The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket Water Work Session Apr 18 2023Whatcom County Council Water Work Session COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360) 778-5010 Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:30 AM Civic Center Building Conference Room / Hybrid Meeting HYBRID MEETING - (PARTICIPATE IN -PERSON, SEE REMOTE JOIN INSTRUCTIONS AT www.whatcomcounty.us/joinvirtualcouncil, OR CALL 360.778.5010) COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. Council Water Work Session Meeting Agenda April 18, 2023 Call To Order Roll Call Announcements Individuals who require special assistance to participate in the Council's meetings are asked to contact the Council Office at 360.778.5010 at least 96 hours in advance. This committee meeting is also noticed as a meeting of the Whatcom County Council, with the agenda limited to committee business. Watershed Planning Update Presentation from Marine Resources Committee Whatcom County Coastal and Riverine Compound Flood Vulnerability & Risk Assessment - Project Update Discussion with WRIA 1 Planning Unit Other Business Adjournment Whatcom County Page 2 Printed on 41912025 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ELIZABETH KOSA Director MEMORANDUM NATURAL RESOURCES 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 110 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 778-6230 FAX: (360) 778-6231 www. wh a tco m c o un tV. us TO: The Honorable Satpal Singh Sidhu, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Elizabeth Kosa, Director FROM: Gary S. Stoyka, Natural Resources Program Manager DATE: April 11, 2023 RE: April 18, 2023 Council Water Work Session Please refer to the proposed agenda below for the next Water Work Session. Additional supporting documents may be distributed at or before the meeting. AGENDA Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Place: Hybrid Meeting: In Person: Civic Center Garden Level Conference Room (322 N. Commercial St., Street Level) Virtual: For instructions on how to watch or participate in this meeting, please visit us at www.whatcomcounty.us/joinvirtualcouncil or contact the Council Office at 360.778.5010. View meeting schedules, agendas, minutes, videos, and archives at www.whatcom.legistar.com. Time Topic Council Action Background Information Requested Attached 10:30 AM — Watershed Planning Update Informational None 10:45 AM 10:45 AM — Presentation from Marine Resources Informational None 11:15 AM Committee 11:15 AM — Whatcom County Coastal and Riverine 11:45 AM Compound Flood Vulnerability & Risk Informational None Assessment - Project Update 11:45 AM — Discussion with WRIA 1 Planning Unit Discussion None 12:00 PM If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (360) 778-6218. cc: Dana Brown -Davis Kristi Felbinger Jill Nixon Jennifer Schneider Karen Frakes Erika Douglas John Thompson Paula Harris Kraig Olason Chris Elder Cathy Craver Jim Karcher Doug Ranney Melissa Donnelly Roland Middleton Erin Page Josh Fleischmann Mark Personius Tyler Schroeder Sue Sullivan Bennett Knox Brandy Reed Whatcom County Compound Flood Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Water Work Session —April 18, 2023 M, ALI, aft- 61 flo 2S _ - •tip ... - - .�: 'r _ - - - `_ �R k i- fir+' . � � = - ter-- p.r' • f L IiLL k . Project Overview: • Develop a Vulnerability &Risk Assessment (VRA) for Whatcom County marine and lower Nooksack riverine shorelines • Utilize USGS models • Sea Level Rise (SLR), • tide, • wave, • storm surge, • Nooksack River discharge/flood models • Project Partners: Lummi Nation, Port of Bellingham, USGS, Washington SeaGrant (UW), Dept of Ecology, Cities of Blaine, Ferndale, and Bellingham • County Departments participating • PW, PDS, Health, IT, Emergency Management • County adopted Climate Action Plan Nov 2021 • Numerous sea level rise/floodplain management recommendations • County adopted Shoreline Management Program Update Dec 2021 • Identified the need to include sea level rise and climate change • County updating Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan • (in addition to related planning efforts) • Whatcom County PDS & PW collaborate • Shoreline Master Program Competitive Grant Pilot Program F"'- E SA • Awarded $100,000 grant from Dept of Ecology J • Contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to support project Compound Flooding = Coastal + Riverine Flood* Current Sea Le OCEAN I Riverine Flooding with Increased Sea Levels ORIGINAL SEA LEVEL SEA LEVEL RISE Scenario Identification • State and Regional sea level rise guidance documents • Available CoSMoS runs and outputs r d PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE ' WASHINGTONSTATE ! I GUIDELINES FOR MAPPING SEA LEVEL RISE INUNDATION '-WASHINGTON STATE k SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS for NEARSHORE RESTORATION PROJECTS in PUGETSOUND RLR for Selected Location Frajed d changes relative to the average sea ievel rnrer 1991-2009. Mover for details. u Gl s 6. 