HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession September 18 20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
September 18, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by Council Vice -Chair Sam
Crawford in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Marlene Dawson
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Robert Imhof
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Current Status of the Project
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated it is critical to consider
side issues in the context of what they mean for plan development. They are
pursuing technical studies with Utah State University (USU). They are one -third to
one -half of the way done with data collection. Another piece being worked on is the
management plan. It is an accompanying requirement for the environmental
impact statement (EIS). They need to spend more time and energy on public
information and education (PIE). Another component looks at critiquing and
evaluating management options and alternatives. They are making good progress.
A committee was set up for consultant selection. The selection committee sent out
a request for qualifications (RFQ), and received seven candidates. The selection
committee reviewed the candidates two weeks ago. One issue is a reluctance of
the Lummi Nation to support some of the people who are candidates. The Lummi
Nation asked to remove four of the six candidates. The selection committee asked
for clarity from the Joint Board on how to proceed, because it felt that having two
candidates to choose from is not adequate.
Crawford questioned the nature of the Lummi's objections. Roll stated they
were vague. They seem to be reluctant to have people who have worked in the
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
basin for a period of three years, within last three years, or who have a relationship
with any of the water resource inventory area (WRIA) participants.
Staff was asked to facilitate a resolution for consideration by the Joint Board.
One suggestion was to redraft the request for proposals (RFP) that the Council
already approved. That proposal came forward to address the Lummi's concerns.
A couple of criteria were stipulated:
1. the consultants would not be a party to WRIA litigation, and
2. the consultants have not done work in the last three years in the WRIA.
They probably won't get the kind of contractor they need for this process if
they take away every one in the current area. There has been a highly scrutinized
process for review. The process goes through the Planning Unit, the caucuses, and
the councils and governments. Next, the Joint Board meets October 1 to provide
unified direction to the selection committee. The Council and others in the process
may consider continuing with a negotiated, unified consensus in the context of
allowing the process to fall behind the timeline of being done in June 2003. Other
issues will come forward to be considered in light of whether the primary goal is of
unified consensus or to stick to the timeline.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, questioned whether the objections will
be carried forward to the Joint Board. Roll stated the selection committee felt that,
because of the Lummi Nation reluctance, they should not go on with the process to
ask the remaining two candidates to develop full RFP's. The selection committee
has been put on hold. The Joint Board needs to deal with the issue of having a
common direction for the selection committee to judge the candidates.
Desler asked if the Joint Board normally gets involved in that detail, to set
the criteria for selection process. Roll stated everyone is involved. There needs to
be consensus. There is a need to deal with issues that can't be resolved by staff.
Dawson stated the selection criteria were already addressed. After everyone
responded, these other criteria were added. Roll stated that is correct.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the Joint Board is engaged now to
determine whether they are going to change the process or adhere to what they
previously discussed.
Dawson stated that once they make a decision, they need to stick with it.
Roll stated it is difficult to keep on the timeline. An RFP was developed, and
it went through all the caucuses. The difficulty is when such things are changed in
the process. The changes then have to go back through the process. His
frustration is what that does to timelines. In this case, another two to three
months additional time has been added to the timeline. This discussion is just to
provide this information to the Council. Hopefully the Joint Board will resolve this
issue on October 1.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Monsen stated that if the Joint Board does not resolve the issue, he would be
back to Council.
Roll stated there are other issues. The Conservancy Board is moving
forward. Two members have been trained and constitute a quorum. The third
member will be trained in few months. The Conservancy Board is a management
option being considered in the watershed process to deal with backlog of water
rights issues. Some individuals support the Conservancy Board, and others don't.
The difficulty now is how the County supports and nurtures the Conservancy Board,
knowing that certain Joint Board members don't support that process.
A third issue is looking at how they manage the instream flows for which
they are acquiring data and information, in terms of developing a management
strategy for instream flows. Instream flows are related to water allocations,
fisheries, and proposed tribal rights issues. Those three pieces need to be
considered. The proposal now is to have a conference to include larger members
that have gone through the process and could help develop the process to take the
instream flow information and develop it into a management strategy.
McShane asked if there is a consensus for that process. Roll stated some
pieces of it have a consensus.
Desler asked the authority of the Joint Board over the Water Conservancy
Board. Roll stated the Joint Board has no authority. The Water Conservancy Board
is an example of a management option that a large number of the constituency
supports at this point. The WRIA process doesn't have good data yet to provide
good scientific information about where to allocate water. That data is coming. As
they get the decision support system (DSS) up, they will evaluate areas and
provide good information for this type of conservancy board.
Monsen stated the Joint Board doesn't have any authority over the Water
Conservancy Board. Today, procedurally, the opposition is a distraction to the
watershed planning process. Joint Board members, specifically the tribes, have
never supported the concept of conservancy boards. It is more of a distraction
than directly related to the process today.
Roll stated a fourth issue is the on- reservation lawsuit that the United States
filed against the State Department of Ecology (DOE) regarding on- reservation
issues. There are questions about how decisions were made during that process
and the impacts on decisions in the future. The County will need to consider the
potential impact to things occurring outside the reservation.
