HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole August 3 19991
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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
August 3, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Chambers, Courthouse Annex, 1000 N. Forest, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Robert Imhof
Ahcant-
om tsrown
Staff Present:
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Pete Kremen, County Executive
Steve Seymour, County Fish Biologist
DRAFT STATEWIDE STRATEGY IN SALMON RECOVERY (AB99 -322)
INTRODUCTION/ PURPOSE: FUTURE POLICY AND RESOURCE
DECISIONS
Monsen questioned whether there were issues the Council members wanted
to address.
Sutter asked for Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2496 and ESHB
2514 updates. Monsen stated he would hit on the ESHB 2496 process. ESHB 2514
will be touched on during the discussion regarding County and regional decision -
making at 1:30 p.m.
Dawson asked if the State Salmon Recovery Board would receive input at
their regional meeting. Monsen stated the Salmon Recovery Board is operating
under ESHB 2496. They will meet and tell the County what the rules really are.
Hoag asked if they received a final copy of the priorities of things done by the
County. Monsen stated he had the information.
Nelson asked about discussing policy and resource implications. Monsen
stated they would tie together some of the common policy and resource issues for
each of the five agenda topics: river meander zones, property buy -out, salmon
recovery projects, shellfish, and stormwater.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 1
I Hoag asked if they would be discussing buffers. Monsen stated they could
2 touch on the topic during the discussion regarding meander zones.
4 Nelson questioned whether they would discuss the impacts to infrastructure,
5 including special districts and agriculture. Monsen stated they would discuss that
6 during the section on Policy and Resource Implications.
8 Dawson asked Seymour to give direction about the hatcheries not being
9 funded. There has been a purist attitude about the salmon. Runs are being
to allowed to die out. They need to address this with the Salmon Recovery Board.
11 Monsen stated they could touch on that during the discussion regarding State
12 salmon policies.
13
14 Hoag stated she wanted to discuss deadlines for the State. Monsen stated
15 they would discuss that as well. There are no firm deadlines.
16
17 REGULATORY FOUNDATIONS: WHY RESOURCE AGENCIES CARE
18
19 Gibson started with regulatory foundations. The National Marine Fisheries
20 Service (NMFS) administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Clean Water
21 Act, at the federal level, is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
22 (EPA) and will have a major effect on the County. It is mediated through the State
23 Department of Ecology (DOE). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is involved as it
24 pertains to work on the river. They will have to go through the Army Corps of
25 Engineers to get permits. The 303(d) listing is from the EPA, followed by the
26 issuance of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which must be followed by a
27 recovery program or water quality program to achieve the proper readings
28 regarding TMDL. Coming up is the County needing to get a phase II stormwater
29 permit. Urban municipalities of less than 100,000 are required to get a phase II
30 permit. Larger counties, such as King and Snohomish have already been through
31 the phase I process. Phase II permits will be less stringent, but will require a
32 countywide comprehensive stormwater management program. He was unclear to
33 the extent of that. The politics are that the federal requirements will be less than
34 what DOE looks for. DOE is looking at the phase II stormwater permit as a
35 significant aspect of salmon recovery and will use the process to get counties to a
36 new stormwater management level. The County is looking at new shoreline rules
37 mediated through the Shoreline Master Program. The County also has the Growth
38 Management Act and the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which will need to be
39 updated in several years. Also, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan,
40 regarding stormwater, is an important structure to keep in mind. Previously it was
41 administered by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, which has been
42 abolished and replaced by the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT).
43 The regulatory agency for the Puget Sound Action Team is the DOE. DOE is
44 pushing hard for updating the Stormwater Management Plan, bringing the County
45 to a new level of stormwater management. They work under RCW 90.71, with
46 RCW 90.48 to fall back on. The DOE may be inclined to press a certain direction
47 that may be more stringent than the federal government. The County -level
48 Shoreline Master Management Program will need to be modified to address changes
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
in State rules. There is the CAO, including the farm plans. Regarding stormwater
development standards, the County adopted new standards a couple of years ago.
DOE is not satisfied with those new standards. They've commented indicating they
expect some change. New draft guidelines from the State regarding stormwater
would be coming in September, to be finalized in June 2000. The County also has
the Flood Hazard Management Plan that deals with meander zones and maintaining
current infrastructure for flood hazard management. The County also has flood
plain development regulations that control or restrict development within the flood
plain. He highlighted stormwater because it appears to be a focus of DOE. The
County asked what is DOE's legal power to compel compliance with the Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Currently, RCW 90.71 says the County will
do it to the extent of available funds. DOE's response is that stormwater
management and the management plan is a key aspect of negotiation with NMFS as
it pertains to 4(d) rules. They should keep in mind stormwater management and
how it is being used as a tool for compliance, then linked back to salmon.
Brenner asked who would judge whether there are available funds, the State
or the County. Gibson stated it would be according to the County. However, that
is a legal argument. If it is placed in broader political context, then the issue of
available funds is overridden by DOE using the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan as an avenue of achieving compliance under ESA and a potential
4(d) rule. The County has to do it to comply, available funds or not.
Sutter questioned the amount of the funds the State will make available.
Gibson stated that comes up often. They are seeing very adept footwork in
response to the unfunded mandate argument.
Dawson stated they also have the tribal issue. The tribes can, through the
EPA, get control of water quality. Gibson stated his comments are not intended to
set up a hostile reaction. He only laid out the various points of power that the
agencies wield.
Kremen stated what was expected is diminishing in terms of amount of
funding for dealing with the ESA, at both State and federal levels. The
appropriation that was discussed and proposed had been cut in half. There had
been a similar move at the State level. There is $150 million less to deal with ESA
at federal and State level than they originally expected. There is a waning amount
of focus in terms of money available. They County needs to keep that in mind.
Brenner asked if that would change the requirements or allow extra time.
Monsen stated it gets to the underlying question of why the resources agencies care
about dealing with ESA. The County is talking about existing regulations. They are
looking for ways to enforce and enact. At the same time, they are on the same
bandwagon. To implement the policies, resources must be applied. This is coming
from the agencies and the rule- writers. They are also moving deadlines back
because of similar resource issues. They are fighting a similar battle. In that
regard, the ESA is significant enough from a legal perspective that the water
resource folks have a tool that doesn't obligate them to spend their own money to
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
enforce. It puts more pressure at the local level and shifts some of that resource
expectation.
Gibson stated that is true because of the third -party lawsuit. The ESA
provides opportunities for third parties to sue all levels of government to compel
compliance.
Monsen stated the Chinook listing occurred last spring with the legal
expectation that the 4(d) rules would be coming out. Now they don't expect
anything until next spring. It is part of the ability of the resource agency to
respond and do what the law complies. It puts the County in the position of trying
to be proactive, but still guessing what the rules might be.