7 N 4U w C9 4.0 M 2. n i] 0 i a 0_0 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 c Sea Level Rise Uncertainty South Poke Pole of 07 ptember 12, 2017 403.64 ppm In at Mauna Loa Observatory Still IC!!!!350 t related to vncerta�n y House Gas tica and Green p ntar F ssionsfn� 95 2000 2005 2010 2U,5 a 7 h A.— 7 .. . Extreme Events are important in the near term; El Nino, King Tides and E. Pacific Hurricanes Projections will continue to Evolve 4.C' m m O 2.0 d S c2..................................................................... . 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 Coastal Storm = tides + storm surge + waves FUTURE• COAS TAL- STORMS CURRENT COASTAL STORMS �" FUTURE TIDAL INUNDATION ------------------------ CURRENT TIDAL INUNDATION NOTE; Sea, tide, and storm surge levels are for illustrative purposes only and do not depict actual or projected levels. Hydrology: Projected future changes Peak annual streamflows in the Nooksack River Observed flows (1967 to 2017) and future projections for the 2050s. Projections based on a moderate emissions scenario :5*5 00 efS 8,,00 afs ,500 cf Extreme Flood Event ,:500 efs *000 CfS 1,500 of 1 s Exposure/Hazard Mapping 111.84 ea az Existing 4$ ,60 • Coastal flooding Cwd't'ons 48.78 • USGS CoSMoS 48.76 • FEMA flood insurance studies 4S&U • Coastal Erosion — CGS vujd • Riverine flooding 48.78 • USGS Lower Nooksack River Modeling 48.7$ • FEMA flood insurance studies • NHC modeling 2D40s 25-yea r event 2 � Q Grossman 2022 Defining Vulnerability IPCC 2007 Vulnerability is the degree to which a resource is susceptible to and unable to cope with adverse impacts of climate change. Degree of change a Whether and how a resource is likely to resource reacts to change experience vuinera Milt, ity to cope ;over from to impacts Vulnerability = (Exposure + Sensitivity) - Adaptive Capacity Project Tea Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Scenario Identification Hazard Maps Asset Inventory Exposure Analysis Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity Analysis Action Plan Public Scenarios • Will likely present with a range of timing (e.g., 2040-2060) • King Tides: 0.9 and 3.1 ft of SLR • 20-25 year event: 0.9 and 3.1 ft of SLR (river floods valley) • 100-year coastal event: 0 and 6.6 ft of SLR (most extreme) Timing Probability of occurrence by tills date 4 SLR Coastal RetUr n Period Fluvial RetUr n Period Discharge Increase T.3 C 3.,:. na Oft _GO Ear 100-year n a 2040 1 0.9 ft King Tide n/'a n/ a 2-0 1 0.9 ft 20-yea r 25-yea r 2-0 1 3.1 ft King rig Tide n/;3 n j'a 2-0 1 3.1 ft 20- ea r 25- e;3 r 7. 12 ff' 2100 �O,5 6.6 ft 10 0-ear n/3 nj'a Exposure — go to map Sensitivity The ass is level of impairment if flooded temporarily r permanently, or if affected by erosion or Naves Forage fish Sewage system and Delp lift stations Development in habitat Degraded Forested waterfront distract applied Existing wetland systems(already SLR analysis) ecosystem mall Tribal fishing Emergency Trail areas business access route Low efisftl111t]f oyster farms/ Hospitalwithkey Parking lot Croup of Shellfish infrastructure in Boat Individual houses beds basement ramps/ house Migrant access worker Sensitive housing cultural resources esassac_aam 11 Development rights in subdivisions that constrain development/rebuilding TBD: Piers at Cherry Point High Sensitivity E SA Adaptive Capacity The ass is ability to change and respond to a hazard or bounce back High Adaptive Capacitor esa ssac..00 m Emergency access route Parking lot Trail Interim codes Existing regulations 12 Timescale of adaptive capacitor Levees/ sea dikes Small business High capital investments Hospital with key infrastructure in basement ent Define terms in coordination with other agencies Low Adaptive Capacitor ESi Vulnerability Assessment Summaries Assets Fire Station Evaluated Sandy Point Hatchery ■ 606 Structures (Homes buildings) ■ 182 Undeveloped Parcels Exposure to Hazard and Consequences ■ Under existing conditions f i. e_, no SLR , 43 structures, including the fire station, and 114 undeveloped parcels flood annually during king tides. Five structures are also currently %vithin the erasion hazard zone. ■ D.8 ft -of SLR (2840-2060) — 143 structures and 119 undeveloped parcels (all south of Cleo Rose Ln) expected to flood during king tides. — During the 20- +ear event: 339 structures and 127 undeveloped parcels expected to flood. — 75 structures expected to be in the erosion hazard zone by 2040_ ■ 3.3 ft -of SLR (2880-2100) — 417 structures and 130 undeveloped parcels expected to flood during king tides- - During the 20- +ear event: 432 structures(all but 15 south of Cleo Rose Ln), and 133 undeveloped parcels expected to flood. — 130 structures and 4 undeveloped parcels expected to be in the erosion hazard zone by 2080. ■ 432 structures and 133 undeveloped parcels expected to flood during the 100-year event with 6.6 ft of SLR_ LJ ztrurtures and 4 undeveloped parcels expected to be in the erosion hazard zone by 2100. Vulnerability Assessment Asset Category Asset Potential Sensitivity Adaptive Vulnerability Exposure to to Hazard Capacity of Hazard Asset tfIJ Wres Fire Station F Medium ,' Il a rs Mecum milk �`HcNee;��1�ire V i Medium'� �� Low (South of 14I1�dio um -High %-1 edi ui77 � Rose Ln) ,�,;r, �Ie�iirl..