HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources April 11 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
48
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
April 11, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner (arrived at 10:45 a.m.) None
Connie Hoag
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Bob Imhof
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
(Clerk's Note: The first 10 minutes of the meeting were not recorded due to
audiotape malfunction.)
Lake Whatcom
Lake Whatcom Enforcement Activity
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated Ivana Halvorsen, the County's Lake
Whatcom enforcement officer was in the watershed from January to April. She
looked at erosion and sedimentation control, and provided education and
enforcement in the watershed. She distributed (on file) a status report that reviews
the information Halvorsen provided at the last council work session, along with
updated information since that meeting. It is important to discuss the enforcement
activity that has occurred this year in comparison to what they've seen in previous
years. In 1999, there were 11 correction notices in the watershed. In the first four
months of this year, there have been 66 cases that have been opened. Forty -one
of those cases have been closed and 25 are still active. The land use staff is
working with the developers and landowners to get those areas into compliance.
She displayed before and after pictures that demonstrate what is happening in the
watershed. Spending a little time educating the folks out there can make a big
difference. One recommendation is that there needs to be more education to the
private homebuilders on this issue. They also need to have a continuous
enforcement staff person in the watershed so he or she can follow a development
through the process and ensure that proper sedimentation control measures have
been applied. Also, Halvorsen witnessed development without permits in some of
the shoreline areas. They need to think about what to do to facilitate un- permitted
shoreline development.
(Discussion continued below.)
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater Workshop
Stroebel stated a binder of information was produced as a result of the
workshop. It is a guide with good information about stormwater best management
practices (BMP) and maintenance of stormwater facilities. In the last year they had
a survey in the watershed that looked at stormwater facilities. There are ten
different major facilities, such as detention ponds. Seven facilities are in the county
and three are in the city. Within the county, they are relying on the homeowners'
associations to do maintenance of the facilities. Only two facilities have a
homeowners' association that is responsible for them. Five don't have a
homeowners' association to take care of it. For facilities to work, they need to be
maintained.
Imhof asked if the two are being maintained sufficiently. Stroebel stated one
is at Eagle Ridge. They found there are maintenance concerns with each. That is
one of the reasons they held the workshop. The residents need to know how to
properly maintain facilities.
Hoag stated there are location in Lynden that have large ponds. She
questioned whether something like that requires maintenance or if it is just
something to keep the water from rushing down. Stroebel stated they do require
maintenance. The stormwater facilities have two things they help with. One is
water quantity and one is water quality. Maintenance depends on design of facility.
Some are managed by focusing on quality and some focus on quantity. As a
stormwater event occurs, there is runoff and sediment. They are trying to control
sediment coming in. If it comes into the stormwater facilities, the sediment will
build up in the facility and will need to be removed to maintain water quantity.
Hoag asked what is in Lynden. Stroebel stated it is most likely a detention
pond.
Hoag asked if the grass will grow through the sediment and hold the
sediment in place.
Imhof stated it fills up the capacity.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the type of facility that
one would design would be in line with what he or she would want to remove. If
one wants to remove nutrients, one may add additional steps that use biological
activity. Once size doesn't fit all. They ask what needs to be removed, and design
that type of a system.
Nelson asked who monitors a detention facility. Stroebel stated they are
looking into that.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
McShane stated a civil engineer. An underlying problem is that detention is
pretty straightforward, however people are amateurs at treatment of stormwater
runoff and its effectiveness.
Nelson stated they don't want government to maintain a facility, but they
need to educate people. They need to ask about the role and cost of maintenance.
Hoag questioned what requires one to install a facility.
Imhof stated the development regulations require them to be installed.
Hoag asked if the development regulations include language about
maintenance. Stroebel stated they do. Right now, it is deferred to homeowners'
associations when they are developed. However, in the watershed, associations
haven't been formed.
Hoag asked if the code specifies a homeowners' association or the developer.
Nelson stated the developer wouldn't. It would have to be the homeowners'
association.
Dawson stated the developer could maintain it until there is a homeowners'
association.
Monsen stated development is required to construct and do a maintenance
plan. Technically, a homeowners' association exists, but people need to maintain it.
McShane stated it could be good plan on paper, but it doesn't work on the
ground.
Dawson suggested they require a local improvement district if maintenance is
not up to par. Stroebel stated those are all things to consider.
Nelson stated Sandy Point and Sudden Valley are examples of homeowners'
associations. They have maintenance agreements.
Brenner stated they have a homeowners' board.
Nelson stated there are various sizes of associations. Hopefully they are not
building such large, platted areas in the watershed. They should have a mechanism
that puts more requirements on who is going to be responsible for that
maintenance. He questioned whether the options are something staff could bring
forward. Roll stated that is the next step. Last year they identified where the
facilities are and their status. Now they need to determine how they are
maintained.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Stroebel stated one presenter at the workshop, Dave Hancock, came from
King County. He had good information about how King County is inspecting and
tracking the maintenance of their stormwater facilities.
Monsen stated King County has a surface water management and utility.
Nelson stated they may have to look at a utility or a district for funding.
Stroebel stated the workshop was jointly sponsored by the Lake Whatcom
Management Program, the Seattle Section of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, H.D. Fowler, Inc., and Hancor, Inc. It was developed from input from
staff, the presenters, and the private sector. They held a workshop last year that
focused on the design of stormwater facilities. Some of the input came from that
workshop. The presenters were Dr. Richard Horner of the University of Washington
and David Hancock from the King County Water and Land Resource Division -
Drainage Services. They brought a lot of good information. There were two
sessions, a morning session and an afternoon session. Workshop topics in the
morning included staff implementation of a tracking and inspection program. In the
afternoon session, they focused on the civil engineers and home associations,
specifically, their needs and what they do to fix a particular problem in a facility.