Nelson stated the County could move forward on its own but would not know
the rules. He didn't understand how the County could come up with mechanisms to
meet all objectives if they don't have the rulebook. Gibson stated they stop
reacting to what others say and look at the most efficient way to do things. The
absence of the dollars forces one to look at the best way of tying together the
various components to achieve real results and some measure of regulatory
compliance.
Sutter stated they are talking about the ultimate authority being the Clean
Water Act, and they could look at what that requires.
Brenner asked if a third party suit would be frivolous if the County is
progressing and doing something. Gibson stated the specific group in which she
was referring to is an established group working throughout the United States will
not bring up a frivolous lawsuit.
Monsen stated they should put a definition on stormwater. Regarding
stormwater management, as the DOE is moving ahead in developing new rule
making and planning, the definition of stormwater appears to be that it is the
conveyance system for pollutants. If there is a pollutant, it is stormwater.
Historically in Puget Sound, stormwater is urbanized runoff. In the existing
program, they are still focused on urbanized stormwater collection and
management. The boundary is very soft in relation to non -point pollution sources.
Sutter stated they need to define a pollutant. Seymour stated stormwater in
quantity is also a pollutant. Sutter stated that in order to understand what they are
trying to accomplish, they need agreement on what they are talking about.
Nelson stated the definitions are part of the rules they are waiting for.
Gibson stated they've had conversations with DOE to determine the boundary
between runoff and non - runoff. They County's answer should not be determined by
where DOE sets that boundary. His suggestion from a legal standpoint is to look at
it system -wide and determine where that boundary is. One of the challenges the
County faces is road runoff.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Nelson stated they should have assurances that people have an
understanding of what is expected currently, then make a good decision about what
can be added to that.
Knapp stated need to look at rural and production run -off, such as removal of
trees and agricultural by- products. The problem is not just urban.
Brenner stated it is not the extra water that is pollution. The pollution comes
from what is destabilized by the runoff from the extra water. They shouldn't think
the water itself is the pollution. Knapp stated new development does try to retain
runoff.
Nelson asked how far they are taking this. Knapp stated existing
development has the worst runoff.
Sutter stated it is to DOE's advantage not to have a definition of stormwater
and pollutants. The County needs to have their own definitions. If DOE doesn't like
that, they should talk to the County. The County should take away the gap where
it isn't defined. Gibson stated they would be discussing these things in more detail
Monsen stated a new term is adaptive management, meaning apply new
regulation as more is learned. A byproduct is regulatory discretion. Hard and fast
rules are inconsistent with adaptive management. In addition, stormwater
management is different from one community to another.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen continued to state that the County's challenge in surface
management is understanding the difference between ditches and streams.
Sutter stated adaptive management does not preclude having clear
definitions of the terms. The definitions can be changed and adapted as they go
along.
Gibson stated they should be careful not to dig heels in too deeply against
adaptive management. Third parties are saying that best management practices
(BMP) are inadequate. Most stormwater permits are based on BMP's. Third
parties say one must meet a certain rigid quality standard. The practical result is
that if one doesn't meet the water quality standard set by the EPA, then they would
be shut down. The adaptive management allows one to continue to address that
over time so that it may be achieved.
Sutter stated she was not against adaptive management, but even with that
kind of flexibility, there is a clearly defined goal they are trying to achieve. They
need to know where they are going to get there. Gibson stated there would be
those goals, through the establishment of TMDL. The County would rather be
ahead of the program or game at the local level.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
48
Monsen suggested they aggressively implement something, even though
they know they won't achieve the ultimate goal. They would be in a much better
position than doing nothing and waiting for the rules to come out.
Brenner asked what the other counties are doing. Gibson stated Whatcom
County has to ask how closely one adheres to standards set in DOE manuals.
Some counties adhere to the manuals. Whatcom County has taken a different
approach regarding development. One of the decision points today is how much
they go their own way vs. how much they would go toward DOE.
DIRECTION OF STATE SALMON POLICY AND PUGET SOUND PLAN
Monsen stated the State had indicated it would submit, on September 1, its
wild salmonid policy to NMFS. Procedurally, since the draft plan was put out, the
State has gathered public comment and held brief discussions with cities and
counties. The plan, he guessed, it would reinforce the notion of existing regulations
as a starting point while the resource agendas are evaluating and fine - tuning. The
idea of enforcing existing regulations is a big deal because a lot on the books have
not been implemented or enforced to the end.
Sutter asked if the plan tells the federal government to enforce their laws.
Monsen stated DOE is the enforcer for the federal government. The PSWQAT
developed a plan dealing with stormwater in the Puget Sound basin. That
resembles what DOE did in the past. It is more focused and restrictive. There will
be an expectation of Whatcom County to adopt the protocols described in the Puget
Sound plan as a minimum standard. It will be converted through the next policy
statement as more mandatory or a starting point for communities. The biggest
debate amongst the counties on the policy is in the context of the level of
stormwater /water quality management the Puget Sound adopted for Ferry County.
It is a question of how broad the policy will be and how much discretion will the
counties have to adjust. The biggest step is that they will put the burden on local
communities to prove they don't have to or that a revised version is acceptable.
The next thing that is going to be reinforced from a science standpoint is to
incorporate the wild salmonid policy.
Dawson asked if the State legislators have anything to say. Monsen stated
from a practical standpoint they did. Drafting the document to be submitted to
NMFS is a role of the governor.
Sutter stated a policy had to be the foundation of that plan. She questioned
what the policy was and who set the policy that plan comes from. Monsen stated
the ESA itself sets the plan.
Sutter stated it is a State policy. She questioned whether the State
legislature has to have a state policy. Monsen stated this draft was the basis by
which the legislature made financial decisions relative to salmon recovery. This
version dealt with regulatory direction. Ultimately the decisions that were made
from a resource allocation standpoint were not policy /regulatory /planning directed.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 6
1 This is a regulatory /policy direction document, which says they have to do good
2 analysis and must pick good projects. The County is being asked to pick good
3 projects. This is supposed to be a description of what the State's administrative
4 structure can do. It is an administrative document. DOE has broad enough
5 statutory direction that they can go just about anywhere.
6
7 Gibson stated the administrative State level has much more power to do
8 policy- making.
9
10 Hoag asked if there is a difference between the extinction from the State
11 plan and wild salmonid plan and where the County is in terms of policy. Monsen
12 stated the County is not there. From a policy standpoint, the County is moving in
13 the direction that the State is saying, by looking at local regulation and doing
14 enforcement and education. The County is further away from adopting something
15 that would look like the wild salmonid policy, other than the projects they are
16 selecting fall in line with the science that went into the wild salmonid policy. A
17 weakness in the State's direction is that it relies on older work that hasn't
18 incorporated the better science and better information that is coming out. Seymour
19 stated both documents speak of habitat, hatchery, hydro, and harvest. The local
20 side is habitat and where the County can implement things recommended at this
21 point.
