HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole January 26 19992
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
Committee Of The Whole
January 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Marlene Dawson, Council Chair, in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Robert Imhof
Kathy Sutter
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Tom Brown
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
UPDATE FROM WHATCOM COUNTY WATER RESOURCE PLANNER SUE
BLAKE ON LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF THE
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1999 LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (AB99 -056)
Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services Water Resources Planner, stated that this
is the first quarterly update for 1999. One of the things she wanted feedback on was whether this
was the kind of presentation that meets the Council's needs. Also, a website update is being
created. They are currently putting information on the watershed at the Cooperative Extension
website. She questioned whether that was adequate.
Imhof stated that it didn't matter where, as long as they know which site to access.
Blake stated that the main item on the agenda is to discuss the resolution and the 1999
program for the watershed. The program was presented in draft form in September 1998. After
that meeting, she met with the Whatcom County and City of Bellingham Councils and Water
District #10 to get additional comments on the program. She took the comments and made
changes to the document. The County Council has stated that they want the priority placed on
stormwater management, land use issues, and on private property purchase to get the property
out of the potential for development. They also added additional language related to forest
management, specifically trying to emphasize working with the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to come up with additional solutions to ensure that forest practices are done in
the best way possible. They can add a water quality module to their watershed analysis. At the
County Council's request, they reduced the number of activities related to conservation. The
City of Bellingham does a number of conservation things. There is a list of things and some
were going to cost a fair amount of money. They were taken out of the program, but there are
still some pieces that will be implemented. Most of those are programs that the City of
Bellingham will be doing, or they are carry -overs from work that has already begun. The County
Council also recommended that additional monitoring was added to do fecal source identification
for Silver Beach Creek and Austin Creek. They will look also at the Y Road landfill as a source
for causing water quality problems. Also, to be added to next year's program will be additional
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 1
I language with specific measurable objectives, or benchmarks. Because some items are carry -
2 overs from year to year, they don't need to re -write everything every year. They will try to write
3 the program in such a way that they don't have to keep repeating an activity year after year. The
4 Council will soon be dealing with which activities they want done in the year 2000. The City of
5 Bellingham Council requested language is added that is more specific to the Lake Whatcom
6 Connector. The language was added to try and resolve the Connector issue this year. Those are
7 the main changes to the program. She handed out the meeting schedule for the Management
8 Committee, joint Council meetings, and the quarterly updates. Regarding the Stormwater
9 Program, it was assessed earlier in the day. She is available to answer questions about that
10 program. The contract in front of the County Council is being routed through the County
11 funding mechanism. There is another contract that is going through the City of Bellingham's
12 program. It is a public involvement and education component. One of the first things that will
13 occur in that component is that the Council will be interviewed by the consultant, Geneva
14 Environmental, and asked how they want to be kept involved in the program. Another major
15 area deals with the land use issues in the watershed. Some of it is a continuation of last year's
16 work. The Planning Commission has direction from the County Council to help address some of
17 these issues. The Planning Commission is scheduled to look at Lake Whatcom and how the
18 County wants to handle land use in the watershed. That is scheduled for March. There will be a
19 public hearing. They will look at the kinds of things that will be allowed in the watershed and
20 the way those things will occur. For instance, impervious surfaces have been identified as an
21 activity that the County wants to minimize. If they can keep it below 10 %, then they have a
22 good chance of maintaining some water quality in the streams. They are currently doing an
23 evaluation to determine the current state of impervious surfaces in the watershed, by sub - basins.
24 This will help guide how they may want to focus efforts. They will also look at population and
25 build -out projections. With the City of Bellingham, they looked at the development potential,
26 given the current development regulations. At this point, the estimate changed from an
27 additional 10,000 to 12,000 units in the watershed to a more realistic figure of 6,000 additional
28 dwelling units.
29
30 Nelson questioned whether that is County and City. Blake stated that it is.
31
32 Blake stated that the stormwater program will analyze land use impacts related to water
33 quality. They need to have available information on the current situation and what is projected
34 for the future. They will ask the public to look at those projections and provide input. The staff
35 will be coming up with recommendations that will be included in a watershed protection overlay
36 zone for the watershed. That will include looking at things like allowable uses in the watershed.
37 They may want to change how to do certain types of activities. The Center for Watershed
38 Protection produced a report that looks at how to minimize the impacts of development, related
39 to water quality. They have come up with a number of suggestions related to residential streets,
40 parking lots, how to build a building on a particular piece of land, and conservation of natural
41 areas. This is the precursor to a much lengthier document that goes into more depth for each of
42 the areas. It would be helpful guidance when creating the overlay zone for the watershed. Those
43 are the major areas that they are working on currently. They are waiting for the program to be
44 adopted before they move forward with it. One final point is that District #10 commissioners
45 adopted the program earlier this month. The City of Bellingham adopted it the previous day, but
46 added additional language to one of the issues. The idea is that they all adopt the same
47 document.