They also looked at proper monitoring at the sites. They asked for a way to involve
citizens in doing more subjective looks at how the facilities are working, such as
water quality.
Hoag asked if they came up with answers to the questions. Stroebel stated
the information in the binder has different suggestions, including King County
activities. Their system is different. They maintain most of their stormwater
facilities.
Dawson stated that is why they have the district.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated another element that is an issue is
economic scale. A small subdivision may not be economically viable to do full
treatment, compared to series of developments that connect to do a regional
facility. From a development standpoint, it is difficult to tie developments together.
They would have to create a district.
Hoag asked if the code can give alternatives to put in detention, for instance,
and work together to do regional treatment. They each can detain the water and
then move it onto where it can be treated. Monsen stated yes. The issue is who is
motivated to facilitate that cooperation. It may not be different developers doing
different subdivisions.
Nelson asked if the regulations pertaining to this are from the state. Monsen
stated he didn't know. Unless it is a general fund activity, it is all a voluntary
formation of district.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated that they can tell the citizens
that if they want more government, then don't maintain facilities themselves.
McShane asked if Mr. Roll's main concern regarding water quality and
stormwater facilities in the watershed is sediment. Roll stated phosphorous and
metals are also important. Some ponds can work well if they don't get anaerobic.
A question he is working through is what level of treatment are they willing to
invest in to remove efficiency. The option is from five percent efficiency to 100
percent efficiency. They need to explore what they want to shoot for as a
benchmark for removing phosphorus, for example, during this step. There are
other ways to reduce the amount of phosphorous. Technologies are costly to have
and maintain.
McShane stated anaerobic is a tough issue because of the dry summers.
Ponds get stanky. Roll stated they are deep and have a small footprint, so they will
go anaerobic. Some storm systems show elevated levels of phosphorus coming
out. Part of this issue gets into the modifications they can make to existing
systems to optimize them. Maybe some form of aeration.
Nelson asked if the pond could be emptied during the summer. Stroebel
stated it depends. Some are designed to go dry. That item, how to have good
access to make sure they can maintain the facility, was discussed at the workshop.
Nelson suggested an annual treatment, which could be contracted by the city
or the private sector, to maintain the ponds.
Hoag asked if the code or development regulations address the depth to
avoid anaerobic situations. Monsen stated they address it in the design and review
when looking at the facility functioning. It doesn't guarantee that it will function.
Regulations are intended to have a function.
Hoag asked if a deep pond with a small footprint could still be a result of
current regulations. They could include a ratio of depth to width in the
development regulations.
Imhof stated there must be a functional standard.
Hoag stated in addition to that, if there was a ratio, they could avoid the
small footprint deep hole that creates the anaerobic situation.
Nelson asked if there is incentive for detention ponds. Monsen stated there
is no incentive. A lot of the technology issues are evolving, so some of what they
are talking about is obsolete.
Nelson asked if this is the last workshop on this topic. Roll stated there have
been three steps. They identified what needs to be there. This is coming back on
the plate.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Nelson stated they've been working a long time towards this.
Roll stated they are exploring options and he is pushing hard on this. They
can deal with stormwater and contaminates. It will be a priority.
Dawson asked about a local improvement district (LID) in the terms of
requiring a homeowners' group. Monsen stated they are voluntary organizations.
Dawson asked if it could be written up in the permit process. Stroebel stated
there is a lot of interest in making sure stormwater facilities work well. They need
to get the education out there. Eighty people attended, and others were interested.
Nelson asked how many homeowners living along the lake attended.
Stroebel stated they were there. There were also civil engineers and city and
county staff. There was a good mix of people.
• Land Preservation Strategy
Stroebel stated another element that was identified in the 2000 work plan
was looking at land preservation. Several tasks were adopted in the program.
Three of the tasks include developing criteria for use in prioritization of areas for
protection. They can preserve lands in different ways. A key element is how to
develop criteria on how to choose the lands in the watershed to be preserved. They
are now working on pulling together information about how other communities have
done this, the supporting science on lands to priorities, and options for preserving
lands. Land acquisition isn't the only option. The transfer of development rights
(TDR), easements, and other options are out there.
Stroebel stated a conservation easement is used to protect a particular buffer
strip or portion of the land so some activities aren't able to happen.
Roll stated conservation easements are attractive in some ways because they
are tied to the deed. The easement is good for posterity. They are used actively in
areas to sustain a vegetative buffer, if the homeowner was willing. They would
tailor easements to the situation.
Dawson stated there is also a tax benefit.
Nelson stated there is no tax benefit here. They have to have an open space
classification.
Imhof questioned whether there should be a tax incentive. If people live in
the watershed, they should pay the price for doing what is right.
Dawson asked if the Nesset Farm is a conservation easement.
Nelson stated the Parks Department purchased that.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Hoag stated it was put into the Land Trust with a conservation easement.
Imhof stated the buffer strips are going to be small and won't qualify for
open space.
Nelson stated the tax incentive would be that the property value assessment
would reflect that one did the good deed of protecting water quality.
Hoag stated the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
program is a good idea. Funding comes from agricultural funds and federal money.
That is appropriate.
Roll stated part of this is to identify a strategy to prioritize it. They use
science to decide the location of intakes, the types of land use that exist, and then
come up with options and bring back the options and strategies for purchase and
the tax issues. The County will work with the Citizens Task Force that was initiated
last year to deal with forestry. These three tasks will be addressed through the
task force. They can hopefully come up with strategies tailor -made for Lake
Whatcom.
Nelson questioned who wanted to do it that way. Roll stated it was the
charge of County Executive Pete Kremen, Mayor Mark Asmundson and Water
District #10 Manager Sandy Peterson, with support of the Water Resources
Division.
Stroebel displayed a map of the watershed. They will pull this information
together and link the criteria with the high priority areas. While looking at the high
priority lands, they could consider buffers around streams. Other criteria could be
vacant areas and how the land use is in each vacant area.