22
23 Hoag asked if the policy calls for anything that the County is not currently
24 doing. Seymour stated there are buffer widths that are still developing. The
25 County view of the drainage district problem is to start at the immediate corridor
26 for things like temperature, canopy, and bank stability. As buffer widths are
27 determined for agricultural areas, the County can build from the work they are
28 doing. River meander issues are also being addressed. The County is developing a
29 policy and a plan.
30
31 Hoag asked if this is establishing goals of buffers or setting specific buffers.
32 Monsen stated it is more about what they want buffers to accomplish.
33
34 Brenner asked if the County has standards to distinguish between ditches
35 and streams. Seymour stated it is a big issue. There are a number of definitions,
36 one the State is using for their culvert assessment work. If it runs year around, it
37 can be any size. There are other standards.
38
39 Gibson stated the environmental community is looking at a "no -risk for
40 salmon" approach, which asks for restoration of the natural systems. The tendency
41 is to go overboard on the restoration of natural systems. Other people say that
42 can't be done, so they should start somewhere and see what happens. It is a
43 question of placement of risk. There is also a question of using engineered systems
44 vs. natural systems.
45
46 Monsen stated the debate is whether they are moving to restore a natural
47 system or are they prioritizing the number of fish. A functional system seems to be
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
44
45
46
47
48
winning that debate, regardless of the number of fish. The Clean Water Act doesn't
rely on number of fish; it relies on a functional system.
Kremen stated they are going to see the legislature come back in January
and take up the issue and look at what the administration has set forth. The
Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) will be involved and filter
information to local elected legislators. The legislature will address these issues.
The County is moving progressively toward achievement and containment of these
issues and will continue to do so as best the County can. The County is moving in
that direction as best it can, given the nebulous set of rules.
Brenner said it sounds like no matter how much they are moving forward,
someone could hit them at any time.
Knapp spoke on the status of rule making. There was a question of whether
the State would be exceeding the current Shoreline Management Act. Recent
revisions have focused on how to better clarify that they are not exceeding the
original act as far as jurisdiction. There was reference to going further upland than
what the original Act mandated.
Dawson stated their jurisdiction is 200 feet from the shoreline.
Knapp stated an example is existing agricultural regulations and rules. The
focus is to maintain the Act, but work for definitions using best available science.
Dawson stated there were other counties at that hearing. The fellow
representing the hearing board complimented the Whatcom County CAO.
Brenner asked if the County is doing adequate enforcement. Knapp stated
they are.
Monsen stated the County is not enforcing at the rate the State level policy
agencies think the County should.
Knapp stated they have to change the rules to meet that kind of standard.
Hoag stated they need to make sure rules are being enforced or they will end
up with bigger rules.
Kremen stated the administration would scrutinize the enforcement aspect of
County operations through the budget process. If they need additional
enforcement personnel, then they will recommend more staff. It will go a long way
toward preventing the County from being vulnerable. They may have to add
another one or two individuals. Knapp stated the rate of response is what they
need to focus on. Brenner stated she is nervous because she wants to ensure that
the County is doing enforcement equally. She wants to set up a citizen review
committee so that enforcement is done equally.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated she was concerned about farmers who are not doing the right
thing. Most are, but if there is not stringent enforcement on those who break the
rules, then the entire County will have bigger buffer regulations. The County has
the CAO and manure ordinances that are laudable. Unless they are enforced, the
County is going to destroy its agricultural community. The county needs better
enforcement and needs to do a better job of finding the violators. There needs to
be an enforcement person out there looking for these things. The enforcement
officers are not catching the violators. She's seeing these violations, but not seeing
these farmers being fined.
Knapp stated they are doing enforcement and officers are out looking for
violators.
Imhof stated two enforcement officers can't be on every road at once.
Kremen stated he agreed with Hoag. The County has an obligation and
responsibility to enforce those ordinances that the Council adopts to protect the
streams and surface water from pollution. The Planning and Development Services
Department has been given explicit instructions to enforce the rules and ordinances
that the Council has adopted. If Hoag believes that is not happening, then she
needs to let him know.
Dawson stated there isn't enough enforcement for any illegal activity. Knapp
stated they could have an enforcement office on each road and only then catch
everyone.
(Clerk's Note: Monsen called a 10- minute break at 10:27 a.m.)
STATUS AND DIRECTION OF: RIVER MEANDER ZONES
Monsen stated the motivation for getting into meander limits was due to
permitting requirements the County had to do regarding flood control projects. The
County had to convey to regulatory agencies a longer -term vision of managing the
river system while also dealing with salmon recovery issues. The idea is that a
meandering river is a healthy river. However, a meandering river in the lower
Nooksack area consumes a large portion of the agricultural community.
Hoag asked if it has been scientifically established that a meandering river is
a healthy river. Seymour stated they need to restore to natural process. Rivers
meander across their flood plains. They create and abandon oxbows, which create
slough habitat that is important to fish habitat. Wood is a significant component of
the river ecosystem. Lower portions don't have wood along the river channels. If
they allow the river to meander, it doesn't provide much good wood. Therefore, it
puts a lot of silt and sediment into the river. If they planted conifers and trees
along wide range of flood plain, it might make sense.
Knapp stated historically rivers retained water and there were large areas of
woods, wetlands, and habitat. He questioned whether it would be prudent to
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
purchase areas along the river and recreate what was there. That is subject to
property being available.
Hoag questioned whether they could accomplish the same abandoned
oxbows and sloughs without allowing the river to meander all over the place.
Seymour stated that is the human view of how to fix Mother Nature. The river is a
natural system and is best left doing it's own thing. In the process of not allowing
the river to meander, they've shortened the south fork by 37 %. In the south fork,
they've lost 86% of the slough habitat. That same condition holds true all the way
down the river.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Seymour stated they are taking a flood advisory approach and dealing with it
reach by reach. They propose a meander corridor.
Monsen stated meander limits still allow soft applications within the corridor
dealing with habitat. However, the meander limit is a hard wall that they cannot go
beyond. Seymour stated the bank at Van Dalen /Riverberry is the meander limit for
that area, because there is significant County infrastructure there.
Nelson stated, as the meander limit is established, properties within those
areas are subject to river action. Seymour stated they always have been.
Nelson asked if those areas, if affected by a flood, are restricted from Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) funding. Seymour stated there are mostly no
structures within the meander limits. Where there is existing County rock, the
proposed meander limits dovetail. The meander limit is within the floodplain, not
the floodway.
