HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources September 19 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
Special Water Resources Work Session
September 19, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 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 None
Connie Hoag
Dan McShane
Bob Imhof
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
1. WRIA PLANNING
WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan Draft Discussion Paper
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated most water resource inventory
area (WRIA) work comes from ideas, an issue paper is written, then proposals are
developed. This is the first step. Everyone knows they need to work on developing
a written plan. This paper identifies what needs to be accomplished. It gives
background generated thus far with the Utah State University (USU) and approved
scope of work. The packet has a description of what has to happen. The second
piece is the outline in the original scope. They now are starting to expand the
outline. There is an outline of the timeframe for plan development. After that, a
table of contents generated through the scope. Now, they are taking the contents
and molding it into plan development.
One item is hiring a facilitator for plan development. The Planning Unit will
consider that in the coming weeks. A goal is to have a proposal to the Planning
Unit within the next month. They are to begin working actively on the plan by the
end of the year.
Brenner asked about the funding that they talked about to allow the
caucuses to have support. Roll stated they would discuss that item later in the
meeting.
Roll asked for comments about the draft. This is going to the Planning Unit
on September 26.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Nelson asked about the timeline of the completion of the plan. He
questioned whether they are to have it done by June 2002. He also questioned
how Whatcom County compares with other WRIA's and whether the County is on
schedule.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he's heard that WRIA 1 is as far
along as anyone in the state, or further along. The year 2002 is an issue with
everyone. They will talk about the 2002 timeline.
Nelson asked if the County has flexibility. Roll stated Whatcom County is one
of a few, or may be the only WRIA who is tackling all four elements, (habitat,
hydro, hatchery, and harvest), at the same time. It is a bigger monster compared
to other WRIA's.
Brenner asked if they are thinking about joining other WRIA's to save
duplication of efforts.
Monsen stated some salmon recovery activities would be joined with other
WRIA's. From the watershed project management perspective, the County is on its
own because of the unique data involved.
WRIA Water Rights Review Proposal
Roll stated they are in stage one of water rights. They have stage two for
conceptual methods, roles, and policies of the relationship. They are in the middle
of phase one of the paper critique which was approved in the budget. This is the
first paper out of the water rights group that is looking at how they are going to do
stages two and three. This begins to offer ways and approaches they may want to
consider in stage two.
Brenner asked when they will be at that part. She objected to the Public
Utility District (PUD) being the water rights moderator. Roll stated they haven't
gone to stage two.
Brenner stated everything is in the scope of work. They are at that point
now. It is time to make a decision on whether they want the PUD. Roll stated at
this point, the PUD is only doing stage one, which is the paper critique of water
rights. This proposes what occurs after stage one. It doesn't say the PUD is doing
that work. At this point, they don't know who is doing the work in stages two or
three. The proposal only talks about a contractor.
Brenner asked if the PUD put the proposal together. Roll stated it did in
conjunction with Planning Unit members.
Dawson stated there are other options.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Roll stated there are important things in the stage two policies to consider on
page two of the proposal. Initially, the contractor proposed to begin stage two:
review in the Fishtrap, Anderson, Kendall, Lower South Fork, and California Creeks.
These are the areas they will start to look at in order to reconcile the paper rights
versus the actual rights.
Nelson questioned the reason for choosing those locations. Roll stated it has
to do with recommendations from Hardy, the technical teams, and the Planning
Unit regarding prioritization of certain areas in the watershed where they need to
make sure the decision support system (DSS) is working well. These are also areas
with the most opportunities and possible conflict.
Nelson asked how they identified those areas selected for stage two. Roll
stated they went through a couple of iterations in phase one where they identified
areas of focus. It doesn't say this is the final list of places to look at. Part of what
is evolving is the focus areas to hone in on data and make sure the DSS supports it.
This is a proposal. It is not set in stone as places they have to look at.
Imhof stated this was the recommendation from the groups. Roll stated it is
the recommendation so far.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated one of the things that became clear in
talking with Utah State University (USU), is that the next two months is the time to
make sure they pick the right areas for focus. This is the best guess right now.
There is still additional work to make sure this is where they should go.
Brenner stated on the bottom of page two of the stage two policy, item
number one, should be reworded. It should say, "Initially,
to begin Stage 2 review shall begin in...." They don't have a contractor.
Imhof stated this is who is making the recommendation. This is not the
person doing the work. Roll stated they are getting technical insight from USU. It
doesn't say they've identified who will do the work.
Brenner stated the language about the contractor proposing stage two
sounds like the contractor who will do the work in stage two.
Crawford questioned who the contractor is in this document.
Nelson stated that on page one, the contractor refers to the PUD. They need
to identify which contractor they are talking about.
Crawford stated page two talks about the contractor, referring to USU. Roll
stated it refers to whoever is chosen. It was driven through the people working,
the PUD, USU, and other groups. There would be a need under the roles to identify
who will carry it out.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Monsen stated it would be more accurate to characterize the entity doing the
work as the Planning Unit, with help from USU, who will decide what happens in
stage two. A contractor will be selected to perform that work.
Nelson stated the title on the first page should say, " €For
State 2 conceptual method, roles, and policies, these are the recommendations for
the proposed contract."
WRIA Caucus Support
Roll stated two things happened at the last County Council water resources
work session. The Council asked him to ask the Planning Unit what the caucuses
need for support. He did that. At the same time, a small subcommittee of the
Planning Unit agreed to convene to come up with a form of a unified proposal, after
looking at all separate proposals. The first piece is a draft proposal to be presented
to the Planning Unit at the next meeting. A draft was created by some Planning
Unit members that was created from all the proposals. They now have the
individual requests and a draft combined proposal.
Brenner asked if the proposal was for any caucus. She was only worried
about the private caucuses. This proposal doesn't differentiate between the private
and public caucuses. Roll agreed that it doesn't differentiate.
Brenner stated she wanted to fund the private folks.
Dawson stated they don't need to be in attendance for a lot of the meetings.
Roll stated they have monthly meetings as well as meetings that each caucus
has. What has also happened in the last few months is the development of
technical teams, interfacing between the Planning Unit and Utah State University
(USU). They are staffed with government staff and Planning Unit participants.
They have intense, long meetings every two weeks. It is another series of
meetings. It is difficult to staff both the Planning Unit and also the technical team
meetings.
Brenner proposed under Type of Support to specify non - governmental
caucuses. They are already funding the governmental caucuses.
Imhof suggested waiting for the recommendations. This is just a proposal.
Brenner stated she wanted it in now. There are six or seven special interest
groups.