Monsen stated adjudication is bound within the reservation. The focus is on
the Lummi peninsula. The parties around the table have some interest to resolve
matters that move off - reservation. The County will face the issue of whether it will
engage in the process once the topic moves off - reservation. For example, if the
Sandy Point community decides to intervene and engage the Sandy Point aquifer,
the issue crosses the reservation boundary. The County and others in the
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
community will pay attention to how that is teed up. Questions to be answered
during adjudication may influence off - reservation future adjudication and /or legal
action.
Dawson stated the State's position is that the Tribe's efforts to quantify the
water on the Lummi peninsula is not a legal process. They have to quantify the
entire reservation aquifers together. In lieu of going to court, the judge asked to
have negotiation.
Monsen stated they are just starting a three -month mediated negotiation for
settlement.
Crawford stated the federal government is acting on behalf of the Lummi
Nation. He asked what they are suing for. Monsen stated they are suing over the
State's authority to manage water on the reservation.
Crawford questioned what the action was that caused the suit. Monsen
stated there have been multiple years of on- reservation water disputes and three to
four years of negotiations to settle those matters. During that time, he noticed a
clear federal interest to resolve something relative to water. The federal
government found something self- contained and not as controversial to bring up in
a suit.
Crawford asked if this is the federal government's attempt to limit DOE from
the number of parties. Monsen stated that for the federal government to deal with
this, it has to take a position that the federal government, through the Tribe, has
authority over allocation of groundwater on the reservation, and the State does not
have the authority.
Desler asked if the federal government will want to address other aquifers
adjacent to the reservation. Monsen stated he didn't think so. They will see.
There are two examples that increase the level of interest in this case. The first
example is that to resolve the Lummi peninsula issue, as it relates to a tribal right,
they may have to resolve whether the reservation is a homeland to the tribe, and
to define the purpose of the tribe and /or reservation. If they define those in this
legal process, those definitions would be applied to future action off the reservation.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 10 :30 a.m.)
Monsen stated the councilmembers may be approached in the near future as
to the County's position and the potential to move off - reservation. Jointly, the
cities of Bellingham, Lynden, and the Public Utility District (PUD) did some ethno-
historical research. People will want access to that legal research. They may need
to discuss those issues in executive session. The councilmembers may be
approached to decide where the County stands on this.
McShane stated State attorneys approached him some time ago.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Roll stated the County staff role is to facilitate the consensus process in the
Planning Unit and the Joint Board. As they move forward on policy issues, they
may need to reconsider how the time and energy is directed, in terms of consensus
versus maintaining a timeline. He may ask for more direction on where the County
wants to go and on what timeline it wants to go there. The consensus process in
these situations is going to be more difficult to acquire.
Monsen stated there is a joint governor /legislative Five Corner process. It is
intended to be an joint exercise with the Democratic party, Republican party,
House, Senate, and Governor's Office to design and propose water related bills to
be introduced and dealt with in the next legislative session. They held their listing
session a week ago. The four topics they are entertaining are infrastructure and
storage, growing communities, relinquishment, and instream flows. There is a
three -day work session that this body will conduct at the end of October and first of
November. At this point, it is likely that it will be invitation -only for speakers and
direct participants. It is an open meeting. He will stay engaged. Kelli Linville is a
representative on this group. The intention is to quickly get to topics that have a
chance to pass in the legislature, and throw away the items that would not have
support. The purpose is to minimize effort during the legislative session. He
doesn't know what they will ultimately deal with. Ultimately, they are looking for a
majority of Senate, House, and the Governor's support.
Desler questioned whether the County is one - quarter to one -half of the way
through with the USU project. Roll stated there are a couple of things going on,
including analyzing data and collecting data. Most instream flow data will be
collected for the project by the end of this summer. Information is fed into the
analysis of the data to determine what it means in terms of instream flow. Most of
the data will be collected through this field season. Some information will be
collected next summer. All data and analysis gets fed into models in the context of
the DSS. That is the lion's share of the work that will take place this year through
the end of the project. They will begin to bring the framework together. He
anticipates that modules of the framework will arrive. At that time, they will have
the debate about the appropriate models for different issues. That will be the work
to do next year. They are past halfway done on the data collection, and halfway
done with analysis.
Desler asked if staff is satisfied with the quality, and if USU is on schedule.
Roll stated many technical people are reviewing the data. Seven or eight
professors on their end will look at different components. They are producing good
products. The debate is whether the WRIA clearly defined the expectation ahead of
receipt of the product. One of the problems is that the questions are asked through
the process, not at beginning of the project. He attended a national DSS
conference. USU is on the cutting edge of this work. Debate is pushing the
consensus driven process through and at the same time keeps them on task. Not
all timelines have been met, but the fault is shared on both ends. There is an
adaptive management process that accepts changes in the process.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Depending on the level of efforts of different pods, they may shift efforts to
different areas. Three phases were identified in the technical studies. The first
phase is done. The second phase is to take what they know of the existing WRIA
and begin to get information on the status of the situation. Those reports are
available in draft form. A final draft will be ready for disbursement in two to three
months.
Crawford questioned whether staffing of individual caucuses is adequate.
Roll stated the caucus support has been very successful to date. People are using
it. People are well prepared. He is happy with the change in the Planning Unit over
the last few years. It is a well -oiled machine. The tribes do not participate in the
Planning Unit. The Lummi Nation has observers who attend.