Monsen stated that the floodway deals with depth and velocity of a current
situation. One can't build in a floodway, but can build within a flood plain.
Properties that don't have access to FEMA could be properties good for acquisition.
Monsen stated a home within the meander belt and flood plain will have to
have short -term flood - proofing work. The owner would know that over time, they
might be at risk. In a floodway, a homeowner would be immediately at risk for
serious damage.
Sutter stated if they are in the meander limit, there is the possibility the river
will move to the structure.
Seymour stated there isn't a quick, easy fix to restoring the oxbows. The
river will not work to maintain the manmade oxbows. They have done base maps
for all four reaches that identify all the County riprap work. They've identified the
1950 - 1993 meander channel and developed a series of meander boundaries,
including a hard meander line. The County is not saying the river will use the
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
meander channel tomorrow, they are saying that area is where the County will not
use public funds to protect that land.
Brenner asked if the County has an obligation to properties the County
permitted. Gibson stated there isn't a bright line.
Monsen stated that gets into a buy -out program, to correct a past mistake.
Gibson stated the County would have less liability than a sense of moral
obligation. One would feel sorry for the person and be inclined to do something
more than what the County is liable for.
Seymour stated some land is forestland and the owner should expect the
river to encroach on the land. It is different for agricultural land. As a policy, they
have to determine whether agricultural land is critical.
Nelson asked if they are establishing a different standard for forest owners
than for agricultural owners. Seymour stated the County may.
Seymour continued to say that within the interim meander zone, public funds
could be used to do soft work, but it would not be rocked.
Knapp asked if any projects could be wetland projects. Seymour stated that
it could.
Hoag asked if the hard limits will give any ability to remove gravel that is
pushing against the hard limit. Seymour stated they possibly could.
Monsen stated the establishment of meander limits is one factor the agencies
needed the County to deal with to talk about gravel management for flood control
purposes. It is about how gravel plays into a longer -term vision.
Hoag asked if there would ever be a sediment study. Monsen stated they've
done a lot of work with gravel. Aerial work quantifies the type and quantity of
gravel movement.
Hoag stated the County needs to determine how much is coming into the
system and staying or leaving. If the County wants effective flood control, then it
will require a sediment study and allow gravel to be removed in certain areas.
Monsen stated gravel management includes localized activity rather than a mass -
balanced, larger excavation.
Sutter stated that if they establish meander limits and determine that
removal of gravel is beneficial to keeping it within the limits, then maybe the
County could establish criteria and shortcut some of the permitting with the State
and federal agencies. There could be an agreement with those agencies that the
County would not have to go through the lengthy permitting process every time.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
She suggested the County could possibly get a buy -off that shortens the permitting
process if they can show established criteria are being met.
Nelson stated the only way to do that is to have a clear understanding of the
entire system.
Hoag stated that is why they need a sediment study. Monsen stated they
are trying to accomplish the same thing through setting meander limits. This is
working with the regulatory agencies. Gravel management issues do not open the
doors to the agencies. The priority is not a gravel management study that will
drive the County's conclusions.
Seymour stated that right now they are trying to protect property and
provide habitat through flood management.
Seymour continued to state they have been working with the
Nooksack /Sumas Sub -Flood Zone on reach four. The confluence of the south and
north forks to the Everson channel is wide. They are starting on reach three. It is
much more constrained and there is less opportunity for a natural process. There is
agricultural land that depends on that area. They've also lost a lot of off - channel
habitat. There are places along the Nooksack where there are still sloughs that
represent the old meander channel. A plan could be to excavate those areas and
open up off - channel habitat. County policy will play a huge role in what they would
do. They need to come up with a plan to maximize the river's opportunity for
meander limits, and still provide for agriculture. As they get further down the river,
there is less meandering.
Nelson asked if they would start establishing some protection along those
areas. Seymour stated they were hoping the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) program would come along and provide a good incentive for some
of the farmers to create a buffer. CREP is currently limited to areas that are
adjacent to spawning habitat for spring Chinook. Most of that is in the upper river.
They may be able to tweak the program so that it provides incentive. In the long
term, they should look at re- vegetating the areas. They have identified potential
off - channel habitat. There are places that the County or whoever could acquire
conservation easements and improve the habitat.
Monsen stated the notion of the meandering river in a natural condition is to
capture large woody debris. In the lower reaches of the river, they are not
proposing to re- establish a long- standing natural forest. The meander wouldn't
capture large woody debris in the lower portions. They need to incorporate large
woody debris in the projects they do. One of the facts in ensuring it performs its
function is to ensure it doesn't flow away during a flood event. Channel velocity is
a big factor.
Hoag asked if there are any plans to plant woody debris within the meander
limit. Seymour stated all the projects include some component of large woody
debris.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
Dawson asked about the response of the residents. Seymour stated the only
public process has been through the Diking Districts and the Flood Advisory Board.
They realize it is an effort to provide a plan for reach four.
Brenner asked what happens if they keep opening it above and not below.
Monsen stated part of meandering is that is slows the rate of the river and doesn't
create a rush. It is a benefit to lowland flooding. They are still talking about
maintaining the levy system. It has only been in the last couple of years they've
been trying to create a consistent levy system.
Seymour stated they will have a flood model that will allow them to do more
effective modeling on the flood effects and do more predictive events.
Brenner questioned whether the Ag Preservation Committee has looked at
this.
Bob Vanweerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, Everson, stated the proposal has not
been before the agricultural community.
Hoag asked about the funds available for buyout.
Monsen stated that, due to the time, he would report to the Council in writing
regarding the agenda items on salmon recovery projects and shellfish.
STATUS AND DIRECTION OF: PROPERTY BUY -OUT
Seymour stated they are trying to develop a program for flood hazard
reduction and habitat incentives.
Monsen stated flood control is classic FEMA criteria that, if evaluated purely
for financial reasons, then would be objective. If over time, enough public money
goes into repairing and restoring a location, and it is instead cheaper to buy it, then
they should buy it. FEMA is ready to move in and do that. Federal money is
available after an event, not before an event. If there is an objective candidate,
they would question whether they should be proactive and buy out through the
program, or wait for FEMA to purchase after an event.
Sutter asked if FEMA would own the land if it buys it out. Monsen stated the
County would hold it. Regardless of the reason for a buyout, he presumed that a
buyout didn't mean everything bought should be kept public property. Some
portions could be put back to be income producing or revenue producing.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Hoag stated that when they do the income calculation for farmland, they
should also take into account the long -term economic loss if the land is taken out of
production. Knapp stated they could keep it in production.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
48
Brenner suggested a purchase of development rights. Monsen stated there
might be a reason to make the acquisition based on more subjective criteria, such
as ability to create habitat opportunities. The initial acquisitions the County will get
into will initially be objective in nature, but the decision to make the acquisition,
whether through purchase or lease, will rely on subjective criteria.