��.i Cleo Rose Ln) High (North of Medium -Low Low (15) I'd e,-liLI rn Medium -Lour Timeline & Public Engagement Public Workshops Present hazard maps and collect input �w JUL AUG SEP OCT NO Present exposure analysis and gather input on sensitivity and adaptive capacity �� a •tip w Final report Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment, City of Oceanside W % sI MAR APR MAY JUN Present vulnerability assessment results LocalRwds: SPagse • H. Street • Gretpr. so-ree� N, coagww YW.y Suhider Wry Wrsmns�n Avenue nos C nzyortation Rouar, • CA Raohs�7s-1 • Next steps: • Final report to Council in July 2023 •Questions/Recommendations? • https:Z) f www. utube.com/watch?v=gQrg- wOHhMc Date: 4/10/2023 To: Sue Sullivan, Whatcom County Health and Community Services Steve Roberge, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services From: WRIA 1 Planning Unit RE: Annual review and comments on the Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan The Water Resource Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1) Planning Unit received a presentation from Sue Sullivan with Whatcom County Health and Community Services on January 25, 2023 with a request to review and provide comment on implementation of the CWSP. Planning Unit caucuses reviewed and discussed the CWSP and motioned to submit the following comments to Health and Community Services and to Planning and Development Services at the March 22, 2023 meeting. Please note that these are compiled comments from the Fishers, Water Districts, Environmental, and Agriculture caucuses that the Planning Unit unanimously recommended to submit. We also believe the Coordinated Water System Plan plays an important role in water management planning, which has implications for land use planning efforts. We hope Whatcom County can help integrate land use planning and water resources management to ensure that homes and businesses in our county have sufficient access to water in the years ahead and to ensure development activities do not adversely impact water resources. Without sufficient planning, development will occur in areas without reliable water access. We look forward to working with the county on their 2025 Comprehensive Plan update, which provides an opportunity to prevent excessive development in rural parts of the county without reliable water access. Respectfully, Chris Elder Chair, WRIA 1 Planning Unit WRIA 1 PLANNING UNIT Water Resources Caucuses • Agriculture • Land Development (inactive) • Environmental • Non -Government Water Systems (inactive) • Fishers • Private Well Owners • Forestry (inactive) Government Agency Caucuses • City of Bellingham (inactive) • Diking/Drainage (inactive) • Federal (inactive) • PUD No. 1 of Whatcom County • Port of Bellingham (inactive) • Small Cities (inactive) • State (inactive) • Water Districts • Whatcom County September 30, 2019 Page 2 Fishers Caucus Comments and Review: Section 8 "The purpose of this section is to identify the issues that may affect the management of water by and for public water systems in Whatcom County" The Section 8 discussion provides a summary intended to provide awareness and understanding of various issues that may affect the purpose and operation of these systems. Preliminary statements before review and comments: 1. The Coordinated Water Supply Plan (CWSP) should be integrated into Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. Housing should be located near existing potable water sources. 3. Development in rural areas should not exceed the capacity of the land to support potable water and septic needs of the development. 4. Potable water sources and well head protections should be in place for rural areas and future development. 8.1 — 8.3 Tribal water issues that may affect future use of potable water in Whatcom County: Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Tribe maintain that their treaty- reserved rights to fishing and water rights are affected by the water quantity and quality in the Nooksack River and the tributaries. State water permits issued by the State may have impaired their treaty rights. Resolution of these issues is beyond the scope of the CWSP update. Solutions to these issues will impact all water users in Whatcom County. More will be revealed in the near future. 