Nelson stated the majority of the land is either state forestry land or in
private ownership under the auspices of the State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). He asked what the regulations in other areas are that impact forestry
practices. It is significant. Advisory groups do not have input from those forestry
landowners. There are significantly sized forestry properties out there. If they
create the impacts that drive forestry out, then they will have problems in the
watershed. He doesn't want to see development in residential properties when
they can preserve forest practices. Buffers are big issues with these guys.
Stroebel stated it is one potential criterion to look at in the land preservation
program.
Nelson stated a lot of work is going on in buffering and hazard areas. The
DNR has already worked on this.
Hoag stated she had a problem with 200 -foot stream buffers in any area.
Streams should be properly buffered, but slope, use of the land, and allowed uses
should be fine - tuned. Two hundred feet may be more than needed in some areas
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
and not enough in other areas. There is enough data to tailor it more to the
stream, flow, slopes, and uses.
Dawson stated that when a resident has no restrictions on buffers, there is
no incentive to keep the land in forestry.
Hoag stated that when they went through the Lake Whatcom development
regulations and overlay, they specified buffers in relation to slope
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 10:45 a.m.)
Hoag stated that as the slope increased, they had to stay farther away from
the stream. Stroebel stated those are things to be considered. At that stage, they
have pulled together information about what the criteria should be, but not what
should be done in the watershed. The third aspect links the criteria together with
the priority areas. They may look at things on a parcel -by- parcel basis to
determine the best fit for each individual parcel. There will be criteria that will be
looked at for separate areas.
• Lake Whatcom Enforcement Activity
(Continued from above.)
Roll stated he is seeking to continue the temporary position so they can
come back to the Council with the options that are available for funding in the long
term.
Imhof moved to have the administration bring forward a supplemental
budget request to fund the position through the year's end and bring the options
forward at budget time.
Hoag stated she would support that.
Nelson asked to receive a list of the types of corrections that have been
identified. Roll stated there is a written handout that supports them. He
questioned the additional information the councilmembers wanted that was not
included in Halvorsen's report.
Nelson stated he wanted information on what the individual in the position is
accomplishing. That will help the County identify the weaknesses. For instance,
they may be able to identify a lack of regulation or a lack of public education in a
certain area.
Brenner stated she thought they all agreed that this was a position to
continue, not just temporarily. Roll stated he is offering to continue the position
with the caveat that he will bring back the options such as the fee structure,
funding from the Water Resources fund, and long -term funding. They will need to
bring forward those options during the budget process.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner wanted to make sure the Council supports this position being
permanent. Halvorsen has done a great job out there.
Crawford stated he was unclear about Halvorsen's letter. She is making
recommendations. He questioned whether there is a timeframe to implement those
recommendations, or if they are just the next step. Roll stated that is happening
now. The Water Resources Division goal is to have the materials that go hand in
hand with the position that goes to Lake Whatcom. It is an evolving process. This
isn't something that they are not doing, but it is being done the same time. Part of
it is working with Halvorsen as she is out there to tailor the educational products.
Right now they see that soil disturbance and erosion as the big issue.
Crawford stated his concern is that, if there were 66 building permits issued,
or even if 200 building permits were issued, they are getting the information and
education to the developers and landowners up front. That way, someday there
might be five or eight violations out of 200 permits that are issued. He is in favor
of continuing the position as long as the educational /informational component is
included with the position. Education needs to go beyond a brochure. The Building
Industry Association (BIA) will bring the issue to the forefront in their organization.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break at 10 :55 a.m.)
Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and ESHB 2514 Project
• Final Scope of Work
Roll stated the scope of work was distributed last month. Over the last few
months the Planning Unit and Initiating Government staff redesigned the scope to
clearly show the interest groups that are out there as well as the existing laws. It
also sets the groundwork for assessment and planned development that all agree
on. The scope of work guides how to do assessment, planned development, and all
the pieces of a WRIA monitoring project. A hurdle was to get the entire Planning
Unit, Initiating Governments, and the respective governments to support the
document. The next step is to look at the assessment phase. A concept paper was
developed during the scope of work development that looked at what they do next
when they need to get to the scope of work. Out of the concept paper arose the
possibility of using the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and Utah State University
(USU) to go forward with the assessment phase. They are talking about four pieces
of work that include quantity, quality, habitat, and instream flows. There was
guidance to look at a more detailed proposal to get the cost estimates related to
what that assessment phase would entail. The Planning Unit and Initiating
Government staff met earlier with USGS and USU scientists to work out this
document. He is seeking to walk through the document and get council guidance
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
as he goes to the Planning Unit to implement the proposal. He asked if there are
any questions for scope of work. The scope of work by the Planning Unit and
Initiating Governments is the framework.
Hoag asked about page two for scope of work for the WRIA technical studies.
There is a flow chart that has the WRIA #1 Project Team at the top. It shows the
information coming from the project team to the project director, then to the
independent peer review panel, but it doesn't go anywhere from there. Roll stated
the information will come back from that panel. He will change the arrow. The
proposal was that USU manages the four pods of work to make sure the decision
support system that will evolve is coordinated on the technical end. That is why
USU is proposing, with Hardy's scientists, to hook in that way. The question is how
this is to work in reality regarding the Planning Unit and the Initiating Government
staffs. They have the technical teams. They have approval to establish quantity,
quality, and instream flow technical teams comprised of Initiating Government staff
and Planning Unit members that meet the qualifications. These technical teams will
interface with the respective pods of work to be done. Under water quantity, there
will be a technical team hooking in there as the interface for the caucuses and
Initiating Governments to bring in needs through that conduit. Also, the technical
team will discuss how things are done on a technical level in conjunction with the
USU and USGS teams.
Hoag asked who the peer review panel will report to. Roll stated it depends
on what they are critiquing and the product.