Monsen stated the Lummi and Nooksack tribes are participating in the Joint
Roll stated it is unique that we've had the participation of the tribes. It is
impossible to compare what we're doing to other WRIA's. Many other WRIA's don't
have water right issues. Not many are participating the way our tribes are
participating.
Brenner questioned the tribe's role, if it is not spelled out. Roll stated there
are clearly issues that the tribes oppose. They will explore in the coming months
how to proceed. There will be an escalation of these issues in the coming months.
Brenner asked if what they end up with will be what everyone agrees to. Roll
stated that has to be decided.
Monsen stated the goal is unanimous support, but no one believes that will
ultimately be the case. The County will have to decide whether to deal within its
own authority, independently. Within the context of ESHB 2514, adoption of a
complete plan will need State support, specifically DOE, for implementation. They
will be pressed to implement something that doesn't have 100 percent support. It
is fair to separate local interests versus tribal interests and state interests. Some
implementation is purely local. Other implementation requires State input.
Monsen stated the State demonstrated a lot of energy and effort to maintain
tribal relations. At the same time, they are not conceding whatever the tribes ask
for. There is a fine balance.
Brenner questioned who has the final decision, if they get to that point of
whether they don't agree. Monsen stated it will depend on the item.
Brenner asked if there is an appeal process to an item that DOE has the final
word on. Monsen stated ESHB 2514 is about what everyone ultimately agrees on.
Parts of the plan can be implemented if other parts are not agreed to. They will be
implementing a lot of good work in this process.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
2. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Informational Fair
Roll stated a challenge of the WRIA effort was language in ESHB 2514 that
allowed the WRIA's to address total maximum daily load (TMDL) issues. The DOE
placed Lake Whatcom as a number one process. WRIA and Lake Whatcom are part
of the same process. There are issues in terms of modeling and TMDL work being
done by separate entities as well as the Joint Lake Whatcom Management
Committee. The challenge of the Joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee is to
pull together the different parties, and ask what they collectively need in terms of
modeling, lake response, and lake loading work in Lake Whatcom. The goal is
mutual agreement on specific models and approaches to doing that work. That will
happen over the next few months.
Staff is working on providing information on loads and response to pollutant
loads in Lake Whatcom. There is an issue of looking at the larger TMDL piece and
how to coordinate that process.
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated the Lake Whatcom Informational Fair is on
September 27 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The fair is a follow up to the mercury panel
discussion held in April on the mercury levels found in fish tissues this year. The
fair will give information on health advisories and source investigation work done
this fall. At the informational fair, they are inviting all the previous panel members
to participate. There will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions on what
is happening, and to receive materials about what work the County is involved in.
Many projects are happening out there. The boaters kit will be distributed. There
will be much representation from the Water Resources Division, Planning
Department, Health Department, and Parks Department staff. The City of
Bellingham will be there with the State Departments of Ecology, Health, Fish and
Wildlife, and Natural Resources. Local citizen groups are interested in attending.
Everyone will provide displays and handouts and answer questions for the public.
Dawson asked how the citizens would be informed of the fair. She suggested
contacting garden clubs and schools.
Roll stated there is a sizeable mailing list of interested parties.
Stroebel stated there is also an email list. Postcards and emails have gone
out. There will be an ad in the Bellingham Herald, and they are posting flyers.
Brenner asked if the fair would talk about chemicals and pesticides.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Stroebel stated they will have information on integrated pest management,
and will educate people about crane fly problems and what needs to be done.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Roll stated they have had a number of workshops on lake- friendly gardening
to introduce lake friendly alternatives. That has been a successful venue for
educating people on pesticides.
Brenner stated the County needs to also prohibit chemical and pesticide use
in the watershed unless someone has a plan that shows the use of the chemicals or
pesticides would be for a better good. Most people don't want to use pesticides and
chemicals in the watershed anyway.
Dawson stated the Council decided to do education instead of regulation.
Roll stated that in the past, many people had the idea of stewardship, but
there were no tools to teach people about their behaviors. Now, the County
provides viable lake friendly alternatives, and can evaluate their effectiveness.
Then, a policy decision could be made about whether the behaviors are effective
enough, or whether they need an outright ban. They need to make sure there are
good tools for people so they know what the right thing is.
Brenner stated that if education is a step toward a ban, then that is okay.
Education should not be an alternative to a ban. Let people get acclimated to a
ban. A ban is less financially traumatic than a downzone.
McShane stated that is a policy decision for the Council.
Brenner stated staff has been against a ban in the past, because it is too
hard to enforce. County enforcement could be response driven. She would like to
see a target date to implement a complete ban on pesticide use in the watershed.
Allow an exemption if someone has an approved plan for a one -time use.
Roll stated they need to have a thorough analysis of the risk posed by
various activities, then look at problems with the highest risk. Ban activities of the
highest risk. The difficulty is separating a need to deal with a variety of pollutants.
He is trying to bring forward the top three or four problems with a true risk.
Brenner stated prioritizing is important. However, banning pesticide use in
the watershed is a no- brainer. Don't spend a lot of money doing risk analysis on
pesticides in the watershed. She is convinced that they pose a risk. If people want
an option, they can create a plan to work with pesticides in the least harmful way.
