Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet Water Work Session Jul 14 2020
Whatcom County Council Water Work Session COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360) 778-5010 Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:30 AM Virtual Meeting VIRTUAL MEETING - VIEW ONLINE COUNCILMEMBERS Rud Browne Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kathy Kershner CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. Council Water Work Session Meeting Agenda July 14, 2020 Call To Order Roll Call Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Mannement (BBWARM) District 2019 Annual Report and 2019 Financial Report Water Resources Update Potential Water Rights Adjudication and Settlement Adjournment Whatcom County Page 2 Printed on 21512024 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JON HUTCHINGS Director MEMORANDUM NATURAL RESOURCES 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 110 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 778-6230 FAX: (360) 778-6231 www.whatcomcounty.us TO: The Honorable Satpal Singh Sidhu, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Jon Hutchings, Director FROM: Gary S. Stoyka, Natural Resources Program Manager DATE: July 7, 2020 RE: July 14, 2020 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, July 14, 2020 Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Place: Virtual Meeting Time Topic Council Action Background Information Requested Attached Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Informational 2019 Annual Report and 10:30 AM — Management (BBWARM) District Annual Financial Report 10:45 AM 2019 Annual Report and 2019 Financial See Pages 1-22 Report 10:45 AM — 11:00 AM Water Resources Update Informational None 11:00 AM — 12:00 PM Potential Water Rights Adjudication and Discussion Ecology Adjudication Settlement Handout and PowerPoint, Position letters See Pa es 23-65 If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (360) 778-6218. cc: Mike McFarlane Jim Karcher Paula Harris Beth Bushaw Jeff Hegedus John Thompson Tyler Schroeder Josh Fleischmann Karen Frakes George Boggs Roland Middleton Dana Brown -Davis Mark Personius Ryan Ericson Lonni Cummings John Wolpers Kraig Olason Jennifer Schneider Atina Casas Kristi Felbinger Mike Donahue Erika Douglas Jill Nixon Cathy Craver a�v�AR3 Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management District FINDING STORMWATER SOLUTIONS June 30, 2020 Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225 Dear FCZD Board of Supervisors: Please find enclosed the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) District 2019 Annual Report and 2019 Financial Report. The annual report provides an overview of the BBWARM stormwater program for the Birch Bay watershed and a summary of District activities and accomplishments in 2019. The financial report provides information on the BBWARM fund and 2019 expenditures. BBWARM was established by the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors in March 2007 as a subzone to manage stormwater in the Birch Bay watershed and address community concerns about water quality, aquatic habitat and localized flooding. The BBWARM stormwater program implements recommendations from the Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The BBWARM Advisory Committee has worked with Whatcom County Public Works to develop a BBWARM work plan and budget focusing on capital improvements, subwatershed planning, and encouraging voluntary adoption of practices that protect water quality in the Birch Bay watershed. This report is provided for your information and we appreciate this opportunity to share BBWARM program accomplishments with you. Please contact Holly Faulstich with Whatcom County Public Works Stormwater at (360) 778-6290 or hfaulsti@co.whatcom.wa.us with questions about the BBWARM program. Sincerely, Scott Hulse, Chairman BBWARM Advisory Committee cc Satpal Singh Sidhu, Whatcom County Executive Jon Hutchings, Public Works Director Kraig Olason, Stormwater Program Manager Gary Stoyka, Natural Resources Program Manager BBWARM Advisory Committee 1 .�Em. NOW-Ab i W-.; � — �� Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources Management District . — - _, I ZUI U Annual Report Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources Management District Whatcom County Public Works—Stormwater 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 778-6210 www.bbwarm.whatcomcounty.org �iA S 2 What is BBWARM? The Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) District is a stormwater special purpose district. BBWARM was established by Whatcom County Council to address citizen concerns about water quality, flooding, and the loss of aquatic habitat in the Birch Bay watershed. MISSION BBWARM promotes actions that reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff by decreasing the threat of flooding to private and public property and by improving and protecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and the quality of life that a healthy watershed provides. STORMWATER PROGRAM GOALS f" BLA INE 0P � Legend ao f2 BBWARM District Boundary S4AT��o DR NPD1111, ell