Dawson asked if it all goes back to the project team. Roll stated it all does.
Many projects will be generated that will go through the peer review process. That
has to go through the technical teams, Planning Unit, and Initiating Governments.
That is what they are hanging their hat on to make sure the science is state of the
art and acceptable to those in the top of their fields.
Brenner questioned whether it will for sure go back to the Planning Unit and
the Council. Roll stated yes.
Hoag asked about the decision - making support system (DSS) on page 17.
Section 5.6.1 talks about the support system and how it will be created. It doesn't
tell them anything of what a DSS means. Roll stated the DSS is the end product
used to guide the decisions from a scientific perspective. It is vague because the
group is identifying the WRIA priorities, determining where the collected data aligns
with the priorities, and making sure the key areas align with the priorities. That is
where the DSS comes in. When the decisions need to be made that are complex,
they need to make sure they create the data assessment protocol that supports the
decisions that have to be made. The exercises that happen concurrently are to
start flushing out the specific WRIA questions. From that will emerge the support
system. Depending on the issue, some of them may be supported by models or
other things. It depends on the question that must be asked. It is vague, but it
will be clearly defined as the priorities emerge.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Hoag stated she was not familiar with a model of a decision support system.
She wants to make sure that the model doesn't cause decisions to be railroaded.
She wondered if the model has been copied from elsewhere. Roll stated the USU
used the model from other places.
Sue Blake, Water Resources Planner, stated it sounds like the model is a
common tool that USU saw as a gap in what the County put together to help make
decisions. It sounds as if the model can be tailored to meet local needs. The initial
phase of this task is to help design the model to work locally.
Brenner asked if they could change it if it is not working. Roll stated the key
is an adaptive management approach. As they move forward and acquire
information, they will adapt the process accordingly. It has to adapt so the cost
doesn't run away.
Imhof stated they don't know half the questions that need to be asked.
McShane stated he is comfortable with the phase I portion. He hoped they
will come back to give an update before proceeding with phase II. When looking at
the budget for phase II, he wondered about the fish habitat, which has a budget
amount that seems small. He questioned whether there will be habitat work done
elsewhere.
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated the amount is small. It will
be used for gathering specific habitat data at sites. Other habitat work going on
during phase I is to coordinate with other pieces. One of the things, when talking
about doing instream flow modeling, is that they stratify the basin. It involves
taking a large area and then picking representative areas. Other assessment
includes the Nooksack Tribe Historical Channel and Habitat Condition project in
conjunction with the University of Washington. That current condition will be a
template USU can use to identify sites.
Imhof asked if the money is to gather data, not fish habitat restoration work.
Thompson stated it is to assess the habitat. The Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe
are working to go through a comprehensive inventory of riparian area. There is
some detailed work going on with ecosystem diagnostic and treatment (EDT).
There are many things going on that make the bottom line appear a lot less.
Dawson asked why it is important to study the river's history. Thompson
stated it is to identify the habitat factors limiting production to identify the real
problem areas. It also identifies the options for treating the problems.
Nelson stated a lot of the scope is studying and putting together the data. It
is a two -year project. Phase III is to be the final implementation and project
activities. He questioned what the project activities will be. Roll stated the
products identified on page three are only relevant to the assessment phase.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Nelson asked about phase III. Roll stated it is the four activities in the four
pods of work: quantity, quantity, habitat, and instream flow.
Nelson stated all he sees are studies and data collection happening for the
next two years. Rolls stated this is only the assessment phase. Also happening
concurrently is development of the watershed plan. They will also start working on
the actual plan.
Nelson asked if they are going to develop a plan while others gather data and
put it together. Roll stated that is correct.
Nelson asked if they will then render decisions as they go through and
implement and evaluate projects. Roll stated they certainly will. There will be
projects identified as they proceed that can be done quickly. Others will be tough
calls.
Nelson stated each jurisdiction will review those before deciding whether that
is something they want to do. He questioned whether Roll would have the specific
information they will collect that is understandable for the jurisdictions to make
informed decisions. Roll stated they're trying to identify the key issues and
questions that are there to make sure the decision support system supports their
decisions. That is the intent. It is analogous to a toolbox to make management
decisions. There are many different types of management decisions to be made.
Some are related to salmon and some aren't. This is the development of the
toolbox.
Nelson asked if they can tighten up the timeline. Roll stated this is the
minimum amount of time needed.
Blake stated they really need ten to 15 years of data.
Nelson asked if there is sufficient information from past collection efforts.
Blake stated there is not, but they will identify areas where there are gaps in
information.
Nelson stated they are trying to avoid a listing. They have a two -year
program to gather information. They may implement some projects during that
period of time. He asked how that reflects on their ability to avoid the ESA listing.
McShane stated it doesn't matter. This isn't necessarily applicable to that.
Nelson stated they probably have 15 years before they will have sufficient
data to know if anything is working.
Blake stated that is an overly bleak point of view.
Roll stated there is the issue that talks about what to accomplish in
legislation and what to do to sustain a decision - making support system in the
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
future. Some questions may need multiple years of data and other questions may
not need any data.
Nelson stated that if there is no impact on the public, it doesn't mean much.
However, if they are creating impacts to the public, they will want to know what
they are doing this for.
Thompson stated there are two parallel tracks. One is water rights, and one
is salmon recovery. Salmon recovery doesn't have to wait for all answers on water
rights, but it will be somewhat dependant on the water rights. It will take two
years to get basic water rights information, and somewhat longer to get all the
answers. They are moving toward developing a management tool that, lacking
that, there will be a greater long -term effort. They are in a position where they
have to do something.
Nelson asked how they are to tell that to the citizen who is being impacted
and putting money into it. It is a lot of work for several years. The County has to
explain to the public, in simple terms, what direction they are going and the
anticipated cost.
