HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 26 20001
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
Natural Resources Committee
September 26, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WATER RESOURCES ISSUES (AB2000 -132)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated there were two items they did
not get to at the work session last Tuesday. One item was the Cooperative
Extension Improving Irrigation Efficiency Project proposal. The second was the
status of the Land Acquisition /Preservation Strategy in Lake Whatcom.
McShane questioned whether the Land Acquisition /Preservation Strategy is
related to the City of Bellingham water fee increase. Roll stated it is not directly
related. He would describe how they are connected.
Nelson asked how Roll is speaking. Roll stated he was speaking as the
Interjurisdictional Coordinating Team (ICT) lead. The first item regarding
Cooperative Extension seeks direction from the County Council. The second item is
informational.
Cooperative Extension
Roll stated he supported this proposal. It gets at many of the water resource
inventory area (WRIA) issues, using science to drive water allocation and efficiency
studies. This is an example of one activity that might be very beneficial.
Craig MacConnell, Washington State University (WSU) and Whatcom County
Cooperative Extension, distributed an information packet (on file). The proposal
has four components:
1) Establishment of the instrumentation in the fields in Whatcom County. The
instrumentation is shown in the photograph in the packet of information. They
are remote telemetric weather stations. It is part of the Public Access Weather
System (PAWS). There are 60 stations around the state. Only two are in Puget
Sound. One is at the Mt. Vernon research station and another is at the Puyallup
research center. The first component is the establishment of these two stations
for the pilot project.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
2) A demonstration of new technologies and instrumentation that go into the field
and measures soil moisture in the field. There are brand new technologies. For
an irrigator to make good irrigation decisions, he or she needs to know two
types of data: how much water evaporates of the surface of the ground and how
much water is in the soil itself.
Nelson asked how the PAWS station tells how much moisture is in the
ground. MacConnell stated it doesn't. The irrigator needs two kinds of information.
One is how much water has evaporated. That is called ET, or evapo - transporation.
The PAWS system would provide that data. The second component of the proposal
is a demonstration of these devices in the field. Farmers need to see and
understand how they work. They will put the PAWS systems in different soil types
and fields.
3) Education on the technology.
4) Information dissemination. They will use mass media to tell people who may
not have access to this information how much and when to irrigate. The new
technology about measuring soil moisture will allow them to be more accurate.
There are two contracts with Whatcom County and WSU using Water
Resources fee money: the nutrient management project and the integrated pest
management (IPM) program. Those programs were funded for the calendar year
2000. They started implementing the programs late, due to delays in hiring
personnel. They will have extra money to use to purchase the two PAWS stations.
The amount is about $14,000 from both the IPM and nutrient management
programs. He was not asking for any more money. He was asking to amend the
contracts to use some of that money to purchase the PAWS stations.
Nelson questioned what they missed in the two programs. MacConnell stated
it took three months to get people hired to do the work. There is direct applicability
of the PAWS stations to those projects. The IPM project depends a lot on predicting
pests through climatological data. In the nutrient management program, they can
look at the application of the liquid nutrients on the field as a replacement of
irrigation. They can plug irrigation efficiency into the nutrient management
program. The PAWS stations directly relate to the other projects, but they don't
have a line item in the contract for that capital expenditure.
Nelson asked what action MacConnell needed. MacConnell stated he needed
the Council's support to modify the existing contract to purchase the PAWS system.
Nelson asked if MacConnell had the support of the Ag Preservation District.
MacConnell stated he had conversation with the Ag Preservation District and John
Gillies with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). They both support
the purchase.
Nelson moved to recommend to the full Council approval of transferring the
funds for this project. He asked how long it would take to set it up. MacConnell
stated it would take a while. They will have it for the next season.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
McShane questioned where the stations would be installed. MacConnell
stated they are going to convene folks and farmers to decide. He has some ideas.
There is a strong advocate to put one near the Perry's site because it is a historical
site for weather.
Nelson asked if this will help the County get data information on in- stream
flows. Roll stated it would not. If this is a useful tool, they institute more systems,
and link them into potential modeling efforts, then it will be helpful in the long-
term. This is a pilot project to help the farmers. The information will be helpful.
This is an area where the County lacks information. With the microclimates, the
effectiveness of having two systems to extrapolate information is questionable.
MacConnell stated component four is dissemination. It will be directed to
others besides farmers. They would also direct this to home gardeners. In other
communities, they've seen people using the information.
Nelson restated his motion to support the transfer of $14,000 to the PAWS
pilot project and the enviroscan.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag absent.
Lake Whatcom
Roll stated the adopted Lake Whatcom Management Plan was jointly adopted
at the beginning of the year by the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Water
District #10, as identified under the land ownership preservation group. There are
three tasks directed by the unified group to pursue:
1) Establish criteria for preservation and protection. He was talking in terms of
preserving and protection of land, not solely acquisition, for the benefit of water
quality. This item was task three under the land ownership item.
2) Identify the options for these strategies, such as transfer of development rights
(TDR) and the use of conservation easements and other types of things. This is
item four of task four.
3) Develop some type of management or implementation structure for applying the
criteria with the tools that are available to target lands for preservation in the
watershed.
The original goal was to have the citizen's task force under the Lake
Whatcom Management Committee work through criteria. They have been doing
that. They will bring forward their proposals to the councils and staff. The
proposals will go through the three jurisdictions.
While this was transpiring, the city ordinance was brought forward. It was
done independent of the County or Water District 10. His concern as the ICT
coordinator was that they identified the work they were going to pursue and how
they were going to pursue it. They needed to make sure that the work didn't abut
issues or create issues as they tried to carry out that plan. He went to the public
hearing that the Bellingham City Council had and spoke to the need to make sure
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
the plan was well thought out and defined. He suggested to the City Council that
they might want to consider delaying it to get all the pieces teed up before they
asked for money. There were modifications made by the City Council before
adoption.
