported by everyone in the county. Washington
2 State University has been an excellent mentor. The Conservation District and
3 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is also involved. She provided a
4 final report of her first six months. She started this program to see how farmers
5 would react. Six out of seven farmers she asked said they would participate. They
6 planted 32,000 Douglas Fir trees on six different farms. In the second year, they
7 took 15,000 trees and planted them on streamside restoration sites. Last year, an
8 additional 2,000 trees were donated. Now they have approximately 20,000 trees
9 that are left for streamside restoration.
10
11 She did a community survey on seven miles on Ten Mile Creek. She sent out
12 37 surveys to landowners in the area, and received a 67 percent response. Of the
13 respondents, 92 percent were pro- farming and pro- environment. Those two things
14 go hand -in -hand. There are many ways to improve water quality. Only 40 percent
15 said that saving salmon was the key. Seventy -two percent said that improving
16 water quality was important. The entire group said that they wanted to be
17 contacted one -on -one or in small neighborhood group meetings. That gave her the
18 basis for presenting the program neighbor -to- neighbor. She visits the neighbors
19 individually to talk about the program. For people to participate in stream
20 restoration, it has to be a win -win situation. Everyone is excited about the stream.
21 There was education on how the stream goes down to Portage Bay. People learn
22 that what they do affects the shellfish beds in Portage Bay.
23
24 She contacted all the landowners along Four Mile Creek, which is a tributary
25 of Ten Mile Creek. All but four owners agreed to participate in a long term plan to
26 plant Four Mile Creek. The NRCS is doing a survey. She is working with the
27 Department of Fish and Wildlife to look at a three- to five -year plan to get the
28 permits necessary. Along Four Mile Creek, much of it is peat used by farmers.
29 They are looking to clean out the areas of the creek that need to be cleaned before
30 planting.
31
32 Crawford asked if the goal of the program is not salmon habitat restoration.
33 Belisle stated the goal is improving the quality of the river in Ten Mile Creek. If
34 improving the habitat meets that goal, then it is a goal. If everyone does what
35 they can and what they feel good about, it is better for everyone.
36
37 Crawford asked if this was presented as a water quality project instead of a
38 salmon restoration project. Belisle stated it was presented as both.
39
40 Brenner stated they can do salmon restoration, but they can't control every
41 aspect of salmon. There are things going on in the ocean that they can't control. It
42 is habitat restoration and quality, which should help the salmon. This is based on
43 what they can do to restore the stream.
44
45 Belisle stated it began as habitat restoration. As she talked to the people,
46 people were more excited about healthier streams. That developed her theme of
47 healthy streams. If they talk about salmon with the farmers, they get into issues
48 with hatcheries and the tribes. When they talk about healthy streams, then the
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
negative is gone. On Four Mile Creek, they are doing 15 foot buffers on each side
of the stream. Farmers are willing to push their fences back to help out. Some
farmers are providing acreage to plant trees. If they look at the entire watershed
and let everyone do what he or she wants, they will get a nice combination of
buffers. This is an ongoing project. They are going to start the program and
maintain it to show the farmers and landowners that it will work.
Crawford asked if there is a means for long term salmon habitat
improvement. It would be wonderful if a by- product of this was improved habitat,
with a net result of more fish. Thompson stated that has been built into the
monitoring improvement program. When they talk about salmon recovery, they
are talking about small streams like this and restoring the processes that restore
salmon. At some point there are parallel tracks. The fish folks will be able to give
the landowners some clearer targets. This is getting a project going that they
should be evaluating in terms of stream temperature and sediment levels.
Crawford stated the Agricultural Preservation Committee would like to point
to this project and say that it is working. It would be nice to have a tie -in to
measurable objectives in terms of habitat and a net gain in salmon.
Belisle stated part of the DOE two -year grant is a partnership with the
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) for monitoring. She keeps
tracks of the plants, where they are going, and how they are maintained. They
monitor everything they can. They can work with landowners to do more
monitoring. Regulations are going to come down, but look at the entire watershed
and see what is coming out into the Nooksack River. Let the landowners know
that, and let them decide what to do next. Landowners want to know the
information and the target. People are excited about doing it. Because of this
program, she attended public community events and talked to people about it. This
project can reach out to other people. She also collected information on the history
of the creek from people who have lived here many years.
They are getting the high schools involved. She can use the Meridian High
School nursery to raise the trees from seed. She's talked to all the high schools,
and they are all excited to help. She decided to do a pilot program with Meridian
High School.
There are three things she would like to note. One is that many people don't
know the jargon. There are many misconceptions. It is also important to look at
the entire Ten Mile Creek watershed. One property affects the others. They need
to plan so programs have a positive affect on those people upstream and
downstream. Last, some of the homeowners have had their streams planted three
times. They need to make it work this time.
Roll stated they've got work crews directed to help Ms. Belisle deal with the
maintenance piece. Ms. Belisle has assurances from the County that she will now
have the NSEA work crew to do maintenance.
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, 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
Brenner stated she was on the Ten Mile Early Action Committee in the
1980's. That is where a lot of the frustration is coming from. There were big plans
that never happened.
Crawford stated he planted trees for NSEA years ago. He asked if the trees
didn't take hold. Belisle stated a lot of times the trees didn't take. There was
competition and stress from reed canary grass, beavers, and other competitors. It
takes seven years of maintenance for weeds and replanting. This is a long -term
project. The grants will be for planting. They will allow some maintaining and
monitoring.
Crawford asked if the volunteers are all participating, or if any have quit.
Belisle stated they are now all participating. People want to do something, but it is
overwhelming. They need the support of NSEA to help with planting and know how
to do it.
Brenner suggested that Ms. Belisle videotape her presentation to lend to
people who are interested.
Roll submitted information on three grants they are applying for. He is
obligated to inform the Council.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 27 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Council Vice -Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 10/16/2001, Page 17