Beddill stated the DSS is a shift from making emotional decisions to having a
solid base on which to evaluate differences. One example relevant to the data
collection phase is hydrology and the measurement of land circumstances and
water flow. It has not been well measured in this county. There are a couple of
flow measuring stations, but they are far from sufficient to determine how
rainwater goes across the land and how much runs out the stream. It is one of the
core pieces of the early action program.
McShane stated another issue on the budget is the water quality. He has no
concerns on the phase I level. He is worried about the longer -term basis. His bias
is that what they are doing be hashed out, specifically about water quality, for
phase II. He is concerned about the cost and didn't have confidence on where that
item is going. They could throw a lot of money away, particularly with groundwater
quality, and must ask how applicable that is to the County and WRIA as a whole.
He questioned whether they are going to throw resources into a small area. Roll
stated there are going to be places throughout the process that he will bring back
and discuss where they are going and the issues on the slate. The Planning Unit
wants, in numerous places, to hear the debriefing from the scientists about how
things go and to address the issues. There will be opportunities where those
reviews have to take place.
McShane stated there is not much match money on water quantity and
instream flow.
Nelson asked if the information in the County column includes funds from
others. Monsen stated that in that column, the County doesn't have money, but
they will look for funds to reduce the costs. At this point, they can't say they are
going to reduce that number.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Blake stated they did request an additional $250,000 from the Department of
Ecology (DOE) for phase III. It is earmarked for the County and on hold.
Nelson stated phases I and II are $1.5 million from the County. He
questioned how much is generated per year. Monsen stated the Water Resource
Fund is moving about $1.8 million per year. One issue is that, because of some
reserve money that is there, they have enough money to deal with this project.
There will also be money to deal with proactive salmon recovery. That is a different
question.
McShane discussed phase III of the groundwater section, on page seven. He
is concerned about the modeling that might be done. He would liked to keep the
models simple. The aquifers in Whatcom County are complex, and he wasn't sure
they could be modeled. Also, the Health Department has talked with Doug Kelley
from Island County. Mr. Kelley has a user - friendly data management system for
groundwater wells and quality. It is tied in with GIS, auto -CAD, and aerial
photographs, which are all layered. He understood it is such an incredible system
that the County Commissioners decided they should not share his work so freely,
but something could be negotiated. Roll stated he is on the to -call list. As they
proceed, they have to establish network links locally to support what they need
locally. As they move forward, using local people and the local university is
inappropriate.
Brenner stated she is not comfortable that they have to have USU on board.
There are layers of agencies and entities doing things. She hoped to get other
resources as they are needed. Roll stated this is the most complex and contentious
scientific exercise he's ever seen. No other water resource is as complex and
technical as this one. There is a need to have someone who has worked with all
the pieces to connect them at the technical level. It is a big project. He does not
have the capacity to oversee the USU activities, given his other charges as Water
Resources Manager.
Brenner stated that if they keep putting more layers on this, she is
concerned that they will get lost and everything will be passed on to another entity.
She would rather use the limited amounts of money elsewhere.
McShane stated using USU and USGS will be a huge advantage. It will be
cost - effective. Those two entities, because of their size and academic connections,
will be more flexible to take on this work. They can call in a wide variety of
experts.
Brenner asked why they don't use Western Washington University (WWU).
McShane stated WWU might have one or two people that could work on it.
One advantage is that USU may pull in people from other universities. USU is an
academic organization. They may be able to rely on and pull in people from
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Western who are qualified, whereas a private consultant is not interested in
bringing in people from the university. He is absolutely comfortable with it.
McShane moved to approve the scope of work.
Crawford stated recognizing the use of local collaborators for each of the
technical scope elements is addressed at the bottom of page three.
Brenner stated she was concerned about too many people being in charge.
Hoag stated there are other people in the area that are familiar with the
issues. Peter Willing has done work for Sumas and Abbottsford on the
Sumas / Abbottsford aquifer. Blake stated he also put together the County's original
water well database.
Hoag also stated Dave Garland, with the Department of Ecology, has been
very involved. He is a hydrogeologist that has been involved in DOE studies of
what has been going on in the aquifer and with nitrate contamination. He is in
Olympia. There have been studies by Western Washington University (WWU) and
the state Department of Health (DOH) in her area that included her well. She
wanted to make sure that information is incorporated and that they are aware of it.
Roll stated they are looking for guidance to implement the strategy. He will
consider this at the Planning Unit tomorrow, and it will be on the table for
consideration. The next step is creation of contracts /implementation of phase I.
Nelson stated he had no idea what projects will be related to this. He will
agree to it, but is concerned about the overall picture and the extensive amount of
work. He doesn't know what project will be connected. Monsen stated the request
is for conceptual approval, knowing that in each step of the process they will learn
something and it will be refined. The conceptual approval is to set a course to
accomplish these things. They hope to have a supplemental budget request to
carry them through the end of the calendar year. That will provide enough time to
refine some of the information to approve the budget for next year.
Nelson asked if a budget would go to the Planning Unit. Roll stated it would.
Dawson asked about the groundwater study and its implications for instream
water flow. She questioned whether it is based on getting as much information as
possible because of the concern for potential litigation. She questioned whether
that is an underlying concern. Monsen stated it is not.
Hoag asked about the budget for instream flow. She questioned whether
there is a way to get more funds from others for instream flow costs.
Dawson stated funding comes from the flood fund.
Hoag stated salmon restoration does also.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Monsen stated they will always look for grant funding that matches with the
activities. It is money controlled by the County, but a reason the funding comes
from the Flood District is because it is generated countywide.
Hoag asked about the meaning of the acronym MIS. Blake stated it stands
for management information system.
Hoag stated they are spending $200,000 in two years for models for
information. She questioned whether that seems a bit much. Monsen stated the
people have held down the modeling costs to identify those things that are critical.
A lot of folks would rather spend a couple of million dollars to do modeling.