Dawson stated there is some sense in banning pesticide use, but they need
to do the nutrient overload analysis and find out the real problem with the
watershed.
Roll stated they don't have stream flow data on the real load of pollutants in
the lake. That work is being done through the WRIA process.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Brenner stated that as they do these other things, they don't need to wait on
banning pesticide use.
Dawson stated the manure issue was analyzed first to determine when
nutrient management needed to be done.
Brenner stated manure is different. It is a by- product of something the
County does and supports. Pesticides are not a by- product. It is something people
use because it is easy. There is a risk involved.
Brenner moved to request staff to bring back a recommendation for a target
date to eliminate the use of pesticides in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Motion failed 1 -3 with Brenner in favor.
Crawford questioned information on pages 19 and 20 of the boater's
handbook regarding dock building. There is language about regulations prohibiting
the use of certain environmentally harmful materials to treat the wood used to build
a dock. The list of treatments eliminates anything that will not rot in a couple of
years. The treated material that the lumberyards sell is copper- chromium - arsenate
(CCA). He assumed that the term "arsenated compounds" in the list eliminates the
use of CCA. If that is the case, someone at the fair will question what materials
someone should use. As a lumber worker, he cannot suggest anything other than
what falls into those categories on the list. Cedar is the most resist to decay, but
cedar can't get approval because the forest products industry has not found cedar
to be structurally sound. Currently, treated wood is how people construct docks.
No plastic composites are structural either.
Roll stated there are other plastics, steels, and other materials used in other
locales. The choice of materials depends on the time and duration to which there is
exposure in the lake. The structures may have to be removed during parts of the
year. Many plastics and metals are used structurally.
Brenner asked if one could build a dock with concrete and metal.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Director, stated someone can use those
materials.
Crawford questioned whether the use of treated lumber on a dock in Lake
Whatcom is currently not allowed. Few docks are not built with treated lumber.
Hart stated the regulation is on what the lumber is treated with. The State of
Washington won't allow wood treatment with some of the things that they allow a
person to build it with, because the places are now superfund sites.
Crawford stated CCA is the common treatment.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Hart stated staff would have information available at the fair on methods and
materials to use for dock construction. He will have information on what is allowed.
Crawford stated that if there is a regulation against CCA in the Lake
Whatcom watershed, people are ignorant of it. One place to start is educating the
public. Another place to start is to educate the suppliers and wholesalers about the
situation. That regulation is not currently being followed in any way. Hart stated
people get a permit, and staff will explain what materials are preferred or allowed.
He will find out what his office is telling people at the counter. He has on occasion
asked people to remove old, treated materials that they are using without a permit
and that degrade water quality. He's asked people to pull out what they put in
because of a lack of a local permit, a lack of a state permit, and because
environmentally unsafe materials were being used.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated that at the most recent
joint meeting, they saw a model of Lake Whatcom. He questioned whether the
model would be at the fair. Stroebel stated it would be there.
Watts stated it is a scale model of the lake, with the trees around it.
McShane stated the model is remarkable.
Lake Whatcom Mercury Source Investigation
Roll stated the first item is the scope of work for source investigation. The
second item is the interlocal agreement that is done through the joint Lake
Whatcom Management Committee to allocate the amount of funding coming from
the various jurisdictions to fund this activity. He is looking for comments.
Brenner stated certain individuals have been very concerned about the
mercury. She questioned whether those individuals have gotten a copy of the
proposal. Those individuals should be notified. She would like those individuals to
have some input in this process. Their names are Marian Biddell, Tim Paxton, Ally
Cummings, and Susan Kane - Roening. They call her quite a bit.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Interim Director, stated the
individuals saw the request for proposals (RFP). No one made comments on it.
The County hasn't had any public comment period. She could inform those
individuals and ask for their comments. She also wanted the councilmembers'
comments.
Brenner stated it looks fine to her.
Dawson stated the scope of work talks about "potential" contributions. She
questioned whether they are looking for actual contributions instead of potential
contributions.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated they are. They are
going to do a source investigation to identify point and non -point sources. They
would identify recommendations for immediate control of the point sources.
Delahunt stated they are looking for any potential sources right now. They
will whittle down the list of potential sources to see if there are any actual sources.
Desler stated it is a research study. When asking people to do research,
they need to be clear about what the people are to do so the results are what they
intended. He was concerned about a report writer writing about what the potential
sources are. That leaves open the question about whether the potential problems
are the actual problems. Focus on what is really there.
Dawson moved to focus not on potential contributions, but on actual
contributions. They already know what the potential problems are. They want to
know what the actual problems are.
Roll stated saying something is an actual source is another ballgame in terms
of data collection. There is the broad brush that that is narrowed down as they
finish the study.
Delahunt stated the coal mine is an example. The study will say that there is
a coal mine and there was coal mining activity. The research will discuss what it
knows about coal mining activities, and therefore the coal mine is a potential
source. The research will either estimate the magnitude of the source or say that
the coal mine doesn't have to be considered as a source and list the reasons why.
Brenner stated the best way to put people's fears to rest is to acknowledge
the potential sources.
Delahunt stated the research may recommend, for example, that the coal
mine be further investigated by sampling certain areas. That is the type of
information they will get out of the study.