Hoag asked about FEMA funds for buy -out. The County is going to have to
purchase properties that FEMA will not apply funding for. Seymour stated there are
State and private agencies that have funding available.
Brenner stated there were problems in the past where FEMA has gone in.
She questioned whether there are properties that have been destroyed enough and
that FEMA has purchased. Monsen stated whatever has been done will be criteria
for the next event.
Dawson stated they should purchase areas where oxbows exist, but there
aren't any buildings.
Sutter stated they would have to develop criteria.
Brenner asked if the people in the area know what is happening and are
willing to negotiate. Seymour stated the Kamm Creek area is too wet to farm.
They are outside the meander limits. Their risk is if the dikes fail. Ron Bronsema
has talked to most of the people in the area. They would be interested in selling or
moving the house.
Monsen stated there are reasons to consider some buy -out alternatives,
because of flood control issues, even though it may be outside the meander limit.
There is opportunity for habitat. Putting those together will make it difficult to
determine the real benefit. Some buy -outs would be complex to put together.
Seymour stated if they can convince the agencies they are creating habitat
acquisition, it might help the agencies buy into the narrow meander limits.
Brenner questioned replacing the house with another comparable home.
Monsen stated the government cannot just buy -out the house, but must also assist
them in finding a home.
Monsen stated, regarding buffer issues, the State, federal, and local officials
need to be more proactive in dealing with reasonable compensation issues rather
than pretending it wasn't a problem. For example, in the meander limit, an issue is
whether the buffer follows the river beyond the meander line. That is a regulatory
issue that has to be addressed.
Sutter stated another issue would be the buffer shifting with the water line.
Monsen stated the notion is that they are clear what is going on with the buffers in
respect to meander lines. Buffers should be within the meander limits. They also
need to address the compensation criteria. DOE's approach regarding buffers is
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that the regulatory process will establish hard numbers and, if one falls within those
hard numbers, then tough luck.
Brenner asked if Monsen would come forward with a compensation program.
Monsen stated his compensation would deal with acquisitions that are purely for
habitat protection and restoration and flood control buy -out. They are not at a
point to say what a buffer is. Compensation packages will be presented during the
budget process.
Hoag stated she was concerned the buffer limits extending beyond the
meander limits would extend the meander line. Seymour stated if the opportunity
comes up, it would be nice to have a large buffer. Ideally there would be a treed
corridor.
(Clerk's Note: There was a 15- minute lunch break at noon.)
Gibson stated one of the issues of dispute is what kind of buffers are
necessary, especially within the agricultural areas. The concern of forest area
buffers has been addressed through recent legislation modifying forest timber rules.
He asked George Boggs to describe a recent meeting with a number of agencies.
Boggs stated the concern with the Conservation District Board is the idea of
one - size - fits -all. It is not appropriate. The acreage subject to that would have a
significant impact on the productivity of Whatcom County. They need to be
circumspect that the buffer size will be appropriate to what they are trying to
accomplish. The Fish and Wildlife Commission and Conservation Commission came
to sites in Whatcom County to tour a farm that engaged in restoration activities.
They were able to demonstrate that only fencing off an area will not encourage
healthy buffers. In addition, through planning, appropriate habitat could be created
in narrow widths. There is a CREP standard where property will be leased from
landowners. The standard will be a percentage of the site potential tree height.
The federal government will lease eligible agricultural land from the landowners for
10 -15 years to create buffers. Other counties have used that standard for their
critical areas ordinances and applied it throughout their agricultural areas. The
question is whether they need a 150 -foot buffer to achieve the improvement in the
fish habitat for a particular stream. The answer is that the bigger buffer is not
necessarily the better buffer. It is appropriate to look at a number of factors
regarding a specific stream, to tailor the buffer to the needs of the stream.
Hoag stated she wanted to see the Agriculture Extension Service set up some
model buffers with different slopes, soils, and stream sizes. The County currently
cannot effectively manage the 50 -foot buffer required by the manure ordinance, so
that cannot prove or disprove whether a 50 -foot buffer is effective. If the County
could prove the effectiveness of a variety of buffer sizes, they could take that
information to NMFS. The only way they are going to effectively do that is for the
Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Ag
Extension service working together. It wouldn't take that long to see the results of
keeping manure out of the stream. Short of having some controlled experiments,
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
the County is subject to the whims of whatever comes down. The County has
many ditches and streams running through agricultural land.
Nelson asked if it would be easier for property owners to be given the option
of having a buffer.
Hoag stated they couldn't prove to NMFS that it would work. The first step is
to establish what are effective buffers.
STATUS AND DIRECTION OF: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Gibson stated stormwater management is modulation and purification of
runoff. This does not stand by itself and is functionally connected with other issues,
such as shellfish. There is also a connection with water rights and usage.
Modulation of runoff means retention and storage, which has impact on availability.
There is some connection with flood control. 85% of water volume comes from
above Deming. They could establish the best program for the area below Deming,
and it won't work. There is some connection between stormwater management and
salmon recovery.
The phase II permit is coming up. They know that DOE is going to try and
ride the Phase II for more than what the federal government will look for. This is a
response to salmon recovery along the lines of the 4(d) rule. The County's
challenge is how far they go with a stormwater program for rural Whatcom County,
and how they apportion the public vs. private costs. Because of the geographic
nature of the County, there are a lot of connections. If they are really going to
achieve something, they might go further in the scope than DOE might go. By
going further in a wise fashion, they might achieve a better result. Currently, there
are exemptions to stormwater development standards. Agricultural practices are
excepted out. In Phase II, they will have to ask whether it makes sense to
completely opt out agricultural practices from stormwater management, or should
they look closely at the exceptions and put them in a farm plan. Stormwater
development standards are currently completely exempt from agricultural practices.
Brenner asked how much more it would be.
Boggs stated that by 2001 the dairy farms must have a farm plan with zero
pollution.
Gibson stated currently, under County Development Standards, there is no
application of those standards to agriculture, because it is not development. The
reason for including it in the farm plans is the desire not to get enmeshed in farm
practices. They will deal with stormwater development in terms of new residential
or commercial development.
Hoag stated that farming doesn't have the impervious surfaces that
commercial and residential developments have.
Sutter stated farm practices instead have a lot of chemical application.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
Imhof stated there is a lot of impervious surface on a farm.
Boggs stated he would provide a copy of a recent study by USGS regarding
nitrates and phosphorus. The Nooksack is the second largest producer for
pollutants. Agriculture is a major contributor that needs to be regulated in the
program. Sediment with nitrogen and phosphorus is coming off the farms.