8.4: (Pg. 12-19) Existing and Potential Water Quality Problems: The Department of Health lists a myriad of problems and causes of contaminated potable water described as, bacterial contamination (coliform), elevated nitrate levels Additionally, some individual ground water wells are still testing positive for volatile organic contamination and ethylene dibromide chemicals (EDB) acting as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Some public water associations are diluting the contaminated potable water from other sources to meet the standards. Dilution is not the Solution for contaminated drinking water. 1. The Whatcom County Farm Service Agency (FSA) could be a help in areas of September 30, 2019 Page 2 contaminated drinking water. Farm Plans and Manure Management. 2. Whatcom County Conservation District could also play a part in water resource protections. 3. The Department of Ecology could also provide proactive help with ground water and surface water protections where point sources have been identified. LIM Water Use Efficiency: 1. There are many benefits associated with developing a Water Use Efficiency Plan (WUEP); water conservation being the goal. 2. The WUEP should be adopted by all water suppliers with Reporting Required. 3. Metering is a key component for the purpose of monitoring the WUEP. 4. Well owners should be encouraged to monitor water quality, quantity, depth to water, and water use on a volunteer basis, including identification of wells that go dry during the summer months. 5. Global warming and huge swings in weather patterns in the Pacific Northwest are ever present. To be prepared, Whatcom County requires a WUEP Water Districts' Caucus Comments and Review: Pg 2-10 CWSP: A goal of the Coordination Act is to provide for an adequate supply of potable water for consumptive use while recognizing that water supplies are finite and variable within the County and must be used efficiently. A second goal is to ensure that an adequate supply of water is readily available to serve projected growth and land uses. These goals represent a nexus between water supply planning and land use planning. Growth strategies must take into account the availability of water when conducting land suitability and capacity assessments acknowledging existing uses. The 2016 CWSP stated that; Forecasts suggest that the population of Whatcom County will increase by approximately 70,000 people by 2036 and approximately 200,000 people by 2065. The projected 2065 population is nearly double the existing population. This additional population will place increasing demand on the County's public water systems. o 80% of the 208,000 residents obtained their drinking water from public water systems September 30, 2019 Page 2 o Existing municipal and non -governmental water suppliers (serving both urban and rural areas) are expected to provide water service to more than 90 percent of the new growth projected over the next 20 years. 0 415 public water systems serving approximately 170,559 population o Currently exceeding water rights = 6 public water systems o Projected to exceed water right limits at full buildout = 16 public water systems o Enough water rights to meet current and future projected = 15 public water systems o More water rights than current and future expected = 53 public water systems o No data on system = 12 public water systems o Figures suggest 41,741 people are supplied water by private wells On a Critical Water Supply Service Area (CWSSA) wide basis, the public water systems collectively hold more than enough water rights to meet projected demand. However, there are individual water systems that have excess water rights and some that have insufficient water rights. IN THE FUTURE, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR SYSTEMS TO WORK TOGETHER TO MEET DEMANDS. THE COUNTY SHOULD ENCOURAGE COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHARING AMONG SYSTEMS. Water District Caucus Opinion: CWSP Implementation Comments; 1) To date, we have not seen the County encourage cooperation and resource sharing among systems, or identify where and if the opportunity exists. 2) EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO RECOGINIZE THAT EVEN IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COOPERATION AND RESOURCE SHARING REQUIRES A WILLINGNESS AND CAPACITY TO COOPERATE, WHICH IN REALITY MOST SYSTEMS MAY NOT BE WILLING OR ABLE TO DO FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS. CWSP relationship to upcoming Comp Plan Update; 1) DOE rules around water rights make protecting these water rights difficult 2 DOE rules around sharing of these resources are difficult including challenges to a. Wholesaling water outside service area b. Wholesaling water outside UGA 3) DOE is re -writing these rules which most likely will only make it more difficult to share these resources 4) The upcoming adjudication will only make this sharing more difficult 5) The legislative "Hirst fix" was for 20 years. New exempt wells beyond that 20 year will be difficult September 30, 2019 Page 2 6) Existing county reconciliation between water supply and land use is based on the premise that where public water is not available, exempt well under the "Hirst fix" will be the supply for growth. 