Dawson questioned whether they would analyze the local sources. Delahunt
stated they would, and say whether they are significant contributors that warrant
further investigation.
Desler asked if there would be further financial requirements to do other
extensive investigative work. Delahunt stated focusing on things that are point
sources would require more financial output. This study focuses on mercury.
Brenner recommended that the scope of work be sent out to interested
parties.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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 if the Council already voted to do this study, and now this is
the specific scope of work that the study would cover. Councilmember Brenner's
recommendation is to delay approval of the scope of work until the public is
notified.
Dawson stated the public knew this was coming forward.
Crawford stated it is not appropriate to single out specific public individuals.
Brenner moved to send the scope of work out to those four individuals and to
have a public notice.
Dawson stated the councilmembers are responsible to keep these people
notified.
Brenner stated these people have been dealing with the administration. She
had no time to contact them. It is a courtesy. This is something the Council should
do to encourage public ownership of the study.
McShane stated all the staff is asking for is comments at this time. He's
talked with a couple of the individuals. Their concerns are covered in the scope of
work. At some point, there will be a risk analysis. There will be a range of comfort
levels there.
Brenner stated she didn't know that their concerns would be covered.
Sending out the scope of work is a common courtesy.
Crawford restated the motion to notify others for comment.
Motion failed 1 -3 with Brenner in favor.
Roll stated that at the regular Council meeting, the Council will see an
interlocal agreement to pay for this work and a contract. This will be a County
contract with consultant and the State Department of Health.
Brenner suggested scheduling the agreement and contract for the first
Council meeting in October.
Delahunt stated it wouldn't go to Council until October 23.
Brenner asked that the four people mentioned, and others who are
interested, be notified. Delahunt stated staff would do that.
Desler applauded staff and the City in joining in on this effort. He asked if
the cost of the estimate would be more than $100,000.
Chesson stated no. The bid came in at $97,000, which includes $10,000 in
sampling costs.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Watts stated this is an interlocal agreement. It will come forward at the City
for discussion. There will be opportunities for the public to be aware of it. The City
will pay 45 percent of the cost.
Hart spoke regarding dock construction. Typically, the County allows piers in
the shallow water areas and floats in deeper water areas. The County allows
untreated wood, steel, and chemonite, which is green wood, as construction
materials. About 50 docks per year are permitted. There are probably 10 to 25
percent of the dock replacements that the County doesn't see. That is why the
County has enforcement people.
Crawford stated Chemonite is a company that does a particular kind of
treatment. It is worth looking into further. Staff will find that these are arsenated.
Chemonite offers an alternative treatment that takes out one of the chemicals. He
recalls that the most hazardous treatment in CCA is copper, not arsenic.
3. RIVER AND FLOOD
Canyon Creek Alternatives for Hazard Mitigation Grant
Monsen stated the discussion is about putting together a buyout program.
Staff is trying to construct an application and program. Everything they talk about
will ultimately come to a voluntary program. Even though the terms they use in
the discussion may imply 100 percent participation or no program, everything will
be voluntary.
Paula Cooper, Engineering Manager - River /Flood, stated the Council directed
her to send out a questionnaire to the Glacier Springs community and other owners
in the potential buyout area. First, she met with representatives from the Glacier
Springs community. They discussed some of the issues. Then she sent out the
questionnaire in July. In addition, she has been speaking with Gordon Scott to
partner with the Land Trust, which is interested in protecting the salmon habitat in
the area. The Land Trust is willing to apply for Salmon Recovery Fund (SRF) Board
money during the next round of applications. Mr. Scott wants to know whether the
County can give the Land Trust some kind of commitment to the project.
One option is to apply for the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant, which is a grant
that each community can apply for $2.5 million. They will work within the bounds
of about $2.4 million.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Based on that amount of money available, the $2.5 million can make a good
dent in the primary and secondary buyout areas. Salmon habitat money would be
for the land underneath The Logs. She, as flood manager, is interested in getting
the structures out. The Land Trust can pay for the land under The Logs and all
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
undeveloped lands. The hazard mitigation money would target all the structures on
The Logs and all the developed lots.
Brenner asked if the structures would be moved or removed. Monsen stated
they could be either moved or demolished.
Cooper stated a King County program allows the landowner to buy back his
or her structure for $1, and the structure must be moved within 90 days.
This option gets rid of the highest risk properties and life safety problems. If
there are failures, there are avenues behind the dike where the water could funnel
to that would be designated for floodwaters.
The Land Trust would include an assessment of how to improve habitat in the
buyout area, which may involve reconfiguration of the dike. She is trying to talk to
a person who has worked on Pacific Northwest alluvial fan hazardous areas. Most
analysis has been done so far in arid southwest areas. They need to find out from
this person the risk to the remaining area. They need to know how long the
storage behind the dike will last. She wants to exhaust all possibilities of further
risk analysis before going into the third buyout area.
Dawson asked what happens on the far side of the river. She asked what to
do to protect the homes in the third buyout area. Cooper stated that is what she
wants to ask the expert. This is different than a meander zone. Alluvial fan
hazards are different than river meander zones. The assessment of remaining risk
to the remaining buyout area is something she wants to go forward with in this
project.