Sutter asked if it requires flood event for those things to get into the river.
Boggs stated either that or through intentional methods, or application methods.
There is some natural nitrogen coming in, but a small amount.
Sutter stated they need to decide if it is appropriate to look at stormwater
regulations and non -event activities that aren't tied to a stormwater event. Gibson
stated that for State and federal regulatory purposes, they have melded those two
together. That is what they are talking about. Because of the traditional meaning
they have given stormwater, they've overlooked infiltration into the system.
Hoag asked if the farm plans would address the zero discharge because they
will not be allowed to put nitrogen and phosphorus into the river. Boggs responded
this was an earlier discussion regarding best management practices. Those
conservation plans outline the source of management practices that the landowner
has to engage in before they reduce or eliminate discharge. Those things are dealt
with and are mandatory under 6161 for dairy farmers by December 31, 2001. The
point is there are others who don't have to adhere to these management practices.
They've addressed it to a small matter relative to the manure ordinance and
manmade ditches. There is a management practice they have to observe to avoid
contribution of bacteria. If they are conveying all the stormwater across the
County, they have to ask what to do about what is outside the right -of -way and on
the private landowners. They would have to hold the other landowners to the same
standards as the dairy farmers' activities. The dairy farmers are the only ones that
are required to have that activity.
Gibson stated they should use BMP's for all they are worth. They would
rather work with BMP's, than the absolute standards. They should examine the
exceptions to the application of the stormwater standards. It makes little sense to
have a finely tuned pollution control system when there are people who are not
complying.
Sutter asked if the County could then extend a program similar to 6161 that
would include other farming activities besides dairies. Boggs stated they could
adopt a 100 -foot no entry zone, or, if the farmer has a plan, they may be able to
come closer.
Sutter questioned whether the vehicle for getting the farmers to use the BMP
is the farm plan. Boggs stated it is.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
Hoag asked who would implement the best management practices. Gibson
stated it could be in the CAO stormwater standards.
Hoag stated the Lake Whatcom Management meetings say a more productive
lake is better for fish.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 2, side B.)
Hoag asked if there is a healthy and acceptable level of nitrogen and
phosphorous for fish. Boggs stated there is a parameter, but he does not know it.
Hoag stated they need to know what the water quality is that they are
looking for before they pursue regulation to address the runoff. If they come down
with zero discharge, and don't need zero discharge, then the farmers are taking
measures that aren't necessary.
Boggs stated they are dealt a hand regarding non -point pollution having a
zero discharge. Federal law mandates the goals they are going for. That comes
from the Clean Water Act. Physical criteria are set for the quality of the water. The
question is how they are going to get there. With the TMDL, the goal is to have the
bacteria low enough that the shellfish beds are reopened. Even though the design
is for zero discharge, practically they don't see that.
LOCAL POLICY AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Gibson stated this introduces the appropriate distribution of public vs. private
costs and shares of responsibility. There is a highly connected system through the
roadside ditches that serve as drainage ditches. King County has an ambitious
surface water management program. They've spent a great deal on infrastructure
to deal with water retention and purification. That is not the only model available.
The questions are:
• How to divide the public responsibility from the private responsibility?
• How to address the public responsibility in terms of infrastructure and
funding?
• How to address the private responsibility in terms of regulation,
information, and education?
Those are the kinds of considerations the County will confront as they deal with a
stormwater management plan that will enable the County to address Phase II
requirements and to move the County closer to the water quality goal.
Monsen stated they know they will have to incorporate new treatment
features regarding infrastructure projects. One of the questions is whether all the
incoming water is being treated, or if they are just making sure the quality doesn't
change from the beginning to the end of the project, no matter how bad it might
be. They are obligated to ensure the quality, in and out, has to be the same.
However, there may be an opportunity to do more treatment. One of the issues
the County has to wrestle with regarding road projects is where to put the
treatment facility, how much right -of -way they will acquire, and whether the parcel
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
next to it will be used. To adequately treat runoff from a road project, a grassy
swale next to the project is usually adequate. It is not going to do any good if the
water, before the project, is heavily laden with silt.
Brenner stated there should be private requirements that silt and mud not
flow off of private property. Gibson stated it could be dealt with onsite or through a
extensive Public Works, regional treatment.
Monsen stated the most effective approach of dealing with it onsite is
through the development process, as the home is being constructed. The
effectiveness in dealing with it beyond the construction is limited. The County does
not have a regulatory role.
Hoag stated if there is the opportunity to remove a problem that is coming
into a road project, then it would be more efficient.
Monsen stated there are a number of situations in which regional treatment
is the way to go. Regarding the financing of that activity, the road fund could only
pay for the road element of that activity. The flood fund can be used for almost
any water matter they could imagine. The more the funds are used in a broad
manner, the more it becomes a tax issue instead of a fee issue.
Gibson stated the problem relating to tax is that local taxes are limited to
$5.90 per $1,000 without the voters lifting the levy rate. There are a couple of
areas in the County that are at $5.70. There is little headroom. Stormwater for
flood control zone district is also low in priority for being bumped. There are six
tiers of taxing districts. Flood control zone district and stormwater utility are in the
fifth tier behind cemetery districts. They are ahead of park and recreation districts.
Monsen stated the issue is whether the current fee structure for flood control
reasonably resembles how the funds are being allocated. When they address
regional detention facilities and special stormwater programs, they can't just simply
change the amount collected in the flood fee. There is a clear relationship and the
statute allows it, but they would have to change the fee structure. For the amount
of money they are talking about, the fee structure would be inadequate anyway.
Gibson stated the philosophy they adopt would have to take into
consideration the available funding structures.
Sutter questioned whether they could make the available $.20 for a
stormwater tax. Gibson stated they could. The problem they are facing in the next
five to ten years is that the County is entering a phase in which the assessed
valuation is leveling off or dropping. That means the $.20 becomes tighter and
tighter.
Hoag asked if the $.20 would generate the kind of revenues they are getting
from the flood fee. Gibson stated it would be about half of what they are getting
right now.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Hoag stated there are a lot of commercial areas that generate a large
amount of runoff, yet the limit is $90. She requested this be looked at. Monsen
stated they are not working on an amendment to the fee structure because they
would rather understand a direction of work from a programmatic standpoint.
Where they are heading determines the form of fees.
Hoag stated the structure needs to be addressed. They can always go back
later and change the amount. Kremen stated they have to know what the money is
being used for to know what latitude they need for extending it.
Monsen stated they are not now spending the money on stormwater
management. Therefore, the size of impervious surface doesn't apply.
Kremen stated they were talking about a different method of generating
revenue. That would be up to the Council.