7) Whatcom County needs to develop a strategy to assist these public water systems thru the adjudication such that the County's vision for the future of Whatcom County has the water available to meet the County's adopted land use, beyond the "Hirst fix". 8) The 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update will be crucial in developing this strategy (County designated land use drives how much water is needed) and must clearly demonstrate that water supply is available to support the proposed land use, not based on broad assumptions loosely developed in prior CWSP's estimate of rural capacity. 9) The adjudication will eventually result in negotiations with the Federal Dept of Interior - The Dept. of Interior has a stated goal of providing "a solid foundation for future economic development for entire communities dependent on common water resources" EMPESIS ADDED, I.E. WITHOUT CLEARLY DETERMINED COMMON WATER RESOURCES EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING CANNOT BE ACHIEVED. EXISTING USES MAY ALSO BE IMPACTED. 10) Whatcom County's strategy to meet the projected land use will be crucial in successfully participating in these negotiations and defining what a solid foundation for future economic development for entire communities entails. 11) Updating the CWSP (as soon as possible) affords Whatcom County the opportunity to begin developing their strategy for assisting public water systems in continuing the ability to provide service to Whatcom County's current and future designated land use. 12) Updating the CWSP (as soon as possible) affords Whatcom County the opportunity to clarify their understanding of water supply capacity in light of land use decisions and subsequently where support is needed to support projected growth. 13) Updating the CWSP must include a pragmatic look at the capacity of existing public water systems to meet the projected demand. Many small systems appear to have capacity to meet growth at first glance from a water rights view point. However, using a perceived water right capacity as the indicator of capacity to deliver water can be misleading because water rights capacity does not translate into capacity to deliver water. Such assumptions in rural areas will inherently drive growth to rely on exempt wells based on the "Hirst fix", which after the 20 yr time period is very questionable Environmental Caucus Comments and Review 1. Incorporate climate change planning into the CWSP process. The current CWSP doesn't even mention climate change, which is problematic on numerous levels. The WRIA 1 region currently experiences two primary water challenges: high flow events during wet months and insufficient streamflows during dry months; climate change will only make these extremes more pronounced. Climate change is already having impacts on water September 30, 2019 Page 2 resources in Whatcom County, and scientists predict that as the climate warms, the hydrology of the Nooksack watershed will change dramatically. Scientific research predicts that climate warming will cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, while causing snowpack to melt earlier in the year, thereby leading to further reductions in summer streamflows. This will adversely impact fish, farmers, and municipal and industrial use in the decades ahead. Researchers also project that climate change will increase extreme rainfall events, peak flows, and flooding during wet months (Dalton et al. 2013; Warner et al. 2015; Mauger et al. 2015). The legislature is currently considering a bill (SB 5094) that would require group A water systems to include a climate resilience element in their annual plans. The bill would also require the Washington Department of Health to update its water system planning guidebook to assist water systems in implementing this climate resilience element, including guidance on any available technical and financial resources. Group A water systems would be required to determine what kinds of extreme weather events may pose challenges to their system, and to establish plans to enhance the resilience of their systems to these impacts. We believe Whatcom County should proactively take steps to integrate climate change planning into its water resources planning efforts. This should include a consideration of how increased flood events may contribute to water quality problems in aquifers and streams that serve thousands of individuals and businesses throughout the county. Additionally, the county should actively consider how reductions in summer streamflow and groundwater reserves caused by climate change may impact water resources planning relating to the CWSP. We believe that by taking these steps, the county will help improve the resilience of our water infrastructure to future climate impacts, which thereby enhances the overall resilience of our communities to these impacts. 