They are at a point now where they need to mesh that action with the
strategy. He tries to maintain a unified criteria development to look at the entire
watershed, not just segments of the watershed. They still have to define how to
create the toolbox and bring jurisdictions together in a manner to best address the
watershed as a whole. The ordinance has language to create a joint board of
appointed people from the City, County, and Water District 10. He hoped that, as
they establish the criteria and tools, they would identify a way the County Council
may want to manage their application. The work on the criteria is still continuing
through the citizen's task force. The citizen's task force has done a good job. A lot
of preliminary work was done for the task force on presenting how other
jurisdictions targeted lands for preservation. They created a notebook of different
ways of approaching it that would be applicable to Lake Whatcom.
Nelson asked if he was saying that the ICT has not had an opportunity to
evaluate land preservation and how it would be applied to this new tax that the City
imposed. Roll stated that is where they are now.
Nelson stated Roll wished to have input on whatever board is formed. Roll
stated that summarizes it. He still advocates that they look at preservation as
providing the biggest bang for their buck.
Nelson asked what the intention is for the utilization of this tax. Roll stated
he hasn't heard of any unified intention. Individually he's heard various scenarios.
Nelson questioned the vision of the City Council as it deliberated on this tax.
Roll stated he didn't know. They want to acquire properties. There was a wording
change that acknowledged other ways to preserve land. Now that the ordinance
has been adopted, they are looking at how to make it happen.
(Clerk's Note: Hoag arrived at 9:50 a.m.)
Roll stated TDR and Conservation Futures are different options. They are
going to have to work closely to determine the intent of where they want to go.
They are now supportive of developing joint criteria.
Nelson asked why and how the County and the ICT would be involved,
without creating a disjointed effort. He hoped they do not to get into a crapshoot
of each jurisdiction deciding their own best policies on water preservation and water
quality, which is everyone's goal. A disjointed effort would have a detrimental
effect to the watershed in the long run. Roll concurred. The issue is how to mold
this into a joint effort. The city staff was not involved in any of its development.
The City Council is open to modifications as they move forward to make it more
amenable to the joint effort.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Dawson stated the fact that the city is asking for County input shows that
they expect this to be a joint effort. The County had Conservation Futures funds
and bought property in the watershed, but it didn't go back to the group. Each
jurisdiction can do things, and then as a group they can all do things together. She
didn't view it as stepping on toes.
Nelson stated there is an effort in the watershed to utilize the resources
available. There are already many tools in the toolbox for preserving land use.
This has a different direction. There is a simile of land acquisition. This is a
different approach than using Conservation Futures funds to preserve land in their
current use. Acquisition of land has many connotations. He asked the intent of the
City Council in using the tax dollars. Roll stated there was the acknowledgement in
the ordinance to apply the criteria that are being jointly developed right now.
There is also language that still allows the City Council to have autonomy on where
they decide they actually want to direct the funds ultimately.
McShane stated the City Council would be very interested in hearing what
the Water Resources group, the joint committee, and the advisory committee come
up with as criteria. They still want to have some autonomy. The best way to view
it is as another tool to use. The tool was created out of the process, but they will
worry about how to utilize the tool later. He appreciated Mr. Roll going to the City
Council and stepping forward in an awkward position. There is an entity that would
provide some guidance on how this significant amount of money might be utilized.
Hopefully, they will see the wisdom when they make the final decision.
Roll stated the County Council could expect criteria coming from the citizen's
task force after going through the staff by year's end for joint adoption.
Nelson asked if the intent was to tie all the jurisdictions into this tax. Roll
stated the ordinance references that.
Nelson questioned why. Roll stated he is working solely under the direction
of the joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee. The joint criteria come down
to staying that course and meshing the ordinance with what is there. There is
language saying the city would support the use of joint criteria in their acquisition
and preservation strategy.
Nelson asked if they would apply the use of the funds according to what the
joint committee comes up with as the best mechanism.
McShane stated it would be considered. They city still has its autonomy to
make the ultimate decision.
Nelson stated that is appropriate. This is their idea. It is positive that the
city wants to look at the whole picture rather than going out on its own. A
disjointed effort is far less effective. The intent of the Lake Whatcom Management
Committee is to find a joint effort.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Dawson stated it is important that everyone knows which lands are being
targeted, so no one works on the same property.
Roll stated this gets to the third task of how to manage and coordinate the
use of criteria and the tools. He didn't know whether their proposal for a joint
board is the best route. He wanted to sequentially do these tasks to get joint
adoption at each stage of the game, so the end product would be self- evident from
what was jointly adopted prior to that. He didn't know who would target the lands
if there were a joint board.
Nelson stated he would initially have to be convinced that a joint board is the
best venue for utilization of this money. His personal opinion was that it is better
tied into a process in which they have the Lake Whatcom Management Committee
with the citizen's task force, and see if it is applicable as one of the tools in the
toolbox.
OTHER BUSINESS
Nelson stated they will deal with a request for authorization for the
Executive to enter into an amendment to an interlocal agreement with the
City of Bellingham to establish procedures for processing Comprehensive
Plan amendments in the Bellingham urban growth area (AB2000 -248A) in
the Finance Committee. He had a question about a term in the agreement. It talks
about Lake Whatcom being a water resource protection area. He asked what that
meant. Roll stated he didn't have any information at this time. He hasn't seen any
formal designation of status.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 6