Brenner stated she wanted the people outside the floodplain paying a flat fee
and the people inside the floodplain paying according to their contribution. Kremen
stated the only reason they use the flood fee as a vehicle to generate revenue was
that it was available to them and could be done the most expeditiously. It is not
the most optimum way of generating the revenue. They would like to explore ways
other than the flood fee to generate revenue.
Hoag stated that, in the meantime, the current structure needs to be better
so that it is more appropriate while it is in place.
Gibson stated another way of doing it is the restructuring of the assessment
if they don't want to use a flat fee or tax. It would be a long -term option.
Monsen state they want to make it clear that the definition of stormwater
would drive the decision - making.
Sutter stated one way to mitigate stormwater problems is through the
Development Standards and requiring appropriate measure be taken at the time
development occurs. When they do that, then the need for mitigation funds is
going to be less.
Dawson stated there are two issues. One is stormwater as a flood issue and
one is stormwater as a sediment issue.
Imhof stated they are the same issue. They have to look at all the options.
Gibson stated the primary option is the philosophical choice between leaning
toward public expenditure for regional stormwater management or adhering toward
private, on -site management do it doesn't reach the regional proportions.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
Knapp stated new development does have more regulation and retention.
The problem is with the existing development.
Hoag stated it is more efficient to have regional treatment, unless it is a
large development that has a stormwater treatment that is failing. Knapp stated
they need both.
Brenner stated a property owner should be responsible for not contaminating
someone else's property.
Hoag stated that would require too much enforcement.
Sutter stated there would have to be some sort of funding available to the
homeowners if they are required to do retrofitting to current stormwater standards.
That would require a tax.
Gibson stated one implication is that private, on -site filtration and retention
must have a well- funded and staffed education and outreach program.
Sutter suggested an incentive.
Brenner stated non - profit agencies deal with environmental issues.
Monsen stated they didn't need to come to a decision yet, but to understand
these issues are volatile. There is a high expectation the County is going to be
proactive. He suggested there be more discussion about the direction the County
will go. Also, the purpose of the meeting is to be aware that there may be
elements of this issue that will come before the Council in the coming months and
to come to an understanding of how these pieces fit together in the long -term. He
and Gibson want to know that the recommendation is to implement in a way
consistent with the law. If the Council believes the law is inappropriate for the local
community, they need to know that soon.
Sutter stated her preference is that, regardless of what laws may be coming
down the road, the County takes the current laws and figures out how to get where
they want to go. The problems with the laws are that they don't just dictate the
end result, they also dictate how to achieve the end result. It is the County's job to
decide how to get there. Once the County figures out how to get there, and if they
disagree, then there is a point of discussion. Gibson stated they are, for example,
talking about the DOE stormwater manual. DOE said they are going to develop
their own way of achieving stormwater management. The County got that done
and adopted it in 1996 and presented it to DOE, who said it was inadequate.
Sutter stated the problem is there is not a commitment from DOE to find
solutions to problems. The County needs to sit down with them in the spirit of
cooperation and work on the end result. Gibson stated the County is still in
discussion regarding the proposal, and they are about to issue a new draft manual.
The County has to decide how much resource the County is willing to spend and if
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
the margin of benefit is great enough to justify the effort the County goes through
to get there.
Hoag stated the answer to time vs. benefit depends on why they are
pursuing the path. For example, if the DOE were to require 300 -foot buffers, then
the County should pursue the reason for those buffers. They have to pursue a
parallel path because what they stand to lose is so great that it makes the effort
worthwhile. Regarding the public /private cost split, they don't want to be penny -
wise and pound - foolish. She wanted individuals to be responsible, but at the same
time, if they set up a structure that requires education, outreach, and enforcement,
then it might be cheaper to do regional treatment for existing general cumulative
effect areas. They should take the whole picture into consideration.
Brenner stated there is a long -term gain to educating people on being
responsible with their property. If they can do it both ways and keep it down to as
little regional work as possible, then it would be very important.
A.)
(Clerk's Note: A 10- minute break was taken at 1:25. End of tape three, side
COUNTY VS. REGIONAL DECISION - MAKING PROCESS
Monsen stated the issues don't follow political boundaries. Laws are being
written in a way to require joint decision - making. The classic political boundary is
now in conflict. He asked the Council's expectations of the staff regarding
information they need to provide as they go through some of the processes.
Regarding watershed management, the County is one of five initiating governments
who rely on the membership of a Planning Unit to move ahead. In that procedural
process, the County Council and administration also play the role of lead agency to
oversee the project and deal with the financial elements. The funding process is
distant from the procedural decision - making for the watershed project.
Brenner stated she liked sharing information through the method of a
meeting. She also liked starting with a general issue that is then broken down into
segments.
Sutter stated anything approved regarding ESHB 2514 needs to come
forward with a recommendation from the Planning Unit. To do that, they need that
contact in a timely manner. There is a general feeling that there is not a lot of
information about what is happening in the processes and the decisions being
made. She was concerned that, regarding ESHB 2496, they haven't appointed
anyone to the citizen's committee.
Brenner stated the Planning Unit should have been notified of this meeting.
Sutter stated a lot of people are working on this issue, but are not being
brought together in the same place. Also, she didn't know about the status of other
issues such as hiring an ESA coordinator and a water coordinator. They don't know
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
what is happening and need more information. The Planning Unit needs to meet
more often than quarterly.
Hoag stated it is difficult to dedicate an entire day to a meeting.
Monsen asked if the Council expects the Planning Unit to work for the
Council.
Hoag stated they work for the Initiating Governments.
Sutter stated that is a recommendation coming from people on the Planning
Unit. They can't get the work accomplished that they need to by meeting quarterly.
Monsen stated he could make sure the County's position is put on the table.
Procedurally, the Planning Unit itself will make the decision when it will meet. They
still, as a unit, have to make decisions.
Brenner questioned how the Planning Unit is supposed to get its
recommendations to the Council in a timely manner.
Sutter stated the Planning Unit needs to know what their power and
authority is, and be allowed to function as a kind of body that is going to have a
positive impact on a decision - making process. They don't feel they're being
acknowledged by the government officials. Knapp stated a lot of the work would be
stepped up when staff gets on board to do the work.
Monsen responded that the amount of resources the County is prepared to
give would not increase the level of work that is currently being done.
Imhof stated they would like to be kept more in the loop.
The Council made a request for a monthly written update.
Monsen stated one issue currently is the role of the Planing Unit compared to
the IG's themselves. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) suggests the Planning
Unit will be doing the bulk of the work, but the oversight is by the five
governments. He wanted to make sure he didn't get caught in between, and stated
he needed to engage the Council to represent the position of the Council.
The Council requested monthly updates in front of the Committee of the
Whole. Monsen stated he sometimes has difficulty responding after two weeks in a
negotiation process.