Monsen stated gaining that space opens up less costly protection
alternatives. It is difficult to suggest that there is a simple solution.
Crawford asked where the County is in the process. Cooper stated the
County needs to have a meeting with the residents in the area.
Monsen stated the meeting would put a specific proposal on the table for
reaction and comment, rather than a general discussion. The intention today is to
refine a specific proposal.
Crawford asked what needs to be specified. Cooper stated they need to
decide what project they are going for. She assumes they will get both pots of
money, however, they need to look at the options if they only get one or the other
pot of money.
Brenner questioned whether the $2.4 million includes both pots of money.
Cooper stated the $2.4 million is just the hazard mitigation funds.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Crawford asked if that grant has to do with Federal Emergency Management
Act (FEMA). Cooper stated FEMA provides 75 percent of the cost. The State
provides 12. 5 percent, and the County provides 12.5 percent of the cost.
Crawford stated he thought that FEMA money wasn't available until there
was another flood event. Cooper stated FEMA money was available upon a
presidentially declared disaster, which the Nisqually earthquake qualifies as. This is
post- disaster mitigation.
Gordon Scott, Land Trust, stated Canyon Creek is a valuable salmon -
spawning stream. The Chinook and Humpies are plentiful. The dike constricts the
creek to the side of the hill. There is a passage barrier for fish to get above it.
There are four miles of stream above the barrier. The Land Trust owns a parcel
across the road along the river that was gifted to the Land Trust from Glacier
Springs property owners. There is good salmon habitat, and the properties are
adjacent to property the Land Trust is already conserving. The Land Trust will
apply to the SRF Board for the grant in October, in partnership with the Flood
Control Zone District. The Land Trust would purchase the underlying land, and the
County would buy the buildings. The Land Trust would also buy the undeveloped
lots. The Land Trust would own and hold the property for conservation.
Dawson asked what the Land Trust can do with it. Scott stated they would
study the dike in conjunction with County flood staff for safety. Once buildings at
The Logs are removed, there may not be a purpose for the dike, or the purpose of
the dike would be to help future habitat. That would be a future project.
John Herrod, Y Road, asked if it is the dike or the channel that restricts fish
passage.
Scott stated the channel is constrained by the dike. It floods and fills up with
gravel. A fish biologist would look at that for a determination.
Herrod stated the dike is not impinging upon the fish passage.
Scott stated a fish biologist should look at it. The fish have a problem
getting up a waterfall.
Brenner asked if it is a natural channel. Herrod stated the channel was
blasted.
Scott stated the land would have a deed restriction to the State of
Washington for salmon habitat. The Land Trust has no commercial or residential
purposes for the property. The Land Trust's purpose is to protect the property for
salmon habitat. If there are no hazards, the Land Trust is happy to have people
walk on the property. He wants a partnership with the County to purchase and
remove the buildings. He needs a written commitment of some sort to send in with
his grant application.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Brenner asked why the County would not agree to the partnership for the
SRF Board grant. Cooper stated that if the County doesn't get the hazard
mitigation money, it will have to use more County money. Mr. Scott wants the
County to commit to buy the structures on The Logs and remove them.
Tom Cosgrove, 9002 Mount Baker Highway, Glacier, The Logs owner, stated
it is difficult to find commercial property that would work for The Logs in the Glacier
area. Nothing has turned up.
Brenner stated the County may need to look for an area in Glacier to do a
site specific rezone. The public benefit is apparent. The County could help relocate
The Logs. She would like to see the County assist in that.
Desler questioned whether the application requires a County action of
support for the concept of this project.
Scott stated the application also requires a dollar figure of the estimate of
cost to purchase and remove the buildings. The upper limit could be $500,000.
Cooper stated that if the hazard mitigation money doesn't come through, the
County won't have the money for the structures.
Scott stated they should try for everything in the primary buyout area. If
they have to cut it down, they can. It is harder to justify to the salmon people why
they want the properties on the opposite side of the road from the river. He can't
justify that. He is not interested in the secondary buyout area.
Brenner asked if the County could work with The Logs as an establishment in
the Glacier area, and if Mr. Cosgrove is interested in working with the County.
Cosgrove stated he is interested in all options.
Dawson stated the County is not responsible for relocating property owners.
Cooper stated some property owners may not want to relocate and deal with it. In
that case, the County could either demolish or salvage the property.
Crawford stated the County will do it the most cost effective way.
Cooper stated the County will have to pay for the structures first, and then
be prepared to demolish them if no one wants them. If they get the Flood Hazard
Mitigation Grant, it can act as the match to the SRF Board grant.
Brenner asked if they assume the cost of getting rid of all the structures is
$500,000.
Monsen stated that if they are successful with SRF Board grant, but not with
the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant, the focus is the primary buyout area.
Dawson questioned whether Conservation Futures funds would be used.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated Flood funds would be
used.
Monsen stated that if they are only successful with the SRF Board grant, the
focus is still the primary buyout area, but they wouldn't be able to accomplish the
project for the entire area. If the County is only successful with the hazard
mitigation money, the County's focus is on developed land. The federal money is
focussed on improved land. There would be enough money to make a substantial
dent in the primary and secondary areas. The third scenario is if they are
successful with both grants. The County's share is less, but they are able to
accomplish buyout for both areas.