Hoag stated she was talking about the DSS model. MIS sounds like the
same thing.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roll stated they want to make sure that the data that comes in is quality data
and is the kind of data they would want to support the decisions.
Hoag questioned whether each of those takes $100,000 to accomplish.
John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, stated relational database
management is a massive task. There is a potential labyrinth of all the different
types of data. Then they have to define the appropriate information to use, and
then have the appropriate information integrated in a way that answers the
questions. That cost is a bargain. It is a significant task.
Hoag stated $100,000 for a full -time job is pretty good pay.
Motion to approve the scope of work carried unanimously.
• US Geological Service (USGS)/ Utah State University (USU) Preliminary
Proposal
• Drainage Basin Delineation Map
Thompson stated there is a draft map. The reason for the map is for WRIA
and salmon recovery. They need to have a common framework to work from. The
basis of the map is to break up the WRIA into individual watersheds, and to break it
into small enough pieces to have pieces that are a functional size. They are trying
to get everyone working from one set of maps. When they began, they looked at
existing maps.
Brenner asked if they are using the same definition of surface water that
DOE is using. DOE is saying that anything one inch below the surface is
groundwater, not surface water.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Thompson stated the map doesn't deal with groundwater, but surface
contours and where the surface water would drain. At this point, the map only
needs minor revisions.
Monsen stated this is an agreement that there will be activities, such as
salmon recovery, where an area that encompasses an activity is a combination of
smaller units. The challenge is to make sure there are common terms and
definitions, so everyone knows what is being discussed.
Thompson stated it ties back to the management information system. They
need to define the geographic areas to create a database of information for each
area. This is a first step toward making the data management activity happen.
Brenner stated there are changes from other maps. For example, she
thought Deer Creek was part of the Ten Mile watershed. Thompson stated Deer
Creek and Four Mile Creek are part of the Ten Mile Creek watershed. The map
breaks down the Ten Mile Creek watershed to smaller units.
Brenner asked to indicate the specific watershed boundaries by a thicker line.
Thompson stated they did that with the colors. Each watershed is the same color,
but has different shades of the main color.
Everyone agreed they liked the map.
Thompson stated the Nooksack major species action team decision - makers
all decided to use this map for their effort. Getting everyone to use the same map
is a significant step.
Roll stated it is a good example of integrating the salmon issues and the
habitat. It is a clear indication that the decision - makers see the commonalties.
That is a significant step forward.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated they may want to delineate from the
larger portion so there is a more discernable way to detect the specific groupings.
McShane asked if the certain areas are part of the WRIA that go into Canada.
Thompson stated those drainages go into Canada.
Blake stated the WRIA extends into Canada.
Sproul stated it is important to use this as a vehicle for mitigation into
Canada as well. By having parts of the watersheds go into Canada, they are
impacted by each other. The idea is to have broader implications and integrate
what is going on with our neighbors. If they have tools to help each other, they
want to make sure they have the appropriate boundaries.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner asked if some of the watersheds don't have a mouth. Thompson
stated the red dots are for the bigger partitions they have. They all have mouths.
There are a few creeks that don't tie into the main river.
McShane asked if they are going to do anything in Blanchard with Colony
Creek. It is in Skagit County, but it is in this WRIA. Colony Mountain and
Blanchard have problems with their streams. Monsen stated they will discuss in the
future on how to engage with Skagit County and the cross boundary issues. When
the DOE originally set up the map, the WRIA boundary extended into the Skagit
flats. For whatever reason, the regional salmon recovery agencies agreed that
Skagit County would take care of anything south of Oyster Creek. He questioned
whether the state and tribes had a concern about that relationship. That is an area
that has to be sorted through. Skagit wants to deal with those areas. The focus
there is more on salmon recovery.
Dawson suggested that the Executive contact the Skagit County
commissioners.
Kremen stated he already contacted them. Whatcom County is doing some
of Skagit County's responsibility and Skagit County is doing some of Whatcom
County's responsibility. Skagit County is doing a good job. No problems have been
brought to his attention.
McShane stated the area has problems. It is developing quickly.
Kremen stated he will make sure the problems are not overlooked by Skagit
County.
Sproul stated he went to the last Planning Unit meeting in Skagit County to
sit in and be familiar with Skagit County. Whatcom County will defer to the Skagit
County Commissioners, but is still present in the process.
• Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Team Proposal
Roll stated the Initiating Governments came together and established the
linkage with other pieces. The PIE team evolved separate from the Planning Unit.
This document will bring it in line with other technical groups that recognize
Planning Unit and Initiating Government participation. It also spells out the issues
from the Planning Unit that the PIE team updates their objectives.
Scarlet Tang, PIE Coordinator, stated the PIE was originally charged with
developing a long -range plan. Other things have come up. The Initiating
Government asked the PIE team to take those things on. The Planning Unit felt
they didn't have a role in what the PIE team was doing. This is a technical team
proposal that follows the same lines as the other technical team proposals. She
suggested that the objective of the PIE team provides timely and readily
understandable information about the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Program
and its technical work to the general public and other stakeholder groups; to
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
provide early, frequent, and substantive opportunities for the public to give
informed input on the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project; to convey public
comments to the Initiating Governments and the Planning Unit in a useful and
timely format, and; to build long -term support for the WRIA 1 planning process.
The first project of the PIE team will be to develop the long -range PIE plan, which
will be approved by the Planning Unit and the Initiating Governments. Since the
plan has not been written, there is no formal list of activities the PIE team will begin
to implement, but it will include such things as updates to the project website, fact
sheets and display materials, newsletters, public meetings, and media relations.
Roll stated he is seeking guidance from Council to approve this at the
Planning Unit meeting.
Imhof moved to approve. It is a necessary point to get the public involved
and become educated.
Nelson asked what budget they will ask for. Tang stated it depends on the
scope of work.