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 2
2 Hoag questioned whether it has to go back to District #10. Blake stated that the City of
3 Bellingham asked to have the language added to the remarks section. It does not technically
4 change anything about the program itself. It clearly shows that the City has a concern with one
5 of the pieces.
6
7 Brenner stated that public purchase was only discussed as one way to prevent
8 development. It should not be listed as the main way to prevent development. She requested
9 more detail about looking at the Y Road landfill and what that would entail. She received a
10 complaint about Geneva Environmental, but her concerns have been cleared up. For the record,
11 a Geneva Environmental staff person may or may not have undeveloped lots in Sudden Valley,
12 but her job will have nothing to do specifically with Sudden Valley. Regarding the number of
13 dwelling units, she wanted it clarified that they are talking about homes, not people.
14
15 Blake stated that was correct.
16
17 Sutter questioned the amount of the work that will fall under the contract of a consultant.
18 She questioned whether they would be doing any monitoring. Blake stated that the stormwater
19 contract is not going to collect more data. The program does identify additional work.
20
21 Sutter stated that they will have some involvement regarding making recommendations
22 on the need to monitor. Blake stated that is correct. They will have to be very closely
23 coordinated. The stormwater consultant activities will tie in with the land use issues and other
24 components.
25
26 Sutter stated that another component would be the Lake Whatcom Connector. One of the
27 items in the contract has to do with transportation alternatives. She questioned whether that
28 would help their task. Blake stated that what is in the contract will not help the County address
29 the issues about the connector.
30
31 Sutter questioned whether it would help offer alternatives. Blake stated that it might
32 provide guidance. They are still working it out. They will have to guide the consultant in that
33 direction if that is where they want to go.
34
35 Sutter questioned what criteria or parameters they would use to determine the potential
36 build -out.
37
38 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the issue of transportation in the
39 watershed has to do with the state of the water quality when a road is right next to the water or
40 some distance away. That is the concept that will be addressed in the transportation module.
41
42 Sutter questioned whether the build -out study would be based on zoning designations,
43 buildable lots, or other things. Blake stated that not all areas were dealt with exactly the same.
44 There were different assumptions built into them. In the case of Sudden Valley, they looked at
45 the development regulations. They ended up counting existing platted lots. Zoning is part of it.
46 It is the development regulations that determine what can be done with the zoning.
47
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 3
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
Sutter stated that if they take into consideration such things as existing physical
constraints, then the number could be even lower.
Blake stated that they took a figure of 80% where they assumed a certain portion
wouldn't develop due to infrastructure needs and critical areas.
Sutter stated that if they based the figure on potential lots instead of platted lots, then the
number could be higher. Blake stated that they looked at what currently exists. Some of the lots
could be subdivided further, but they were included in the estimate.
Sutter questioned whether that took into account further subdivisions that are smaller than
five acres. Blake responded that they did where it was applicable.
Hoag stated that she would like to see that the Blue Ribbon Panel's points come to the
Councils for approval, regarding the stormwater program. The make -up of the technical team
has a lot to do with the direction that the Council would take on policy issues. Also, goal 12
doesn't mention anything about narrow roads and fewer sidewalks. She asked that be added.
Blake stated that it is not under the roads section, it is in the urbanization and development
section.
Hoag stated that she wanted different road standards for the watershed in the
transportation section. Blake stated that they don't know what they want to do with this issue
until they evaluate what is already there. The language in the plan opens the door to look at the
issue, which they are doing. It doesn't commit the County to narrowing anything until that issue
has been looked over.
Hoag stated that there is no mention of narrowing the roads. Also, the Council also asked
for a written follow -up to the verbal presentations.
Imhof stated that, when the Council decided to access the information on the website,
they concurrently decided not to have a written update. However, since they have to make a
written update for the City, they might as well send it to the County Council as well.
Hoag asked for completion of the sentence on packet page 135, which states, "As part of
the stormwater program data and information will be..." Blake stated that she believed the
intent was that work with stormwater program activities will be related to information
management. It was an attempt to ensure the items are connected.
Hoag suggested changing the language under goal 12 that says, "...place a particular
emphasis on the proposed Lake Whatcom Connector..." That language could be read either
way, depending on one's opinion on the issue. She suggested, "...resolve the Whatcom
Connector issue and determine if it is a viable option and its possible impacts on the watershed."
Sutter stated that they've got the public to do a study for that.