Cooper stated there are seven homes plus The Logs in the primary buyout
area.
Cooper stated that if they win both grants, the County will receive $2.5
million from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The County portion is 12.5
percent. That grant will accomplish the buyout of the first and secondary buyout
areas.
Scott stated $600,000 to $700,000 would come from the SRF Board grant.
Dawson moved to use the flood monies if both grants are not received.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to simply support the program.
Crawford agreed. If they don't get the grants, it will affect the Council's
decision then.
Cooper stated that if they don't have SRF Board monies, they don't have
money to buy undeveloped land.
Monsen stated it influences the SRF Board project ranking if they are going to
use SRF Board money for developed land.
Crawford questioned whether the County has an assessed dollar value on all
properties with homes. Cooper stated the total assessed value in area one is
$881,000, and $200,000 in area two.
Monsen stated there is a factor of two between the assessed and real value
in that area.
Crawford questioned whether the County will have extra funds if the project
costs $2 million, and $3 million is available. Cooper stated it is a reimbursable
program.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Desler questioned whether area three is eligible for hazard mitigation funds.
Cooper stated staff has not proposed that option.
Desler asked who owns the land under the buildings purchased with the
mitigation funds. Cooper stated the County could keep it or deed it to the Land
Trust.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Dawson moved to support going forward with the grant applications.
Herrod stated residents' concern is that there will be no public access to lots
owned by the Land Trust. The citizens would like to see restricted access so the
public does not come into the development, and so the Land Trust does not put in a
road or parking lot. Public access could go through The Logs, not through Glacier
Springs.
Scott stated that would not be a problem for the Land Trust. The Land Trust
can work with that concern. He is not required to provide public access.
Brenner stated public funds would be used to purchase public lands and
should have public access unless it is environmentally sensitive.
Dawson stated that if there are covenants in the area against public access,
they should respect that.
Brenner suggested that the Land Trust buffer the area as much as possible,
while still providing public access.
Scott stated there are options to make the area open to the public in a low-
key, passive way.
Herrod stated the community had deeded property to the Land Trust for
salmon enhancement under the agreement that it not be opened to the public.
Brenner stated it is different because the land was deeded over. This is
different if the County is spending public money on this.
Herrod stated these lots are governed by the covenants. The community is
losing dues on these lots. If the County doesn't provide a concession, such as
restricted access, the association will have to fight it.
Ron Towers, 7507 Miller Way, stated the community doesn't want public
access for camping amenities. The association would rather deed the property to
the Land Trust than sell the lots and see public amenities developed. Homeowners
do not want to allow picnic tables, target practice areas, and trash dumps.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Brenner stated she thought the purpose would be to buy out as much as
possible so there would not be any houses up there. Cooper stated no. She didn't
have a model to delineate a hazard area. She tried to delineate the area that could
be at risk. Alluvial hazard fans are unpredictable. After sending out the
questionnaire and getting the responses, and taking into account the FEMA limit,
she determined that the County could be effective in the primary and secondary
buyout areas, given the partnership with the Land Trust. She still wants to do a
risk assessment to understand the level of risk that remains in the remaining
buyout area.
Scott stated the purchase of The Logs property is different than the Glacier
Springs property. People can access the creek through The Logs and not bother the
Glacier Springs lots.
Sue Anne Croft, 7304 Miller Way, Glacier, stated she has concerns about
playing with the dike that is there. She would like some assurances about what the
Land Trust would consider doing to the dike. Scott stated the Land Trust won't do
anything that increases any flood hazard. A portion of the dike by The Logs has
been eroding. They will ask a fisheries biologist and hydrologist if they can improve
habitat without increasing risks. That will be included in the grant assessment.
The Land Trust will come up with a plan in conjunction with the residents.
Brenner stated that heading in this direction implies that the County will not
do much with the dike. She asked what the County would do with the dike if it
does this program.
Dawson stated the County wouldn't do anything, or else it can't get the
money.
Brenner asked what happens with the people who do not want to be bought
out and are in the primary area. Cooper stated that if a house is destroyed, FEMA
will buy out the house if it is insured.
Brenner stated she didn't want to get stuck with paying for a house that is
destroyed. Cooper stated the situation is not different than it is now. No one is
actively doing maintenance on the dike.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Rick Benson, resident, stated that major engineering efforts disagree on what
the hazard is in the area. That jeopardizes the possibility of getting the hazard
mitigation grant. He didn't know if that would impede upon the success of the
grant. He asked if an engineer has to sign off on the assessment of the area.
Cooper stated no. She would include the Interfluve analysis. The County
still has a permit application issued to the County when it built the dike and that
was conditioned on investigation of a buyout project. This dike was not supposed
to be an end -all measure. It was supposed to be an interim measure.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford asked what the Land Trust needs to submit its application.
Cooper stated the Land Trust is also asking what the County is willing to
commit to if it doesn't get the SRF Board grant.