Hoag asked if there is an estimate of how many public meetings there will
be. Tang stated there will be educational workshop on the four issue areas. They
have already done one on in- stream flows. The May meeting is about water
quantity. They will also do workshops on water quantity and habitat.
Hoag stated Tang could take the presentation to specific locations. Some of
the information is specific to the Lake Whatcom watershed. Other information is
specific WRIA -wide. She suggested they make presentations to the WRIA -wide
items to groups such as, Kiwanis, Rotary, and City Councils. At the workshops, the
same people attend. To really get the word out to the public, they need to go to
the other places. Tang stated she wants to propose a speaker's bureau.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Imhof left the meeting at 12:15 p.m. and the Council took a five - minute
break.)
Administrative Update
• Support for Water Resources Activities
Monsen stated this item fills in the blanks so everything can happen. They
have just reviewed some big numbers. This is a smaller dollar amount to make
those bigger things happen. One example is that they continue to struggle to try
and get someone to the various meetings to help with minutes and facilitate
communication. Those meetings include the Planning Unit, caucuses, and Marine
Resource meetings.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Brenner asked that they tape the Planning Unit meetings. Roll stated that
the way the minutes are taken was the collective consensus of the Planning Unit in
their process and procedure agreement. He gets the request into the arena by
proposing an alteration to their process and procedure agreement. The Planning
Unit would have to collectively vote and approve the request.
Brenner stated the Council doesn't get to decide not to audiotape their
meetings. That is not appropriate. They are talking about major money and a lot
of complexity. It is unacceptable to not tape the meetings. The Planning Unit
should not decide this amongst themselves. It is public information.
Dawson stated they are not legislators.
Brenner stated she would not support one more cent for WRIA if she doesn't
get to listen to audiotapes of the meetings.
Dawson stated it is the group's decision.
Brenner stated it isn't about who can make the decisions. If the Planning
Unit has the nerve to come to the Council and ask for money, the meetings have to
be taped. It is crazy not to tape the meetings.
Nelson asked for a response about why they can't get a tape.
Brenner stated they are not being taped at all.
Roll stated the Planning Unit members want to have some of their
conversations captured in a certain way. Sometimes they want verbatim minutes
and sometimes they want minutes written to express an interest group. The
protocol they follow is one they collectively desire to have brought forward. In this
case, there is a facilitated summary. It is really not even minutes.
Nelson asked if the group is signing the minutes.
Roll stated there is not an approval process.
Nelson questioned whether the facilitator does the minutes that they see.
Roll stated that is correct.
Nelson questioned whether the committee approves those minutes. Roll
stated they are handed out to the committee. If modifications are needed, they
can be.
Hoag stated she didn't like that. Too much money is involved. She
suggested a compromise to tape the meeting until the minutes are approved. That
way, if there is any question about decisions or motions, it could be double -
checked. Once the minutes are approved, the tapes wouldn't be available.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
Nelson stated some of the tapes could be required to be presented at a court
decision. If they aren't available, people could argue about whether they saw or
agreed with the minutes.
Brenner stated she wanted a tape to listen to on her own. She wanted the
Council to be able to listen to the meeting tape.
Nelson stated he was more concerned about approval of the minutes.
Brenner stated the last minutes produced were very subjective.
Roll stated he can bring that request forward from the Council to the
Planning Unit. He will throw it on the table and support it.
Nelson stated he, at a minimum, would think they would have an agreement
on their previous meetings' minutes.
Hoag stated it is important that there be a tape. Minutes are such a time -
consuming process. Having a tape eliminates hassles.
Nelson moved to request that the Planning Unit approve their minutes by a
motion and vote.
Hoag suggested a friendly amendment to request that they audiotape the
meetings.
Nelson stated that could be a recommendation. At the very least, the
minutes need to be agreed to. If there are holes in the minutes now, they will be
attacked.
Roll stated he would bring it up. It's up to the Planning Unit to decide if they
want to address it and approve it.
Brenner stated they need the details of the conversations in the minutes.
McShane asked if the Initiating Governments have minutes. Roll stated there
is no tape. The minutes from the Planning Unit are not called minutes. They are
called summaries of what transpired at the meeting. Part of the issue is defining
summary vs. minutes. In terms of what they are considering, there is a summary
of what transpired. There is a summary of the conversation and the action that
transpired from the discussion. He can't remember one incident in which people
have felt that the summary didn't reflect what transpired.
Brenner stated nothing has happened yet where people have come in en
masse. That will happen up the road. Of course it is not happening now.
Hoag stated the summary or minutes should be approved by the body to
ensure they reflect what transpired.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
48
Crawford stated he is not hung up on taping, but they need to preserve the
record.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she supported the call.
There is no problem with taping the Planning Unit meeting.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Beddill stated there will be a staff cost increase. The meetings have not been
controversial. She supported the record of the activity reflecting the activity. The
public meetings are always open. Also, someone can come to the meeting and
tape it on his or her own. Verbatim transcripts would be out of the question.
Hoag stated all it requires of staff is to be able to turn on a tape recorder.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roll requested clarification that the motion was to request that the Planning
Unit have an approval process by its members for their existing summaries.
Hoag stated that is correct.
Brenner stated the recommendation is also that the Planning Unit audiotape
their meetings and make the audiotapes available for people to review as
requested.
Monsen asked if they wanted an ongoing archive of the audiotapes. Brenner
stated that isn't important.
Beddill stated the summary is also available for comments.
Nelson stated approval of the minutes is an additional step to legalize it.
Brenner stated it would protect the Planning Unit and the process in the
future.
Monsen stated related to that discussion are topical areas to discuss. The
two most important are clerical and geographic information system (GIS) support.
The clerical support would be for the various meetings. He wants to find a way to
get a consistent method of record keeping and meeting facilitation either through
the addition of staff or creating a contract service or bid for that service.