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 4
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 that the language could be interpreted as being either a proponent or an
opponent of the connector. It is vague. Her language would clarify that the issue would be
resolved.
Hoag suggested adding language that would say that the Sudden Valley sewage detention
tank and Lake Louise Road interceptor would be used to help address the overflow problems,
rather than used to encourage growth. If the Sudden Valley sewage detention tank is used to
contain stormwater overflows, that is a plus. If it is instead used to hook up more homes, which
would create more overflows again, that is not a plus. Blake stated that it is clearly not the intent
of the District. It is the intent of the District to provide service and to address the overflow
problem. In the case of Sudden Valley, they are dealing with existing platted lots. They also
have the additional potential subdivision in the Geneva area as well.
Hoag stated that she wanted a reflection of a concern that these are going to be used in
the capacity of absorbing stormwater, not depleted by additional growth. Lastly, she wanted to
ensure that goal 18 does not degrade water quality in Lake Whatcom. She wanted language
added that would reflect that.
Dawson stated that they would continue addressing this issue at the regular Council
meeting.
Blake stated that they need to remember that it is a joint program, so the changes that the
County Council makes would require that she bring it back to the other jurisdictions.
Brown suggested making changes at the joint quarterly meetings.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one. The Committee moved the meeting into the Council
Chambers to discuss the next item on the agenda)
2. UPDATE FROM WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JEFF
MONSEN REGARDING SALMON RECOVERY EFFORTS (AB99 -055)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, referenced several different publications from the
State that are on file, and a copy of volume one of the draft plan is in the Council Office.
Volume two, in theory, is the same plan, but substantially more detailed with more background
information. The Governor's proposed water bill and water related budget proposal for the
biennium should be consistent with these plans. Also, the Council has a document that is the
joint State Department of Fish and Wildlife /Tribal adopted wild salmonid policy. It was adopted
at the end of 1997. The message coming from the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) is
that endangered species is a significant issue. Locally, the County must do more than plan, but
also implement significant items and show results. The challenge for Whatcom County locally is
the Ecological Significant Unit (ESU). In this case, Whatcom County is part of the entire Puget
Sound. Whatcom County can influence priorities in the Nooksack Basin, there has to be
consistency within the entire Puget Sound. They are beginning to coordinate with other counties
in the unit. The next major task regarding salmon recovery is that, on approximately March 1St,
Chinook will be listed as a threatened species. There are then 90 days for an evaluation and
negotiation with NMFS to set criteria about what kind of activities can and can't happen. All of
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, 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
that will happen over the next four to five months. At the same period of time, they will see the
outcome of the legislature's regulation regarding State and local activities and both State and
federal funding that may be available.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that a listing in March is a certainty.
Following the 90 -day process leads to the issue of the rules under section 4D of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). 4D rules generally define what can be done and what cannot be done. The
listing will be threatened, not endangered. It also calls for consultation, under section 7.
Consultation is required whenever the federal government is involved, by issuance of a permit,
by funding, or by performing the activity itself. Consultation has been interpreted to be very
broad. If consultation becomes far - reaching, one hopes that it is a programmatic consultation.
That would require cooperation. Section 9 addresses "taking." There were cases when a
government agency was sued in relation to taking. In one instance, they permitted fishing
activities. There was a connection because of an incidental negative effect to whales. In another
case, a county was determined to be engaged in a taking because it did not pass an ordinance to
prohibit driving vehicles on the beach. The result of citizens that legally drove on the beach was
a negative effect to loggerhead turtles that were on the beach. There were other similar cases.
The question arises whether a state agency that should issue a permit, and doesn't, could be sued
for a taking because they have failed to issue a permit, which would have resulted in better fish
habitat. Section 10 of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has 4D rules, but there are also
situations where the timber industry wants to achieve greater certainty through the development
of a habitat conservation plan, which the government buys off on. That gave rise to the "no
surprises" concept. HCPs are a way of introducing some greater certainty. They must watch
closely what happens to HCPs elsewhere. They must look closely at the tri- county process;
King, Snohomish, and Pierce. To the extent that they form something that the State and NMFS
is willing to buy off on, they will be expecting the same type of thing here. They will be looking
for consistency across jurisdictional boundaries. Counties need to cooperate. The degree of
sophistication and cooperation must increase exponentially.
Monsen mentioned that they were looking at a 25% matching share for funds. After that
date, the State determined that the matching requirement was already met. There is no local
match required for the federal dollars. It didn't increase the amount of federal money available.
It means that, without the local match requirement, they won't get as far down the project list.
He wanted to discuss with the Council the possibility of still looking for local money.