Crawford questioned whether receipt of the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant
funds is contingent upon receipt of the SRF Board grant, and why the County is not
applying for the SRF Board grant. Cooper stated that if they don't get the SRF
Board funds, they will target the land and structures on The Logs and also the
developed land in the primary buyout area with the federal money. It would be
nice to have County funds available if SRF Board funds are not received. They need
a mechanism to prevent undeveloped lots from being developed, which will look
bad to FEMA. She didn't apply for the SRF Board grant because Gordon Scott
offered to do it. These are not trivial applications, and the Land Trust has been
very successful.
Crawford stated the broader issue is over the use of the property once a
buyout occurs. An advantage to the County would be to have total control over the
property, in terms of the councilmembers and their successors' making those
decisions on behalf of the citizens of the county, as opposed to the Land Trust,
making their own decisions based on what they choose to do.
Croft stated she would trust the Land Trust before the County Council to
make those decisions.
Crawford asked how the Land Trust is regulated. Scott stated it is a private
nonprofit corporation.
Croft stated the Land Trust also has a charter.
Crawford stated there is no public election of the Land Trust board of
directors. They are not elected officials.
Brenner agreed that there is no recourse for the public through the Land
Trust. The Land Trust is more consistent than the County environmentally.
However, they are talking about public money, which comes from everyone. This
isn't a question of the Glacier Springs Association deeding over the lots. They are
using public money to purchase the lots.
Dawson stated there have been partnerships between the Land Trust and the
County before.
Brenner stated she is hearing that the Land Trust will do what it wants.
Scott stated the Land Trust is constrained by the grant it receives. This is
not a public park acquisition. The money is for salmon recovery. That is the
overriding focus.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, 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
Brenner stated it is difficult sometimes to provide public access, so it is easier
not to. Government is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be broad - based.
Unless there is an overriding environmental reason for the public to not go into The
Logs area, she would like to see public access.
Desler stated the grant requirements might be in effect for a number of
years. The length of time this needs to go on may be many years. All this public
money being used to acquire public land will be controlled by a small group of
people or elected officials. The Land Trust people are wonderful people. There is
no assurance that those following in their shoes will also be wonderful people.
Herrod stated the Land Trust could put a deed restriction on that property as
to the use. That would restrict the process. This debate is because the people in
these areas are facing a hazard. For the County to allow public access, and put
those people at risk of a hazard, is incongruent.
Brenner stated people can do hiking in the area. People won't hike in areas
that are flooding. She is talking about passive use, not public parks.
Herrod stated the worry is a cataclysmic event happening in the valley.
There is no type of warning system. The public would be at risk of the same thing
a homeowner would have.
Brenner stated an event would be the culmination of several severe weather
events. If they find out that it could go at any time, even in dry weather, she
would support no public access.
Dawson restated her motion to approve the scope of work for the primary
and secondary buyout areas, to work with the Land Trust, and to submit the grant
applications.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that properties purchased by the
Land Trust would be held in perpetuity to make sure the citizens' concerns are
addressed.
McShane stated things are going the way they should for this project. He
supports the motion. The financial impact of managing the properties is a concern
with the County owning the properties for salmon restoration. That is a broader
discussion that should not cloud what they are doing here. The Land Trust has
experience in doing this, and they are willing to do it. They have a history of
working closely with the County.
Crawford asked what it would take for the County to pursue a salmon
recovery grant. Hart stated this is a conversation about a portion of the
Comprehensive Plan that deals with open space. There are two things the County
is supposed to do. One is to buy open space corridors between cities in the county.
That was a big goal. The question of who owns those corridors has not been
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
answered in the Comprehensive Plan. The apparatus in place to do that is not
there.
The second thing for the County to do is support the conservation of fish and
wildlife. They have a ready partner to do this. For the longer term, the question is
a good one. They are not in a position to answer the question now. The transfer of
development rights (TDR) program helps to go in that direction for agriculture, but
not necessarily for an open space corridor. They are not there today, but his office
can investigate it for the future.
Desler stated the County could devote the resources to put together a SRF
Board application. The administrative staff is in favor of using the Land Trust, The
County wants to move forward with the arrangement with the Land Trust.
Crawford asked what they are going to do at the community meeting.
Cooper stated she hopes to put the results of this meeting on the table.
Brenner stated that if they do an agreement with the Land Trust anyway,
there could be agreements for passive public use on the open area, The Logs.
Scott stated many things are going to be negotiated.
Brenner stated that if it is not too hazardous on The Logs side, have areas for
the public to have passive access. Scott stated he could not commit to that. He
can look at it. The dike could be a hazard to people.
Brenner stated that if it is not an imminent hazard, she would like to consider
it. Scott stated he would consider it.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved to support the Land Trust if the Flood Hazardous Mitigation
Grant doesn't happen.
Scott stated he needs the County to purchase and remove the structures in
The Logs, first, and then the lots in Glacier Springs.
Cooper stated if the County doesn't get the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant,
the County has the flexibility to purchase whatever structures it wants.
Dawson restated the motion to support the Land Trust in the amount of up to
$500,000 from the Flood fund toward the purchase of the structures or land in the
primary buyout area that the Land Trust is targeting for buyout if the Flood
Hazardous Mitigation Grant doesn't happen.
Brenner asked how much money is in the Flood fund at the end of this year.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, Page 22
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
Monsen stated approximately $10 million. Half of that is the emergency
reserve.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on October 9 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Council Vice -Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 9/18/2001, Page 23