Hoag agreed with Brenner. If the Council sends the comment back to the
Planning Unit, the Planning Unit could respond.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
McShane stated they can't delineate the government issue. If they are
counting the diking districts in the government caucuses, they are the least likely to
do this. That said, he was not disinclined to provide very much money for
participation. He never would have guessed this much money would be asked for.
He was not comfortable with the idea of some of the levels of participation they are
asking the County to fund. It is a lot of money. Most participants should have
known that participating would be a bit of a burden. They do need some money to
make copies and distribute information.
Nelson stated they shouldn't differentiate between government and non -
government caucuses. They all put a burden on the resources, whether private or
non - private. The proposals are more extensive than what the councilmembers
envisioned. They want to make sure there is funding for clerical support and
notifications, not specialists. There is no budgeting or auditing procedure.
Brenner stated the requested amount was way overboard. The Council can
specify that the county, state, and other governments would fund their own
caucuses. The County and state do have funding. Certain government entities are
already funded. It is a hardship for others to get things done. She wanted to make
sure the major government entities are not part of this consideration. They get
their funding from their own governments. The state Department of Ecology (DOE)
funds their people being at those meetings. They are paid to be there. She wanted
to see that the smaller caucuses are funded. It is not a level playing field.
Nelson stated there are no proposals are from any large agencies.
Roll stated the big agencies are not planning to submit proposals. The PUD,
Bellingham, and DOE are not requesting money.
Crawford questioned where the draft at the beginning of the documents
came from, as opposed to the individual groups. Roll stated a small group of
Planning Unit members, Skip Richards, Steve Jilk, Kathy Bovencamp, and Henry
Bierlink, tried to craft a unified request based on the requests submitted. The goal
was to have a draft to bring to the Planning Unit.
Hoag stated the types and amount list three types of support. She didn't
think support was appropriate for paying for the attendance of the technical team
members or Planning Unit. They should fund office support for the diking district
caucus and non - government entities. There doesn't need to be a match. The
caucuses should not be required to supply a match to get office and communication
support. Put a cap on the amount. The amount of $30,000 is high. An amount of
$5,000 or $10,000 is more appropriate.
Dawson stated the consensus was to limit funding for clerical support.
The Council concurred.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Monsen stated that, as it relates to small cities and districts, the original
discussion about the use of the flood fee for this effort was to promote the idea that
the primary funding was a countywide fee rather than creating sub -area fee
structures. Everyone partakes in the expenditure and receives benefit. The small
cities' and special districts' response was to question why they should generate
more money locally when they are using fees generated in their areas already for
everyone.
Nelson stated the County was given the lead agency role to moderate and
ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently so that most of the money
is put in the needed area of salmon restoration.
Imhof suggested giving the small cities some clerical support. They paid into
it. They don't have extra people to do the work. Limit the support from $10,000 to
$15,000 for the entire county.
Roll stated there was a previous agreement that caucuses would be provided
a funding of $500 for doing mailing. The majority of the caucuses have not used
their funds to date. Two or three groups, diking and drainage, utility, and the
PUD /water districts caucuses have used it.
Nelson asked how far into the process they are, to have something to mail
out. Roll stated an enormous amount of information needs to be disseminated.
The technical scope of work was just drafted. It requires a lot of information to
understand.
Nelson questioned whether USU or the Planning Unit was to help facilitation
of the caucuses. Blake stated the Planning Unit did that.
Nelson questioned whether any guidance was provided to the caucuses on
how to keep involved. Roll stated they gave the caucuses suggestions.
Nelson stated they only had $500 for mailings. He questioned whether they
had clerical staff. Monsen stated they could use the $500 for clerical services.
Brenner stated they may choose to save their $500 for their big needs.
McShane stated his biggest concern with the caucuses was that some might
not represent what the Council thinks the constituency is. They should make sure
the caucuses are truly representing the public. He didn't know whether or not this
funding addresses that concern. Roll stated it does when they look at the
conditions for support. The group stated that the caucuses have to be actively
communicating and engaging new members. Receiving support requires that.
They have had an annual questionnaire that gets at those membership questions.
They haven't had any response this year. This proposal would force anyone
seeking support to go through that process and openly demonstrate good faith and
interest. They don't know now with some caucuses. They have no way of forcing
the caucuses to provide that information.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
48
McShane stated he was looking for feedback. The Water Resource staff is
the one talking to the caucuses.
Hoag stated she would not like to fund anyone with their own tax base, other
than the diking districts.
Brenner stated this thing about conditions sounds good on the surface. The
private well caucus may not have enough money to be able to meet the conditions.
They should provide some money so a person could do this stuff. People without a
business background have a hard time keeping and providing records. Otherwise,
the only ones who can apply are the ones who have staff to meet the requirements.
Nelson agreed with the amounts they are talking about. They need to make
sure the caucuses communicate, disseminate information, get information to
people, and collect responses. The public and government each have a way to
raise money. The water associations have fees they establish. Private well owners
have dues. They each contribute to the fund, either through the flood fund or their
time. To have a fair and legitimate participation, all resources for the caucuses,
with the exception of the County, state, and PUD, should be equally funded.
Dawson stated the councilmembers assumed the caucuses were going over
the $500 allotment. Roll stated it tells him that their needs aren't focused on
clerical needs. They can expect this proposal to go to the Planning Unit. Another
iteration will be created and will come back to the Council at a future date.
Dawson asked Roll to let the caucuses know the Council assumed they used
up their $500.
Crawford stated they may not know what to do with the $500, and it is not
much to do anything with anyway. In looking at what they need for clerical and
staff support, four out of the six groups are saying they could do it with $5,000 or
less. He questioned whether, besides the six groups he listed, the rest are
government entities. They are assuming they won't throw more money at
government and are going to help the six groups that are non - governmental. He
questioned where the money comes from, if it comes from the flood tax, and if it is
a part of the upcoming budget.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is.
Crawford asked if the administration proposes a lump sum to spend on water
stuff, or if the expenditures are broken down.
Desler asked for Council direction on its priorities. They have about $2
million for the next year.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Desler stated they have to make sure they stay within that $2 million. If
they spend more money on caucus support, they have less money for other kinds
of activities.
Crawford asked if they could defer a decision until they can get through the
budget cycle and understand how much money they have to spend. Monsen stated
he wanted to know the order of magnitude of money to work with, then present
alternatives.
Crawford stated they wouldn't spend $30,000 per caucus. It may be $5,000
per caucus, with specific direction that it is not for paying for attendance, but for
clerical support and information notification. He didn't want to make a judgement
until they put it in the bigger context.
Brenner stated the caucuses are the front line. They need to commit money
aside for the caucuses. This is a small amount compared to $2 million. They need
to provide the message that the caucuses matter. This is the most important part.