2. Adopt water -use efficiency (WUE) strategies to meet the goals of the CWSP Water -use efficiency needs to be treated in a substantive, comprehensive, and Whatcom- specific fashion. The 2016 plan dealt with efficiency in a generic, almost dismissive fashion. A useful starting point might be the comprehensive Saving Water Partnership run by Seattle Public Utilities and 18 other water utilities in the Puget Sound region. The report should present historical data (not estimates) of utility water use showing trends over the past couple of decades. According to data from Bellingham, Lynden, Birch Bay and the PUD a few years ago, there appear to be general declines in per -capita water use, which is an encouraging and important trend. However, whether this trend continues is uncertain. We need to know whether non-agricultural water use is increasing, decreasing, or remaining roughly constant over time. Such data are readily available from each utility, and are reported to the state Dept. of Health each year, and therefore should be incorporated into the CWSP. 3. Integrate land use planning and water resources planning We believe the CWSP plays an important role in water management planning, which has implications for land use planning efforts. We hope Whatcom County can help integrate land use planning and water resources management to ensure that homes and businesses in our September 30, 2019 Page 2 county have sufficient access to water in the years ahead and to ensure development activities do not adversely impact water resources. Without sufficient planning, development will occur in areas without reliable water access. We look forward to working with the county on their 2025 Comprehensive Plan update, which provides an opportunity to prevent excessive development in rural parts of the county without reliable water access. Agricultural Caucus Comments and Review: Thoughts on Coordination of Water and Land Use Planning Introduction Whatcom County is defined by its natural beauty. And our history and economy is based on the management of our natural resources. Fishing, forestry, farming, and recreation depend on our ability to ensure these resources are preserved and properly managed. How to manage these precious resources lies at the heart of the debates over land and water policy. Tribes and commercial fishers are frustrated with declining fish runs. Farmers face the challenge of urban and rural sprawl eroding the critical mass of farmland needed to support an ag support economy. Foresters are challenged by the diminishing amount of harvestable timberlands. And recreation advocates need to plan for growing demand for access to nature. Population growth and, especially, climate change complicate all these considerations. Linking Land and Water Farmers have always understood our role as stewards of the productive soils and water resources in the lowlands. We have responsibilities to manage these resources well for the benefit of the entire community. We need to have the tools at our disposal to be sustainable managers. One of these tools is adequate water for irrigation and stockwatering. Our needs are not unlike the needs of an industrial zone. No one would expect to lure a new industry to a site that couldn't guarantee the resources needed to function — electricity, access to transportation and internet, drainage, water, etc. The same understanding should be true in the AGRICULTURE zone. We will likely see the continued loss of farms and farmland if we don't confront this fact. The current debate over the future of our water supply clearly illustrates this. Proposal Have the County guarantee 18" of water to all productive acres within the ag zone. To receive this water landowners have to demonstrate active productivity (same criteria as in ag open space) and may have to forfeit both existing water rights and development rights. This action would move ag water supply out of the water code and into Growth Management. There would be an incentive to preserve farmland and even create incentives to have some of the agland in the rural zone moved from R-5 to AG. The County Comp Plan needs to figure out how they would supply the water. If they can't supply water it should not be zoned AG. There are numerous sources to draw upon - the farm location would dictate the most efficient source. For example, land with wells that have minimal impact on any surface stream they would be used in the current form. For higher impact use locations they could be supplied by pipelines, use current sources that are mitigated with storage, augmentation, deep aquifers, Middle Fork rights, etc. September 30, 2019 Page 2 Farmers are responsible for the application of water on their farm. The Public supplies the water to the farm. Farmer contributions may be the forfeiting of development rights and/or existing water rights. This creates an incentive to preserve and maintain productive ag. September 30, 2019 Page 2 Effect of Proposal If farmers