Brenner stated it is important to convey the Council's position.
Dawson questioned whether a part of the problem is that the Tribe does not
negotiate in public. Monsen stated that is not a problem. In a variety of the water
matters, he is not even in the room. He is posing the question to be helpful in
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
general. His role in the watershed project is a financial administrator. He is
currently the ESA point person for salmon, until they hire someone.
Sutter asked what happened on the citizen's committee. Monsen stated
those recommendations would be coming forward on the next Council agenda. One
of the tasks they will take on is the project application cycle happening this fall.
The County is within days of having a draft technical recovery plan that they can
review. Because of the process regarding watershed and salmon issues, the hope
is the County Council will be the financial rubber stamp. Any advisory committee
that is created believes they've gone through a process and reasonably expects a
rubber stamp. That's their hope and expectation. He questioned what each of
these groups could be doing so that they understand it is not a rubber stamp and
they also expect the dialogue will continue from their recommendations.
Hoag stated they would need to come before the Council, make a
presentation, and explain their reasons for making their recommendation. They
exist to lay the groundwork, do the research, and run it through their expertise.
Their recommendation is only a recommendation. Monsen stated the County
Council is not the only legislative body these recommendations are going to.
Sutter stated that if the County is forced into operating on a regional basis,
then all the legislative bodies must sit down and work things out.
Hoag stated that even within the County, it is their job to represent their
constituents. Monsen asked if there was a way those bodies can improve their
processes to take more into account the County Council constituents.
Sutter and Hoag suggested they need to send a representative to the County
Council. They need to provide the reasoning for the recommendations they come
up with.
Dawson stated that was the staff function.
Monsen stated his role was to make sure that good information was getting
to the Council and help make the decision - making easier.
Brenner stated what makes their job easier is getting a feel of what the
mood is out there.
Sutter stated it is not just the advisory committees. The other initiating
governments are going to have to approve the same documents. They will all
eventually have to sit and make decisions together.
SUMMARY: WHAT NEXT?
Hoag asked about a chart on funding and meander limits. Seymour stated
within the 1950 -1993 meander limits, public funds would not be used for
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
acquisition. The 50/50 match was a suggestion regarding soft fixes. Those were
his scribble notes and not recommendations he was bringing forward at this time.
Hoag asked about the State submitting their plan to NMFS on September 1
and how it would affect the County. Monsen stated they don't have an obligation to
turn anything in right away. Whatever the County turned in right away would be
reviewed sometime in the next two to three years.
Dawson asked about the August meeting with the Salmon Advisory Board
and if the Council should give direction on where the money should go. Monsen
stated the Salmon Board's primary job, at this point, is to make decisions about
applications and whether or not State money will be applied. It is not to deal with
policy matters unless it deals with making a funding decision.
Sutter asked about the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the body established
by the State of Washington for technical review of selected environmental /salmon
recovery matters. Boggs stated the early actions would be bundled up and put
before a board. They don't know if they will fund early actions or take more time.
Dawson asked if hatcheries would be included. Boggs stated they are
dealing with where to spend $100 million on salmonid recovery projects. They are
supposed to look, within the parameters set by the science review team, so they
can prioritize. The regional committee is to have limited factors so the projects
within WRIA #1 are screened and prioritized. Statewide, they would look at all
WRIA's.
Sutter asked if they are making allocation decisions on a regional basis or a
WRIA basis. Monsen stated the allocation is based on whatever organization
happens to exist, as long as there is some local prioritization. There is no
requirement that Puget Sound North must agree.
Dawson asked who is dealing with the hatcheries.
(Clerks Note: End of tape three, side B.)
Seymour stated the hatcheries will have the same scrutiny as the other
issues will, from the federal level.
Knapp asked if it is possible to take the wild salmon eggs and put them in a
hatchery. Seymour stated they have done that in the north fork of the Nooksack.
Hatcheries are not being viewed as the "fix" for Chinook recovery. They are a piece
of the puzzle.
Gibson stated, as they talk about policy, these decisions have been
addressed in the most basic form in the Comprehensive Plan in chapter eleven.
They should review the policies and action items. Some of those directions have
been set out in rudimentary form.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
Sutter stated they also need an update on the action plans in the
Comprehensive Plan and what the status items are. Knapp stated there is an
inventory of the 1997 policies regarding salmon recovery. They can do an update.
They will schedule it for the September meeting.
Hoag asked about the salmon postage stamp project and the 'Extinction Is
Not an Option' program. Monsen stated he has not seen any response from the
State. The State has gone through some steps to receive comments.
Monsen stated NMFS is receiving a variety of local planning documents and
elements of local proposals that are going into a pile of documents. They appear to
be most focused on establishing the negotiation process with other federal agencies
regarding project -based decisions. They are looking forward to receiving the
State's plan. They've also made it clear they don't want to deal with each agency
or jurisdiction. They would rather deal with programmatic ideals. NMFS is looking
for things like a Puget Sound Water Quality Plan and DOE's stormwater manual.
They are now focusing on southwest Washington.
Hoag stated the shoreline management plan has to be updated in the next
few years, DOE is not satisfied with the stormwater management plan, and there
was a question of whether or not stormwater should have exceptions for
agriculture. She questioned whether administration and staff would be bringing
recommendations forward on those items. Knapp stated they will be updating the
shoreline program next year.
Monsen stated they have to begin a review process regarding the stormwater
management. It depends on whether the Council would rather actively design a
new program or adopt the standards as they are completed by DOE.
Gibson stated DOE should be issuing a new draft manual by September.
Monsen stated the recommendation is that they wait and look at the revised
draft before choosing that course.
Knapp stated another option would be to rework the areas that might be in
conflict with their manual, but adopt the majority of it.
Sutter suggested that in both the areas of stormwater and shorelines, there
are some things the County wants to do whether or not they are in DOE's manual.
The County would not have to wait for their manual.
Hoag asked if they will wait for DOE's recommendations to look at the
agricultural exceptions. Gibson stated it relates to the information available
regarding where the real stormwater or runoff problems are. There is some
information from the Northwest Indian College regarding the source of the
problems. If they are satisfied that those exceptions are not a problem source,
then time is not of the essence. On the other hand, if the data shows the
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, 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
exceptions are a source of the problems, then they have to look at whether it is
being addressed elsewhere or needs to become a part of the program.
Knapp stated the major problem is retention and filtering. 95% of the urban
runoff and pollutants are from existing development. The remaining is from new
development. The second concern is rural areas. Retention could still be a problem
solver if it is designed in a way to retain it or stop it from happening. They need to
figure out why the counts are still high. If they focus on the concept of retention, it
would do more to help the situation in the long -term.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 9 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/3/99, Page 27