Everything else follows. They shouldn't wait on this.
Imhof stated they are asking for ten percent of the budget. They need to
make specific guidelines, such as the money is not for salaries.
Dawson stated Roll has enough direction.
Roll stated he was not seeking direction. There will be another proposal
coming to the County Council.
Imhof asked how many caucuses there are. Roll stated there is a total of 18.
There may be 12 non - government or small government caucuses.
Nelson stated they are talking about three percent or under of the budget.
Imhof asked if that is a reasonable amount to plug into the budget. Desler
stated that if public awareness and clerical support is a high priority, then it is
reasonable.
Nelson stated that was a high priority from the federal side. As a
requirement of this whole process, they must have public participation. Desler
stated laying out performance objectives for the caucuses and also addressing the
limits gives everyone direction.
Nelson asked what the other WRIA's are doing with their caucuses.
Brenner stated the County is ahead of everyone.
Groundwater Team Proposal and Update
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Roll stated this is only for their information. There is a potential hit in terms
of funding next year. It gets at some of the issues that the Planning Unit is looking
at, development of early action items that can be done immediately to engage
people in the WRIA. It will potentially cost money.
Blake stated that in June a proposal came to the Council about the potential
formation of a groundwater subcommittee to take a look at early action projects for
groundwater. There were questions about whether to do a groundwater
management area and other groundwater issues. The proposal was to do it under
WRIA and target early action projects. The Council endorsed that idea. The
Planning Unit also endorsed it. They formed a groundwater subcommittee of the
Water Quality Technical Team. The subcommittee met and looked at issues and
options related to groundwater. This is their proposal. When they looked at the
issues, the obvious one was nitrates. Regarding groundwater, 80 percent of
nitrates in the northern part of the county comes from agricultural activities. That
was a concern for public water systems. Nitrate was the contaminant they were
most concerned with. In public water systems, it is virtually impossible to treat
nitrates because it is extremely expensive. Many systems are having trouble with
nitrates.
Hoag stated nitrates are easy to deal with. Blake stated it is very expensive
in large quantities. Because they know where it is coming from, they can address
it. The proposal is geared at reducing nitrates to groundwater. It involves planting
row crops. There is nothing taking up nitrates in the ground. If they plant a crop
that will take up the nitrates, then it removes the potential to get into the
groundwater.
Dawson stated trees put nitrates in the ground. Blake stated a study looked
at natural and manmade sources. It identified agricultural sources as the primary
source, without a doubt. The idea would be to plant crops in conjunction with
monitoring work to test soils to see how much is there to begin with. There may be
no point if there are not nitrates there to begin with. They would plant crops and
then do monitoring. What is in the soil won't necessarily show up in groundwater
supplies, but there is a relationship.
Brenner asked if there is a lot of data about the worst nitrate contamination in
the county. Blake stated there is. That's why this will focus in the northern area of
the county. They are not going to collect data to see where it is, but to monitor
whether it works.
Dawson asked if the free tests are for well owners only in those areas. Blake
stated they are.
Brenner asked what happens if plants take up the nitrate, and if the nitrates
are changed. Monsen stated part of this project goes to agricultural practice
science. The big issue is that it is not dealing with nitrates that exist below the
ground, but how to manage the ground in a yearly cycle to not increase the
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
mobility of nitrates for half the year. Plant cover crops that take up and bind the
nitrogen, then return it to the soil in the spring.
Imhof asked if Washington State University (WSU) has the information about
nitrates in the county. Monsen stated they need site specific information dealing
with soil types. The science is there.
Blake stated they helped draft this proposal.
Brenner stated she read that there are bacteria that can take up these things
and change the properties. She questioned whether that was true with nitrates.
Roll stated the science shows the applications, but bringing that science into the
real world is a ways away and is expensive.
Blake stated this is a three -year proposal. The budget is not for one year.
They only need to do it long enough to know if it works.
Hoag stated nitrate levels in her family well climbed to higher than acceptable
levels when the neighboring farmer changed the land from pasture to corn. The
Conservation District and WSU changed the farming practices. Changing farming
practices does work. Nitrates can be in the ground for up to six years. If nitrates
are below the capture zone, it takes a while to change the effect on the wells.
People who work with this already know what kind of things cause problems and
the solutions. She asked how much of the program is aimed at finding the problem
areas and changing the practices in those areas. That is the meat of finding a
solution. Regarding data gathering such as soil testing, the Conservation District
tests soil before looking at crops so they do not put in too much nitrogen. She
questioned when they would put in the row crops. Blake stated in the autumn.
Imhof stated November 1 is too late. Blake stated that is the time of the year
that nitrates are there.
Imhof stated nothing grows then. Blake stated it does.
Hoag stated the Conservation District said the cover crops have to be in by
October 1, or else they don't get enough growth to take up the nitrates. Blake
stated that is why they pushed this forward this year. They need to get going
immediately if approved.
Hoag stated there is a splash program in Nebraska. She asked if Blake
checked with them to get ideas. The Conservation District is familiar with it. Blake
stated she would check into it.
Hoag asked if the Conservation District is involved. Blake stated they have
discussed it and it is a possible entity to administer the program.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
48
Hoag stated the Conservation District should have input on what the program
looks like. Well testing for nitrates costs less than $30. She questioned what a
piezometer is.
McShane stated it is a small well testing device. It is a very appropriate
approach for shallow groundwater.
Hoag questioned the $7,500 for nitrate capture. Blake stated it is for planting
the crops.
Hoag asked if the farmers get something back. Blake stated the farmers are
not reimbursed until it is clear that the plants are there and functioning.
Hoag asked if the price was reasonable. Blake stated she didn't know.
Roll stated there is a need to coordinate with the Conservation District.
Nelson stated they are going to put in $100,000 for monitoring. Ten dollars
per acre for nutrient capture is nothing. The manure is the problem.
Hoag stated commercial fertilizer is a problem. Over - fertilizing is also the
problem.
Nelson asked if there are areas in the country that need nitrates. He also
asked if there is startup funding to dry up manure and ship it out to areas that need
it. Blake stated it has been proposed. It is a potential early action project. It will
take a number of things to correct the nitrate situation. This proposal is an
immediate benefit. They hope to see changes right away.
Nelson asked if there is a process for manufacturing manure.
Imhof stated there is.
Hoag stated Canada had problems with nitrates. They shipped the manure
from locations with an abundance to locations with a deficiency. WSU set up
composting operations with farmers.
Nelson stated this would have to be a large -scale operation. He wanted to
see proposals in which they don't have to be applied.