Steve Seymour, Whatcom County Fish Biologist, summarized the 10 projects on the
project list submitted with the ESA funding package. They were under the impression that they
had one year to spend the money. It looks as if the timeline has been extended to possibly two
years. The money will be encumbered by the State and will be available for expenditures well
into the year 2000. A group composed by the Tribes and the County identified the projects. The
first priority is infrastructure, which involves tribal staff completing the native Chinook recovery
plan for the basin, money to complete the plan, a review of County and City land use rules, and
development of an educational program. The second priority is called habitat and production
assessment. This is an interagency biological field crew, made up of the State Department of
Fisheries and the tribes, to complete all the data gaps an identify where and how they would
recover Chinook and salmon in this basin. The third priority is fisheries enforcement. The
envision this to be a group of 2 tribal representatives and 1 Fisheries representative. They would
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 6
I patrol the river from March to October. They would respond to reports. It would be a proactive
2 approach. They need to define how much impact illegal harvest, poaching, and hydraulic
3 violations have. One year's effort will provide a lot of information. The fourth priority is the
4 North Fork Chinook Acclimation Ponds. This has been an on -going program for up to twelve
5 years. The last four years, the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) has been
6 actively involved in recruiting volunteers to man three acclimation sites on the upper North Fork.
7 This is used to imprint young Chinook that start in the hatchery, reared in the hatchery, then
8 brought to the imprint site along the river for short-term imprinting. The fourth priority is a
9 South Fork engineered logjam around Larsen Creek at river mile 21 on the South Fork. It is a
10 primary reach for South Fork native Chinook spawning. Since 1993, the river has changed. It is
11 a large sediment source. Engineered logjams are state -of -the -art. They are recreating some of
12 the large, woody debris structures that used to exist on the river. They provide cover, holding
13 habitat, trap sediments, and divert the river flow away from eroding banks. The sixth priority is
14 road sediment reduction work on the North Fork. It is a joint project with the U.S. Forest
15 Service on Wells Creek, Canyon Creek, and Glacier Creek. These are all important Spring
16 Chinook habitat areas. It puts roads to bed or storm- proofs them. The seventh priority is a
17 project off of Potter Road on the South Fork. It pulls down one of the dikes. The eighth priority
18 is riparian maintenance. This provides a maintenance crew to the 180 -200 projects that have
19 been done throughout Whatcom County by NSEA and the Lummi Tribe and restoring riparian
20 areas along the lowland and forest areas in the County. They envision using the alternate
21 community service crews that the County has been successfully using for the Parks Department.
22 When one does riparian maintenance, one needs to plan on three to five years to succeed. It is a
23 cost - effective approach. A crew of six costs around $50,000 - $60,000 per year, including a
24 supervisor. It might be an opportunity to tackle the big issue. He envisioned that he could get
25 the same program working with the drainage districts. The ninth priority is riparian planning
26 with the Lummi Tribal programs on doing inter - planning in the upper forest regions. The tenth
27 priority is habitat acquisition of land on the South Fork at Saxton Road and on the North Fork at
28 Boulder Creek.
29
30 That is the list. They run out of money at project number five. They currently have $1.4
31 million of federal money that has been allocated to Whatcom County. The list was submitted to
32 the State with the understanding that, as other money becomes available such as for tribal
33 money, they intend to move the federal money down through the list to tackle some of the other
34 projects.
35
36 Hoag questioned whether funding requests to Curt Smitch's office have been realized.
37 Seymour stated that list was submitted for the Governor to determine what funding requirements
38 would be needed to address salmon enhancement, from all the local communities in the State.
39 Not much has happened with that list.
40
41 Monsen stated that the list influenced the Governor's budget. It was only used for that
42 purpose.
43
44 Hoag questioned whether ESHB 2496 money was available. Monsen stated that it is
45 possible that they could make a grant application at the first part of March. They could then shift
46 the list further down. They won't know the answer to that until sometime from April to June.
47
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, 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
Seymour stated that the sense is that the federal money will flow through a similar system
as ESHB 2496.
Monsen stated that if they would have had to come up with the 25% local match, then
they could have gotten through priority number nine.
Nelson questioned whether, realistically, these projects can be completed and if they
apply each year.
Seymour stated that the assessment and the infrastructure will certainly be underway.
The drop -dead time that the money has to be spent is probably in two years. The projects
themselves will happen. The engineered logjam is engineered to be built in the year 2000. Right
now, they have to acquire the material. The enforcement project will happen this spring.
Hoag questioned whether all of number five is funded, including the $400,000. Seymour
stated that is correct. The Tribe has alternate funding.
Monsen stated that he expects there will be funding to complete number five. This
request focuses on finishing the engineering and permitting, with an expectation that other
funding will come available for the balance.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on _Febru 2ary 1 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 1/26/99, Page 8