Roll stated there are a number of places that can use clerical support. There
are needs for capturing the summary and distributing the information. A need for
that service will escalate. The Planning Unit needs timely updates on what is
happening for each pod. There is no staffing to do that, and it will become critical
that the groups have a way of communicating and are supported. They also have
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, 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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
meetings for IG staff and decision -maker meetings. There will be more meetings.
Another example is the citizens task force that the County had clerical staff for in
the past. He doesn't have the staff to perform those services.
Monsen stated that the scheduling of the meetings is such that one or two
people couldn't do that because of the number of times that the meetings occur in a
day or week. That is why they are beginning to look at a contract service.
Nelson asked if there are duplicative efforts. The Forestry Forum is currently
staffed. Roll stated in the case of the citizens' task force regarding watershed
acquisition and preservation, there will be no other party doing that work.
McShane stated that committee was not set up to do the forestry thing. That
was their first task. They are going to move on to other issues.
Roll stated the forestry issue is not to be addressed by that group any more.
They are now going to look at land preservation issues.
Nelson stated they are staffing two different groups that are doing the same
thing. If that group is not about forestry, they can get that from administration, he
is not willing to fund it.
Monsen clarified they are trying to get to those meetings whenever they can.
They cannot reliably get there. They have been operating on a first come -first
served basis.
Nelson stated he did not want duplication of efforts.
McShane stated the City of Bellingham should staff the Lake Whatcom
Management Committee's citizens' advisory committee. The County staffed the
first part.
Roll stated he already proposed that.
McShane stated the County administration provided staffing unwillingly. It is
Mayor Mark Asmundson's committee as well.
Brenner stated they have more money.
Monsen stated it is an example of the fact that staff goes where the short -
term need is. They are doing a two and a half -year project and they need to make
sure an adequate record is available.
Nelson moved for Monsen to bring a staffing proposal forward, including
timeframes, scope of work, and costs.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 23
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
Monsen stated they are bringing forward a request for proposals (RFP) for
that kind of service. He didn't know how to split up one or two people to provide
that service.
Roll stated an RFP would flush out who is available.
Monsen stated part of the proposal is to find a couple of key people that will
find the people to perform the work. They are not looking for an individual to do
the work. They are looking for an individual who can organize the work. The
ballpark cost is under $50,000 for one year.
Nelson stated the motion is to bring forward a budget and an RFP.
Motion carried unanimously.
• Overview of geographic information system (GIS) /database needs for
Water Resources
Roll stated that in the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan published in
February 1999 there was a need for a data information /GIS presence in the Water
Resources Division. In terms of how that relates to WRIA, they have a decision
support system that will need to be utilized in the future. There is also a need for
data /GIS support for the project to move forward. They don't have GIS support
other than the existing staff. The proposal is to bring that into the data realm that
is being created. There will be a strong need soon for GIS /relational database
function to the WRIA.
Nelson stated there are two or more areas in which the County utilizes GIS
information. The County should look at a GIS- oriented position, as part of the
strategic plan for the County. His feeling is to now utilize the Planning Division staff
that is available. Roll stated there isn't anyone doing it now. There is no dedicated
staff for Water Resources. This isn't just a GIS effort. It also includes data
information. They are pursuing the ability to use the Planning Division's equipment.
Nelson suggested they work out a method to work with the Planning Division.
They need to talk about this in a strategic sense within the County. He needs more
information before he can allocate resources for GIS focused on water. He wanted
to know what they have available as resources now and how effective the current
resources are for water resources. If they are not effective, he wanted to know
what other resources will be needed and how administration will address that issue
in terms of water, land use, and other GIS needs.
Hoag stated the budget they approved included GIS.
Roll stated there are issues regarding GIS data in relation to the assessment
parts. He is asked what is going to be here to support it during the projects.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 24
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 there is a substantial amount of GIS data management
regarding the project. The preference is that the project can deal with data
management, but that there is a County system to utilize. If the County is not
willing to move ahead with the longer -term vision, they can't wait.
Nelson moved to find out the limitations and capabilities of the available
resources to deal with water resources and land uses, report back to the Council
about the needs, and ask administration to look at a total countywide GIS system
and integration of that system.
McShane questioned keeping it in- house. Monsen stated his concept is that
they apply the resources to deal with the push on project base data. In -house
long -term use of that data is possible. It is not wise to staff up to gather the data,
then get small again. Whatever staff and system is in place would be those things
that they intend to maintain and use long -term.
Nelson stated the staff has to be knowledgeable to the information together.
Motion carried unanimously.
Monsen asked for Council support to convert the fish biologist state contract
to a County full -time equivalent (FTE) employee. Steve Seymour is back with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. He is still local, and the County can still work with
him. He is out of the County position. For the last two months, they've worked
with Fish and Wildlife to put that staff back.
Nelson asked if the state is going to support the County's efforts for the
whole water resources and Endangered Species Act (ESA) project.
Monsen stated the state created the position that he wants to perform. The
County needed to direct his energy into permit assistance. They need that resource
even more so today. Through the state administrative process, the County has
been unsuccessful in refilling the position. Because of the need for that position, he
would rather hire a County FTE to do the same work. He will bring that request
forward in a supplemental budget process.
Nelson asked if the tribes have someone. He believed a lot of the fish
concerns would be addressed by the tribes.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner left at 1: 00 p.m.)
Monsen stated Steve Seymour's position was to do technical support in
getting permits to perform flood and road activity.
Hoag stated the County has to have a fish biologist on staff.
Roll stated they won't get permits otherwise.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 25
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
Monsen stated Seymour may be an applicant for an FTE. He was
unsuccessful in working out a way to replace his role or to expand it. The only way
he can see replacing or expanding his role is to convert the position to a County
FTE.
Nelson moved to consider the position as a full -time County position.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 13 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 4/11/2000, Page 26