Hoag stated the two big things are if someone is putting manure on bare
ground, and if someone is over - fertilizing. Regular soil testing would go a long way
to test for over - fertilizing and making sure one does not fertilize bare ground.
Imhof stated not many farmers over - fertilize. They are cognizant of dollar
value. The trouble is that they have to lower the lagoon in the winter to have
enough storage capacity over the winter. They don't have enough acreage.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Brenner stated an ordinance took care of this.
Imhof stated it doesn't address the amount of fertilizer applied.
Brenner stated that when there is not enough land for the quantity of
animals, the property owner has to recognize that the County has to do
enforcement. Regarding the budget, she would like to educate people at the same
time. Blake stated that there are three items related to educational needs. At this
point, it hasn't been refined. They recognize that they need to do that.
Brenner stated it is important to reinforce the proper procedures with the
farmers.
it.
Dawson stated they already know the proper procedures.
Nelson stated their lagoons still fill up and they have to do something about
Brenner asked if the farmers know the hazards.
Imhof stated the farmers do know the hazards.
Hoag stated the manure ordinance is not that old. There has been a change
in activity. Farmers are planting grass instead of corn. That one change has an
impact. There has not been enough time to see the results over time. That
practice has been a best management practice for years, but some people don't
recognize the value of best management practices.
Crawford stated the education needs are going to run a program that will
help the farmers understand they can make more money doing this.
Brenner stated it is to develop a program.
Crawford stated the purpose is to get farmers to buy in to a cover crop.
Blake stated that was correct.
Crawford asked if a cover crop would be profitable. Imhof stated it is. Some
farmers don't put in cover crops because it is a cost. They have enough manure to
put on corn in the spring. In lieu of planting winter wheat, they are emptying the
lagoon at the first of April.
Crawford asked if the outcome of the program is groundwater quality and to
show that they could make money. He questioned whether the next step is that
the County requires that the farmers do it.
Dawson stated the Conservation District already does this, and questioned
whom this targets. Blake stated they are not doing this all over. This program fills
a gap that is not being addressed. It is not a repeat of an existing program.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Roll stated this is a discussion item. The Planning Unit can go through it at
the next meeting to decide if it wants to bring it forward to the councils and
governments as an early action item. They should wait until this is brought forward
to the Council. He brought it forward to let the councilmembers know they will
have to answer the question of how this project would be paid for, if the group
decides it is an early action they want to go with.
Brenner asked if they were talking about another use for manure that is
profitable. Blake stated she would get and provide clarification on the program.
Hoag stated they are paying the farmers to pay cover crops. Some are doing
that already and are not getting paid. It may be a problem.
WRIA Peer Review
Roll stated they have a list of names. If there are other names, curricula
vitae, or resumes, then submit it to him by the end of the week. The people would
be critiqued on who they are and their background. The final list would come up
from the Planning Unit, who would develop a peer review panel to shepherd this
process as they move forward
2. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
Irrigation Efficiency Proposal
Roll stated there is an opportunity to look at evapo- transportation. Craig
MacConnell would bring it forward at the next Natural Resource Committee
meeting. He provided supplemental information on the proposal from MacConnell.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 10:30 a.m.)
3. LAKE WHATCOM
Update on Land Acquisition /Preservation Strategy
Roll stated this item would be discussed at the next Natural Resources
Committee meeting.
4. SALMON RECOVERY
URS Regulatory Review
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Monsen introduced Mike Milne, URS, and Anne Root, Adolfson. URS was
hired to look into county code issues and critique where the County sits with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) response and the County's legal exposure. They
questioned how the County sits in the short -term and the long -term. They would
provide information on how Whatcom County stands relative to Washington State.
(Continued below.)
Status of Chinook Recovery Plan
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated the draft version of the base
policies is about the wild salmonid policy, adopted by Washington State Fish and
Wildlife Commission in December of 1997. It was the result of several years' worth
of discussion between the state Fish and Wildlife agencies and the Western
Washington treaty tribes. Not all tribes agreed, but both the Lummi and Nooksack
tribes agreed. The document provides consistent co- manager direction. The wild
salmonid policy is a foundation of the state's recovery action plan, Extinction is Not
an Option. They have developed the state agencies' action plan document. A third
part of the state's strategy is the salmon recovery scorecard, which is an annual
reporting document the agencies will use to demonstrate if they have met the goals
and action strategies. The recovery plan defines the policies and strategy for local
salmon recovery. It is a document to be used to ensure coordinated local efforts,
consistent efforts, and that they are allocating resources for salmon recovery in an
efficient manner. The objectives are to recover salmon and to provide liability
coverage under ESA. The early draft of the plan went through a minor plan
reorganization to provide clarification of the explanation of the factors. The early
draft had a lot of the information, but if one wasn't familiar with the details, it
would have been unclear. They are trying to develop a document that has two
audiences: 1) the local community, and 2) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) with the technical substance.
Another point to strengthen in the current version of the document is to
provide more background on current and historical conditions. It will help define
what would have the best return on the dollar.
A third point is to provide a stronger technical basis for limiting factors. They
are also making modifications to the plan content. The plan is still built around the
four H's: harvest, hatchery, hydropower, and habitat. The early plan didn't have a
hydropower section. It was added because there are a number of river
hydroelectric projects operating in the basins. There are up to 16 or 17 projects
proposed for the basin. The County has a role through various permit processes,
and it would need a strategy. They have focused on the habitat component. That
is the big issue. They added an assessment sub -plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Thompson stated they are building enforcement plans in two places. One is
in individual plans under the four H's. They are also building enforcement into the
Public Information and Education (PIE) Plan. Based on the results of the
enforcement program last year, over 800 of the 1,000 contacts made were
educational in nature.
Hoag stated the County asked them to lobby toward limited harvest. She
questioned whether that was in the plan. Thompson stated that of the four H's, the
habitat management plan is the piece that is the bulk of the County's responsibility.
They could raise concerns on harvest and hatchery. Those plans are already
developed and have gone through a separate 4(d) process with NMFS, the state,
and the tribes.
Hoag stated she didn't recall whether they were included. Thompson stated
harvest is in there.
Hoag asked if they addressed the County's concern to limit harvest.
Thompson stated this recovery plan targets watershed WRIA 1. Harvest deals with
harvesting in this watershed.
Hoag stated she questioned whether addressing that concern was
appropriate in their plan. Monsen stated the purpose of the plan is to look at items
they mutually agree on in the entire watershed. The focus is primarily on scientific -
based alternatives and facts. The harvest issue is valid, but it goes though a
different forum. This plan would have a statement like that if the tribes thought it
was appropriate. They are including the things they agree on.
Thompson stated they also identified clear answers that weren't clear before,
based on councilmember comments.