were guaranteed water to be able to farm they wouldn't need to worry about obstacles such as adjudication, relinquishment and Annual Consumptive Quantity. The County would need the state to change some water laws to be able to ensure enough water deposits. The County would set the standards for qualification to enter the program. They may choose to create a water bank to administer this program (promote efficiency, record -keeping, etc.). Such a major change in how we manage the future of our land and water resources could only be developed via a collaborative process that includes the State, the County, and the Tribes. It should start with the Comp Plan and begin to make our land use plan a reality instead of a goal. We'd need support of the broad community, including the Tribes and environment community, to advance this. It depends on our will to do what is necessary to be sure our community is the place we want it to be for our grandchildren and subsequent generations. JaxS f-D S rq;z Lli Z MA Northwest Straits INITIATIVE r PUGETSOUNY PARTNERSHIP Y �t -' Northwest ---a COMMIS SID N 9 Northwest Straits INITIATIVE Northwest F0 LFNOAII ON NOAA Marine Sanctuary proposed for Northwest Straits in 1990's Northwest Straits iniliafiae . I .`- No Murray -Metcalf Commissiol recommends replicating MR( r, MRC = Marine Resources Committee I C i•Vlrntcciiv CCiuht� Northwest tiStraits lNiTIATIVi: Snohomish Coui Marine Resources ' Committee f. feRereo-, en4 �Y M3rinA =rittteee& Gvrr�m Puget Sound Partnership/EPA $37,000 *Value of volunteer hours In 2022, Whatcom MRC members and community volunteers contributed 1,020 volunteer hours. *Estimated value of each volunteer hour in 2022 was $29.95 (independentsector.org). $30,549 Tine committee, Member Representation Glen (Alex) Alexander Citizen -at -Large Jim Boyle Conservation/Environmental Elma Burnham Economic Bob Cecile Citizen -at -Large Jackie Dexter Economic Andrew Gamble Economic Eleanor Hines Scientific Expertise Kathy Ketteridge Citizen -at -Large Elizabeth Lorence Conservation/Environmental Mike MacKay Scientific Expertise Heather Spore Scientific Expertise Dan Sulak Recreational Paul Troutman Recreational Colin Wahl Conservation/Environmental AItc Ylbtas, Ex-DffiGsb:t-, aAd St Kurt Baumgarten* Port of Bellingham Todd Donovan* Whatcom County Council Austin Rose Whatcom County Public Works - Natural Resources 2022 Whatcom M RC Projects • Chuckanut Pollution Identification and Correction Program • Pilot Olympia Oyster Restoration • Bull Kelp Monitoring • Forage Fish Surveys • Beach Seine with Kids • Remote Beach Clean-up x Iry Y` � f il T North Chuckanut Bay- FRESHWATER Fecal Coliform 90th Percentile 50 September 2019 - August 2022 45 Dots = Average over past 12 months ♦ A black dot above the bar 40 ♦ indicates hacteria levels haveheeeirreasiaginthe C 35 pasttwelve—ft a 30 0 ♦ Bars Ave rage over past 3 years H 25 ♦ =Meeting the heath benchmark by = Failing the health benchmark c 20 u � 15 a: freshwater health benchmark 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 0 CBS Ma C63 CB4 065 CE6 CB7 Sample Sites 25C 200 E g 150 u E 6 U too w 50 0 North Chuckanut Bay- MARINE WATER Fecal Coliform 90th Percentile September 2019 - August 2022 cM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 Sample Sites 3ars = 30 sample est 90th percentile = Meeting the health standard = Failing the health standard iarine water health standard Pilot Olympia Oyster Restoration Project Average LAVE Olympia Oyster 60 INS as 8 �30 8-20 10 0 2019 2020 2(Q 1 2022 Pr-- Bull Kelp Monitoring 45.8 acres 4 beds surveyed 3.8 acres a beds surveyed 0 97.6 acres t 5 beds surveyed � 55.5 acres 5 beds surveyed 3 7.7 acres 3 beds surveyed 21.6 acres 4 beds surveyed Forage Fish Surveys Since this project began in 1972: • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has conducted 30,000 beach surveys. • MRCs and partners have conducted nearly 7,500 more. Combined efforts have identified over: • 371 miles of Surf Smelt spawning habitat. • 141 miles of Sand Lance spawning habitat. • According to NOAA's shoreline mileage, that means at least 1 2.3% percent of Washington's total shore line has been used for surf smelt spawning, and 4.7% has been documented as sand lance spawning habitat. Kate Olson, Forage Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Beach Seine with Kids Purpose: To have students observe juvenile salmon using their intertidal habitat along the shoreline and to understand that marine intertidal zones are migratory corridors for juvenile salmon �L Remote Beach Cleanup Pry rtnP re Whatcom County Council Whatcom County Executive Port of Bellingham City of Bellingham Lummi Nation Taylor Shellfish Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ReSources Bellingham Technical College Whatcom Watersheds Information Network Funding and Support Northwest Straits Commission Northwest Straits Foundation Puget Sound Partnership U.S. Environmental Protection Agency