Monsen stated they are trying to capture the County's interests and issues in
the draft process, which is intended to be a WRIA plan, not a County plan.
Hoag asked staff to check with the tribes to see if they support limiting
harvest and by- catch. It is important to make a statement if the tribes support it.
Thompson continued to state that the big modification is the habitat
management plan. They have basic policies. They are developing specific action
strategies that follows three timelines: early action, interim (two to five year), and
longer -term strategies. They identify time sequence and benchmarks for achieving
specific goals.
The assessment plan needs to be framed. They are waiting on details of the
final 4(d) rules. They are looking for NMFS to put out their recovery strategy, but
the County is not going to wait on that to keep working. Also, the final shoreline
master program will determine which paths they take. They are also waiting for
the results of the URS work. These are all pieces that help them shape the
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
alternatives they can pursue. They can identify those actions. They would not
have all the answers for several years. They can identify the early actions.
They are putting flesh on the adaptive management outline. A key part of
ESA compliance is to identify what they intend to do, identify the resources they are
going to allocate, and determine if the actions are working.
Brenner asked if they are incorporating the recommendations made from the
early action watershed committees. Thompson stated he's taken a look at that.
They also have more recent information. They are trying to pull in as much
information as they can. They need to refine the PIE plan. A key need is to know
how to engage in the recovery plans. This is a document that would need to take
steps to walk people through the plan.
Regarding the timelines, they would like to have a full version by the
November work session. That version may not have all final details, but it would
outline the key questions.
They need to be sure to confirm a common policy vision between the County,
tribes, state, City of Bellingham, and others. They need to describe where the
public can engage.
McShane questioned whether there was any thought to doing a strategy for
dealing with state Department of Fish and Wildlife, the tribes, and NMFS, if they
don't agree. Thompson stated they don't have to agree because they are
developing it locally. This is the WRIA 1 plan.
Dawson stated they've always talked about third -party lawsuits. The
arguments were that the counties have the same sovereign immunity as the states.
The County's only concern is the federal government. A local goal is to prevent
harm. That is where the County's liability is.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that was a correct
interpretation. There is a significant split of opinion on what is viewed as the
application of the tenth amendment to the relationship between the federal, local,
and state governments. There are case decisions that point in different directions
than the Perkins Coie decision. He was not prepared to lean heavily on the Perkins
Coie decision. The County needs to move ahead for reasons other than third party
lawsuits.
Monsen stated they've discussed this before, and had County Council support
on how to deal with the regulatory package, which is not only from protecting the
County's liability. Therefore, they are not looking for ways to transfer the risk to
the constituencies in the County. They are looking for ways to balance the County's
risk and also help constituencies deal with issues on the ground.
Dawson stated the constituents on the ground are not directly harming fish,
other than taking them in the night. She questioned whether there is any other
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
harm. Gibson stated it is difficult for a suing party to prove that a systematic
practice is the cause of harm. The difficulty of proof will be whittled down over
time. That time will be used by people to address the systemic and system -wide
problems that have impinged on the fish populations.
Monsen stated there are also the differences between having legal exposure
and the ability to obtain permits to do something. The County is looking for ways
to still be able to get permits.
Hoag asked Monsen to pass on the message that she supported paying
people not to fish.
URS Regulatory Review
(Continued from above.)
Mike Milne, URS, stated their main purpose was to let the Council know what
they found and of their experience in working with other jurisdictions. From a
regulatory standpoint, the County is influencing most of the County. URS focused
on the regulations and permits that have an affect on land use and activities that
could influence habitat. To be as efficient as possible on their evaluation, they first
looked at the work that was done to identify the real factors that influenced habitat
and the decline of fish along the Nooksack River. They didn't look at everything
that could possibly affect fish in general, but the prime influences. Then, they
looked at the entire range of regulations and programs and did a quick screening.
They set aside all the regulations and programs that have a low capacity to
influence those two limiting factors. They were able to quickly focus on the items
that seemed to be important. They have also been involved with a number of other
jurisdictions, and participated in the ESA 4(d) negotiation process. The 4(d) is a
section of the Native Species Act, that allows the agencies, NMFS in this case, to
put prohibitions on takes, which are the things that harm fish. There is a provision
in that regulation to put in exceptions on the take prohibitions. For instance, if one
is doing road maintenance according to the Oregon State Department of
Transportation (ODOT) maintenance manual, then that activity is okay. It provides
jurisdictions with some protection.
Brenner asked if certain entities are allowed to do things that private people
wouldn't be allowed to do. Milne stated that is not correct. The regulations say
that if a person does something according to a certain standard, then it is okay.
Nelson stated that the private sector could utilize the same standards and be
protected. Milne stated that is what people are trying to get. People are trying to
get protection for their day -to -day activities, such as permits, road maintenance,
and solid waste programs. The idea is to provide some certainty so one could move
forward with their day -to -day activities.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Milne continued to state that, after they went through that screening, they
looked at just the regulations and programs that have the most potential to
influence the factors in the Nooksack River and WRIA 1 area. They looked at the
best available science, which isn't all that great in some respects. There is a lot of
science on nitrogen leaching, but not nearly as much science in other areas they
regulate. They tried to do the best they could, recognizing that there are also other
issues besides science. They have to make policy decisions and there are property
rights issues. They tried to use the best available science as a yardstick.
They also evaluated how the regulations are actually implemented. NMFS
and WSDFW are always talking about whether regulations that are on the books are
actually being enforced on the ground. They question whether permit conditions
are being met and practiced. Instead of relying on how people felt about
implementation, he looked at the enforcement caseloads to provide quantitative
numbers. They tried to look for positive actions as well as gaps and deficiencies.
They have been working with staff to come up with preliminary recommendations
on how to make the most of the positives and take care of some of the gaps and
deficiencies.
They have worked with other jurisdictions and been involved in the tri- county
meetings. He gets the impression that the County, compared to other jurisdictions,
is in the middle of the pack. In some cases, Whatcom County is ahead of most of
its counterparts. The Chinook Recovery Plan is a good example of a water resource
plan. Whatcom County is not as stringent as King County in terms of stormwater,
but no one is. Snohomish County recently upped their buffer requirements to be
the most stringent around at the moment. The areas that are the most concerned
are the same areas that are of a concern of other people. In many cases, Whatcom
County regulations are based on either a state set of guidelines, such as the
Shorelines regulations, or a standard of practice at the time the regulations were
put into place.
They have been providing technical support on the 4(d) rule for a couple of
jurisdictions. Whether or not Whatcom County ultimately decides whether it will try
to get protection under the 4(d) rule, it is interesting to get a feel for what they are
coming up with. It is likely that, even if Whatcom County doesn't go for the 4(d)
package, once they've established the levels of protection, someone will look at
what has come up for the 4(d) as a way to determine whether permits are
appropriate.
Key items in the 4(d) rule are the management zones, which are essentially
buffers that would be about 200 feet on most salmonid- bearing streams. That is
more than most jurisdictions have been providing. The buffer on other streams is
75 feet. This is the proposal that is in the tri- county model. All the tri- county
proposals are to be pulled together into a package by the end of this month and
submitted to NMFS.
Brenner questioned whether the state's Shoreline Management Program does
the same thing. Milne stated that is another example of something that overlaps.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
It is on its own timeframe. For the 4(d) package, they are trying to satisfy the
services to the extent that a jurisdiction would qualify for legal protection if it
agrees to do all these things. These are significant requirements that could have
definite property rights implications. Under stormwater, a key requirement is the
attempt to get jurisdictions to make 65 percent of a site being developed, be
retained in natural vegetation. They are trying to limit impervious surface area to
no more than ten percent of the site. That would be easy in a rural site, but not so
easy in an urban site.
Hoag questioned whether that is everywhere or just within site. Milne stated
that is a major bone of contention right now. The way the proposal is now, it is
based on the site.
Monsen stated that when they talk about the tri- county model, he wants to
make sure the Council is aware of the kinds of discussions that are occurring. The
notion of 4(d) coverage is to get the federal government to be happy with certain
standards. This is not the minimum standard by which they deal with take.
Brenner questioned how they would regulate the ten percent if it is
everyone's property in the watershed.
Dawson questioned whether they are saying that 1/4 of a lot could have a
structure on it. Milne stated that it depends on a lot of other things, such as
setbacks. These could have significant implications. There is a lot of discussion
going on about it.
Hoag questioned why they are going into detail about the tri- county model.
Milne stated it is to give the County Council an idea on where it is headed at the tri-
county level. Whether or not Whatcom County wants to go there is a policy
decision that needs to be made. The services have admitted up front that the bar
has been raised to no take.
Hoag questioned whether the County has someone who monitors conditional
use permits to make sure a permit - holder follows the conditions of the permit.
Milne stated that is similar to wetland mitigation. It is a tough issue because it
takes time and effort on the part of the staff. He will touch on that later in the
presentation.
Crawford questioned whether Whatcom County is in the middle of the pack of
counties that include the urban counties. Milne stated that was correct.
Crawford questioned how Whatcom County is doing when compared only to
the rural counties. Milne stated that is a tough thing to compare because Whatcom
County issues are different than Bellevue's and Seattle's issues, for example. In
the management zones, there is a 150 foot no touch buffer zone and a 50 -foot
limited activity zone. It is fairly limited.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, Page 19
1 Nelson asked if they are going to adapt the sizes. Milne stated that in
2 theory, they are supposed to have adaptive management components, but there is
3 a philosophical debate going on. Certain interests think that the buffers should be
4 very large because they don't know everything and they never know what will be a
5 nuisance. Other people are saying that that takes away a lot of property and the
6 reasonable use of property. They are saying it goes overboard.
7
8 Nelson stated a study done by the University of Washington and the WSDFW
9 came out with a result that a 50 -foot buffer is just as good as a 150 -foot buffer. He
10 questioned whether they are going to look at new studies that are coming out.
11 Milne stated there is a large range of opinion, depending on who did the studies and
12 under what circumstances. Then, it is a matter of interpretation. If one is worried
13 about protection at all costs, then he or she would use the study with the biggest
14 buffer.
15
16 Imhof stated that one could find a study to prove anything he or she wanted
17 to prove.
18
19 Brenner stated that scope of work is very important.
20
21 Milne stated this is not necessarily what anyone is recommending that the
22 County do. It is where the 4(d) is going and to provide an idea of where the bar is
23 going to be set.
24
25 Hoag stated she has been trying to encourage the Conservation District and
26 Washington State University to set up demonstration areas to test different slopes
27 and buffers in an attempt to find the minimum buffer to do a job. She questioned
28 where they are at on that. Milne stated that is consistent with the scientific work,
29 and it provides a better basis for making a call.
30
31 Thompson stated Craig MacConnell has set up some test sites at Hovander
32 Homestead Park. They are working on various strategies of planting reed canary
33 grass and other vegetation. It is a subset of what they are describing. Both the
34 Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) have
35 done extensive riparian re- establishment. There is quite a bit of data being
36 generated about what works from a management perspective and also to project
37 the functions.
38
39 Hoag stated her concern was for the farmers who are out there. They need a
40 buffer of adequate size to get the clear water they are looking for. They have
41 buffers to provide habitat and function, and also to eliminate things in the stream
42 that shouldn't be there. They need to take a comprehensive look at slopes and the
43 vegetation that accomplishes that. If they don't do that, they are selling
44 themselves short.
45
46 Milne stated another key issue is re- development that has to be done before
47 the new standards kick in. That is a big area of controversy. The latest amount
48 he'd heard is 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Anne Root, Adolfson, stated her study found that the County regulations are
designed to avoid or minimize habitat impacts. There are things they may have to
do to tweak existing regulations, but the basics are already in place.
She also found that most of the habitat damage occurred before the current
regulations were in place. A lot of stuff happened 50 or 100 years ago. The
regulations now are fairly new. They cannot make the conclusion that the current
regulations are what caused the habitat damage. The County may have to remind
the agencies of that fact from time to time.
She also found that the County has a number of programs in place. There
are aspects of the Flood Plain Management Program; the meander limits, setback
limits, and land acquisition programs, that protect from flood damage but can also
protect habitat. Those are good pieces to have in place. The WRIA watershed
planning is well on its way. It has a couple of good points from the salmon
management perspective. The County already has local government that works
with the tribes. That is a significant step. There is a possibility of gathering very
valuable information for future use.
The Manure Management Program is aimed at shellfish protection. It also
has the potential to protect salmon habitat by reducing the nutrient load in the
surface water bodies. There is the Lake Whatcom overlay and density transfer,
which has the possibility of transferring development from sensitive areas to areas
that are less sensitive. It is a pilot project in Lake Whatcom, but has the potential
to be expanded to other areas of the county as well.
There are land acquisition programs, primarily associated with the flood
plain. That can also be a key tool for protecting critical salmon habitat.
There are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan that can
include habitat protection.
Nelson stated he would include the Conservation Futures funding. Root
agreed. That is tied into the land acquisition piece.
Root continued to state that the question is where the County should focus
its efforts. They are looking at things where Whatcom County is not alone, but
includes everyone. The issues are the things that are identified by NMFS, WSDFW,
and environmental groups as being high - priority issues for salmon protection.
There are other things that will be in the report. She would talk about the critical
areas regulations.
The Critical Areas Ordinance buffers have been a key issue. There are other
aspects of the Critical Areas Ordinance that will need some tweaking, but buffers
are the big thing. This is a very high priority with NMFS and WSDFW. Science
shows that buffers should vary.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Brenner questioned whether the buffers take into consideration the work that
people do in those areas that might improve things. Root stated they do. The idea
is that the surface answers are different for each situation. There are different land
uses, slopes, and soil. One size doesn't fit all.
Another critical issue with the agencies is the idea of where the buffer is
measured. The agencies are advocating the concept of the channel migration zone
(CMZ). She showed a graphic illustration slide. The CMZ attempts to take into
consideration the fact that streams move from side to side. The CMZ attempts to
estimate how far the channel has moved laterally over a long period of time, such
as 100 years. The idea of CMZ is that it looks at where the channel moved in the
past and also where it would move in the future. The calculation has to add in the
meander amplitude and factor that into the historical area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brenner questioned whether they could sometimes show that, if the river
were migrating, it would probably not go back to the historical channel. They are in
effect making the past be the potential future. Milne stated that goes back to the
management zone, which is primarily King County.
Hoag stated that if they put the CMZ on every stream and river in Whatcom
County, and then add the buffers, nothing would be left.
Dawson stated it doesn't affect the tri- counties that much. Milne stated it
does affect Pierce County.
Hoag stated she could see taking it into consideration, but not adding buffers
to the entire zone. Thompson stated part of the concept is that the river would
move within the flood plain. Part of the concept isn't just that, as it moves they
don't use the buffer. The rivers move gradually.
Brenner stated they are talking about streams too, not just buffers.
Thompson stated they are talking about both. It depends on the morphology. It
depends on the type of stream. Some streams will have a CMZ that is very narrow.
They move from channel to channel during the course of one storm. The idea is, if
one has a 100 -foot buffer on either side of the stream, after the flood, the stream
has moved and there is no buffer on the new location. They have to define the
area the stream would move, and still provide the proper shade and nutrients.
Geographically, how much space it takes up will depend on the basin, the
morphology of the stream, and how the stream functions. Some areas like the
South Fork is not from valley wall to valley wall. The valley was born by glacial
movement, not the South Fork River. The South Fork CMZ is going to be a subset
of the South Fork River. It is not going to be the entire valley.
Milne stated there is an effort to acknowledge that dikes and levees have
been there for a long time and they have changed things a bit. The big controversy
over that is the latest version says they have to have been built to withstand the
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
47
eroding forces of a 100 -year flood. Not many of them can demonstrate that. The
issue is what happens if it blows out.
Nelson stated that if that is the case, the largest area that would be impacted
by these types of judgements is Whatcom County. This river is the most
meandering river he has ever seen in the state. He didn't see how that provision
could apply. Thompson stated this is not incompatible with the meander limits that
Paula Cooper is working on. There are a lot of complimentary aspects. The river
has historically worked in a certain area of the flood plain. That tells where a lot of
the flood hazard and repair costs are. There is a long -term financial aspect to this.
Hoag stated that in terms of the long -term habitats and buffers, she could
see where they would want rivers cutting into a buffer. When they start talking
about taking off 100 years' worth of historical meandering limits, and then adding
buffers, they are being unreasonable. Instead, if the channel moves, people should
adjust their buffers accordingly. Otherwise, what they are gaining does not offset
what they lose.
Root stated this is the hot topic. There will be lots of problems with it.
Hoag stated it needs to be taken into consideration, but not to the extent
that everything within the last 100 years is off limits.
Root stated she pointed out some of the issues associated with the Critical
Areas Ordinance buffers. She suggested some directions the Council may want to
think about going. There are a variety of options to deal with the buffer issue.
They need to strike a balance between what is needed for the fish and the policy
decisions the Council needs to make for the community. Hopefully, they would
incorporate the idea that no one size fits all. She suggested focusing on buffer
function, not just buffer width. They could have a buffer that is 300 feet wide and
full of blackberries that would not achieve the same thing as a smaller buffer that is
native vegetation. There are ways to provide incentives for land owners to improve
the function of buffers. She encouraged planting native vegetation or similar things
in exchange for being allowed to have smaller buffers. Something like that might
work and still achieve the appropriate buffer function. They talked about the idea
that one buffer is not appropriate everywhere. To have the County staff look at
each individual application and determine appropriate buffers is going to be a huge
burden. To make an applicant prove what a specific buffer should be is going to be
a burden on the applicant. An idea is that the County could identify reach - specific
standards for buffers. They could look at a stream reach for a water body, use
existing mapping of soils, slope, fish habitat, and other factors, and come up with
general standards for appropriate buffers for that area. The applicant and staff
could figure out what is appropriate, focusing on buffer function, not just buffer
width.
Hoag questioned whether that could be tied to use. Root stated it could.
They could look at the land use activity. Having reach - specific studies and having
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
definite recommendations would make the administration process easier and also
more acceptable to the agencies.
Milne stated it is no surprise that there are concerns about new
developments in flood plains. The primary concern is the idea the agencies have
that it is going to be harder to buy up that land if it is commercial rather than
agricultural. Although it is already mostly agricultural use in the flood plains, it
would not be a bad idea to make sure the future land uses are consistent with
things that can withstand occasional flooding. Don't put something in there that
they would have to spend money on to protect down the road.
Nelson asked how to accomplish that when many communities are in the
flood areas.
Milne stated some of the things the County is doing have worked, such as
setback levees and other things that protect structures.
McShane stated a difficulty for the County government is dealing with the
city entities. The County ends up stuck with what they do. He asked if there are
ways to deal with that. Milne stated the WRIA planning is not designed to address
that issue in particular.
Cooper stated the only thing she's ever seen is in the State of Illinois, which
requires that if a county develops a comprehensive flood plan, then the
municipalities have to enforce it. They have to be involved in the system. That
requires changing the legislation.
Hoag stated the comprehensive flood plans have to be approved by the state
Department of Ecology (DOE), but DOE doesn't really look at it.
Cooper stated they are trying to get more involvement from the cities.
Brenner stated she believed that the County could appeal what the cities are
doing, if the County doesn't like what the cities are doing, under the Growth
Management Act (GMA). She wanted to see the last bullet item regarding "Critical
Areas: Flood Hazard Area" changed to, "Potential Measure: Consider limiting more
limits to new development in the floodplains." The County does limit new
development in the floodplains. There are lots of regulations the County didn't
have. They are already limiting it.
Milne stated that when they looked at the zoning and development, there are
a lot of really nice goals, but then it allows anything that does not increase the flood
height by one foot. It doesn't have any specific actions to go along with the goals.
Brenner stated there are limits on how people can build.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
Milne stated FEMA is interested in the CMZ in regard to people building
homes in the way of flood areas. The basic idea is to do the best they can to
determine those areas.
Nelson stated impacts occur from things other than just the storm event
itself. For example, the major catastrophe in Whatcom County also dealt with
forestry practices at the time. Other practices could result in far more damage than
just stream migration.
Brenner questioned whether the reference to restricting new development in
CMZ's refers to prohibiting development. Milne stated agricultural uses are there
now. There are probably some land uses that are okay.
Cooper stated one of the things they are trying to do is get alluvial fan
hazards identified, as well as channel migration zones. FEMA would not regulate
them, but it would be an accessible tool for people to see.
Brenner stated that when they reference flood hazards, she is thinking about
the flood way. Milne stated the idea is that there has been a lot of damage around
the United States where people have built in an area that wasn't in a flood plain,
but the channel moved. The most important thing is to at least know where they
are. People who are thinking about buying property could make informed
decisions.
Nelson asked how to do that if there are certain restrictions on what to do in
a floodway. They are putting more restrictions on what to do to protect habitat. In
the past, they controlled the river with dredging and diking. If they start restricting
those activities, it would change all those impacts. Who knows where it really
wants to go. It really wants to go back up to the Frasier River. He questioned what
they are accomplishing. Milne stated that in this particular case, there is an issue
of where they have structures in place. The main issue is to have a balance if they
want to convince the agencies they are doing the right thing.
Nelson asked how to plan for potential new development. He questioned
whether they are going to assume that the Nooksack, for example, will stay within
its meander zone when they plan for communities.
McShane stated that gets back to the reach standards. They handle different
reaches differently.
Nelson questioned whether they are assuming that is where the Nooksack
and its feeder creeks are now.
McShane stated that it would be more cost effective regarding salmon to
keep it where it is.
Nelson stated planning should therefore be based upon that.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, 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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
McShane stated that having it meander through downtown Everson is not a
good idea. Those are places the County should draw the line. In other places, it
doesn't make financial sense to try to keep the river in that spot. The migration
zones are going to have to be flexible.
Nelson stated that is what makes better sense in planning.
McShane stated what is presented is the default. The County needs to go
beyond that default and think about the specific reaches of the river and what is
taking place on those reaches.
Nelson stated that was the basis of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
McShane stated the County needs to beef up on flooding.
Milne stated those comments are consistent with his recommendations.
They don't try to make a one size fits all solution anywhere. They are going to
have to make policy decisions on land uses and other factors besides fish.
Milne continued to state that a number of the limiting factors reports have
identified levees and other structures as having caused problems like cutting off the
flood plain. As they are going about their repairs, the County is making the levees
better than they are today because the County is incorporating certain measures.
By little bits, the County is improving the conditions over what they were a few
years ago.
Stormwater and site development is less of a concern for Whatcom County
than it is in jurisdictions that have more urban and suburban development going
on. The main issue has been the water going more quickly into the streams
because of increased impervious surfaces. There have been quite a few studies
done in the last few years that show that, when a person gets above five or ten
percent of total impervious surface within a basin, the biological integrity starts to
de- stabilize. The channel was used to more forested conditions with different flow
patters. The channel begins to have higher peak flows and other things that cause
erosion of the channel.
Monsen stated a lot of the issues in the fish negotiation process comes back
to the changing hydrology in draining irrigating lands. This is a big item there, too.
Changing hydrology is one item they will have to address.
Nelson stated that has an agricultural impact. Farmers have to drain off the
land in the spring to get the plantings in.
Milne stated the things being suggested as useful measures are to first do
the best they can with smart site planning. Minimize the change in hydrology. In
some cases, especially where there has already been a lot of development, it may
make more sense to try and do a regional fix or do something in the stream itself
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, Page 26
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
instead of doing a site - specific fix. For most of unincorporated Whatcom County,
this won't come into play.
The new state DOE manual for stormwater is soon going to require the
duration control ponds that are a lot more expensive to design. The latest version
is out now. December was their time frame.
Monsen stated this is a technical manual developed by DOE through the
public process. The manual would be completed by the end of the year. Then, it is
a matter of when the County as an entity is required to adopt it and /or an
equivalent. That would be anywhere from 12 to 48 months from then. The manual
is a recommended, guidance document.
Milne stated the pond tries to control the duration of flows that work in the
channel. There is some technical issues with them that have not yet been
demonstrated. They tend to be very big and have a small outlet. There is a
maintenance question. They store so much water for so long that they are
concerned with temperature. Then there is the question of multiple ponds
combining their flows at some point. It is still early to announce that they are
working. The idea is that the duration control ponds would try to prevent or limit
the effects of the change in hydrology that causes the stream problems. This is for
the smaller streams. Most of the counties have identified major rivers where the
flow in the river is so big, that a change in impervious systems and hydrology are
not going to affect it that much.
Monsen stated it is not a big challenge to put current technology and
standards in place. The challenge is how the various development technologies
from different eras fit together. They can deal with the next development under
these issues.
Root stated the agencies are very concerned that the regulations on the
books are actually being implemented. They looked at implementation and
caseload per employee regarding monitoring. In most cases, they found that
staffing levels are falling. There are some places where the staff workload is
incredibly heavy. There isn't enough time to do onsite monitoring or enforcement.
That is not getting done. The level of service provided to the community is not as
good as it could be in some instances. The potential measure is to ensure that the
staffing level is reasonable for the expected demands.
Nelson questioned whether that evaluation includes contracted services.
Root stated it does not. They only looked at County staffing.
Hoag questioned where the County fell short. Root stated the County fell
short in the Critical Areas Ordinance implementation. That was the worst spot.
Hoag stated the County added staff for enforcement. Root stated those staff
people are doing the Manure Management Program. The Critical Areas staff looks
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, Page 27
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
at the wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife habitat. They are also being called
upon to provide advice on other aspects of the planning services.
Hoag stated those people were to do Critical Areas enforcement when not
doing Manure Management enforcement. Root stated that may be, but the
workload is still incredibly heavy. The monitoring is not being done.
Milne stated the County has a number of things in the works that are good
and are ahead of what its counterparts to the south have. The big issues are
critical areas, flood management, and stormwater. Those are concerns with just
about everyone. The key issue is timing. There is a timeframe for 4(d) coverage
and to get the programs together to meet those requirements.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 28 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 9/19/2000, Page 28