Boundary RBOR HARBOR In—p—ted Cities - Rivers and Streams xopdi wK� Raads BIRCH'BAY _ BIRCH BAY m r Lake Terrell BBWARM District P� N w 1 • Improve and protect water quality • Increase citizen participation in watershed stewardship • Reduce impacts from stormwater flooding • Use public funds effectively to achieve desired outcomes • Provide open communication about program actions • Improve stormwater retention time and capacity in the watershed 2019 Stormwater Program Highlights • Completed a capital improvement project on Birch Bay Drive & Pt. Whitehorn Road to improve drainage by installing a new conveyance system and stormwater outfall. • Reached the 100% design phase for a capital improvement project on Harborview Road. • Completed three small works projects within the Birch Bay watershed. • Performed maintenance and repair activities, including a log cleanout in Roger's Slough. • Completed a habitat improvement project on a tributary of Terrell Creek. • Revamped the Watershed Watchers volunteer program in Birch Bay and partnered with the Health Department to develop a successful Adopt -a -Block Program. • Investigated 64 citizen reports of drainage, erosion, flooding or water quality problems. • Increased public awareness of stormwater issues and BBWARM projects through outreach events, mailings, and media. • Worked with the Whatcom County Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program to monitor fecal coliform pollution in the Birch Bay watershed. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 2 3 Citizen Advisory Committee BBWARM has an advisory committee with five members appointed by the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. The committee represents community interests in the Birch Bay stormwater program and provides recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and Whatcom County Public Works on BBWARM strategic goals, projects, work plans, budgets and priorities. 2019 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS • Scott Hulse (Point Whitehorn) • William Booth (central Birch Bay) • Don Brown (rate payer representative for Leisure Park) • Sandra Lahn (central Birch Bay) • Patrick Alesse (central Birch Bay) BBWARM Stormwater Program The BBWARM stormwater program is based on the Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan and addresses three types of stormwater issues: water quantity problems (flooding), water quality problems (pollution), and loss of aquatic habitat. To use resources efficiently, BBWARM develops partnerships with other agencies and organizations to address these issues. Visit www.bbwarm.whatcomcounty.org for more information on the BBWARM stormwater program, history, and current projects. PROGRAM AREAS • Capital improvement projects • Maintenance and small works • Habitat Improvement • Education and outreach • Water quality monitoring • Program management & administration BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 3 2019 Accomplishments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Stormwater capital improvement projects (CIPs) are construction projects that replace failing infrastructure and/or improve drainage systems to protect water quality and reduce the risk of flooding. CIPs typically include stormwater facilities like treatment swales, vaults, and catch basins that remove pollutants from stormwater. They may also include new beach outfall structures that protect the shoreline from erosion or reduce maintenance requirements. Capital projects are designed to reduce the risk of flooding by improving stormwater flow capacity. BBWARM's CIP program is based on the Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan and three Subwatershed Master Plans. Birch Bay Drive & Pt. Whitehorn Road Drainage Improvements Project In December 2017, the failure of a corrugated metal outfall pipe on Point Whitehorn caused significant slope failure on a steep bluff to the shoreline, posing a critical public safety issue and the potential loss of personal property. Iverson Earth Works, LLC spent a week in early January 2019 clearing vegetation, debris and loose material from the slide area and stabilizing the slope with rock. Washington Conservation Corps crew and county staff installed native vegetation adjacent to the slope, including three western red cedar trees and 25 Hooker willow live stakes. In addition to the failed outfall, the existing stormwater system along this section of Birch Bay Drive had pipes prone to flooding and a severely incised outfall to an existing pond just east of Point Whitehorn Road. The goals of this project were to improve drainage along Birch Bay Drive by installing an upsized storm pipe conveyance system and reduce the possibility of future bluff failures by constructing a new outfall into the beaver pond. Iverson Earth Works, LLC was identified as the lowest bidder for Phase 2 of the project, and construction began on September 16, 2019. Approximately 3,000 feet of storm pipe (varying from 12" to 24" in diameter) and 30 catch basins were installed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. Stormwater runoff is now routed away from the steep, unstable bluff and into the improved outfall. Standing water issues along the shoulder of Birch Bay Drive were identified in early 2020 and several French drains were installed to redirect this water into the stormwater system. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 4 r Harborview Road & Birch Bay Drive Storm Drainage Improvements This project will involve installation of a new 100-year storm drainage conveyance system along Birch Bay Drive and Harborview Road to a new outfall in Birch Bay. The goal is to improve upland stormwater conveyance, eliminate backwater flooding of nearshore drainage systems during high tide events, and minimize tidal/stormwater flooding on the road right-of-way and adjacent properties. In 2019, this project reached 100% design completion and permit applications were submitted in May. Construction was anticipated to begin in September 2020, but a delay in the permit review process caused this project to be rescheduled for September 2021. BBWARM staff are reconsidering capital improvement project timelines to take advantage of the 2020 construction season. Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project Harborview Road and Birch Bay Drive Storm Drainage Improvements Area of Potential Effect This project will restore the natural shoreline, protect the roadway from storm damage and support pedestrian safety with a separated berm trail that runs 1.58 miles in length along the beach from the mouth of Terrell Creek to Cedar Avenue. Granite Construction began work for this project in December 2019 and continued through May 2020 for the first project season. The shoreline work for the project will be on hiatus from June through September 2020 and wrap up in February 2021. Path Type I: On Berm �.r •� c �m .'Rani MAINTENANCE & SMALL WORKS PROJECTS BBWARM coordinates with the Whatcom County Public Works National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Maintenance and Operations (M&O) programs on the maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities in county road rights -of -way. M&O is responsible for the maintenance of drainage facilities along county roads. Whatcom County's NPDES permit requires additional stormwater system inspection and maintenance in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area (UGA). BBWARM works to assist Whatcom County with the maintenance of stormwater systems and enhance the level of service provided by M&O and required by the NPDES permit. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 5 2 M&O activities completed in 2019 included: • Improved coordination between the NPDES and BBWARM programs regarding inventory, inspection, maintenance, and small works projects. • Repaired several broken curbs located above catch basins within the Bay Crest subdivision. • Removed debris from trash racks during storm events. • Of the 876 publicly -owned catch basins in Birch Bay, 549 were inspected, 306 cleaned and 73 repaired. Additionally, two filter vaults were cleaned and the filter cartridges replaced. • Six county -owned flow control facilities, treatment facilities, and stream restoration locations were regularly maintained (e.g. monitoring, watering, weeding, mowing, invasive plant removal, tree removal, and trash/debris removal) by M&O and the Sherriff's correction crew. Small Works Projects BBWARM's small works program aims to address chronic maintenance and repair projects in the Birch Bay watershed. All small works projects identified in the subwatershed master plans are evaluated and ranked based on time, cost, severity, access, permitting and other factors in order to develop work plans and prioritize drainage improvement projects. As new incidents are reported by community members, they are investigated and added to the list. Storm damage on Birch Bay Drive In early 2019, the M&O crew was busy with maintenance and repairs from the catastrophic storm that struck Birch Bay in late December 2018 ("Solstice Eve Storm"). Damage response included clearing downed trees, removing debris from catch basin grates and pipe inlets, vactoring and video inspection of sumps and culvert, repairing 6 of the 9 mutt mitt stations, and removing logs and debris from the mouth of Roger's Slough to assist with stormwater drainage into the bay. Several repairs and improvements were made to existing capital improvement project infrastructure and a drainage repair project was completed on Terrill Drive. Later in the year, drainage improvements were made in several neighborhoods, including ditch maintenance and stabilization, catch basin replacements and culvert installations. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 0 Several of the small works projects completed in 2019 included: Terrill Drive Drainage Repair: The M&O crew removed a rotten and collapsed storm drain pipe within the road right -of-way on Terrill Drive and installed a new pipe and catch basin in April 2019 to improve stormwater conveyance in the neighborhood (photo right). Henley Street/Cottonwood Creek Gully Stabilization: Stormwater runoff caused severe erosion and undercutting of tree roots on a steep embankment down to Cottonwood Creek. This small works project, completed in October 2019, was designed to provide channel stabilization measures associated with ditch and culvert systems. A cross culvert was installed under Henley Street to convey all runoff to one side of the street, improve drainage and reduce erosion/sediment transport into the creek (photos below). Nootka Loop Duckbill Check Valve (not vet completed): A new "duckbill" check valve (a type of tide gate) and catch basin are planned for installation at the inlet of the pipe under the entrance to Birch Bay Village (Nootka Loop Road). This ditch drains directly into a slough off of Birch Bay and flooding usually occurs in conjunction with high tides and rain events. The project's goal is to reduce regular flooding to Birch Bay Village homes along the frontage of Birch Bay Drive. Design, permitting and archaeological survey were completed on this small works project in 2019 and it is scheduled for construction in summer 2020 (photo right of flooded ditch). BBWARM 2019 Annual Report H 7 HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS Through the completion of habitat improvement projects and restoration work parties, BBWARM seeks to fulfill its mission of improving and protecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and the quality of life that a healthy watershed provides. Since 1991, the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) has performed habitat restoration projects to remove migratory barriers to fish by fixing broken culverts or replacing culverts with bridges. In September 2019, BBWARM partnered with NSEA to replace a barrier culvert with a new 20' x 12' bridge in order to improve fish passage on Bryan Butler Creek, a tributary of Terrell Creek. The removal of this barrier allows fish to access approximately 0.7 miles of upstream habitat, including two forested ponds ideal for summer rearing. Before (left) and after (right) photos of the habitat improvement project on Bryan Butler Creek BBWARM staff partnered with NSEA and the Whatcom Conservation District (WCD) for two Terrell Creek restoration work parties in 2019. On March 30, over 1,480 pounds of invasive Himalayan blackberry were removed and 150 native trees and shrubs were planted with the help of volunteers. On November 23, volunteers and staff successfully planted, blue -tubed, mulched, and caged 256 native plants that we brought out to the site. These new plants will grow into a riparian forest that will help maintain a healthy stream ecosystem. EDUCATION & OUTREACH BBWARM's education and outreach programs seek to increase public awareness of stormwater problems and promote voluntary actions that help protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and stormwater systems. Many BBWARM education and outreach activities are provided in partnership with other organizations working in the Birch Bay watershed, including Friends of Birch Bay State Park, Whatcom Conservation District, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association and others. General outreach activities in 2019 included: • Mailing the annual BBWARM newsletter to all BBWARM ratepayers and watershed residents (approximately 7,000). • Sending out monthly e-newsletters to over 500 interested citizens with information about BBWARM meetings and upcoming events. • Updating the BBWARM website with program information at www.bbwarm.whatcomcounty.orR BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 0 OUTREACH EVENTS BBWARM works with partners to host special watershed outreach events and provide information and activities at local festivals. The BBWARM booth provides an opportunity for local residents and visitors to learn more about the BBWARM program, stormwater, water quality issues and watershed stewardship in the Birch Bay watershed. What's the Point: A Beach Discovery Event at Pt. Whitehorn LI Nearly 200 community members attended this free, family -friendly beach discovery event on June 15 at the Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve. A negative tide allowed for intertidal zone exploration in an extraordinary stretch of shoreline teeming with wildlife. Trained naturalists led intertidal beach tours, geomorphology talks, and guided bird and nature walks through upland forest. Younger eco-explorers had the chance to participate in a scavenger hunt and view a watershed model that demonstrates how stormwater can impact the Salish Sea. The event was organized by the Whatcom Land Trust and the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Citizen Stewardship Committee, and included educational booths from BBWARM and others. A Day at the Beach at Birch Bay State Park Approximately 80 residents and visitors attended "A Day at the Beach" event held at Birch Bay State Park on June 8. Friends of Birch Bay State Park, BBWARM, and other organizations hosted educational displays and activities at the event. Guests enjoyed taking low tide beach tours with a trained naturalist, playing our "poop toss" game aimed at reminding folks to pick up pet waste, and more! BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 10 Z Beach Cleanup Events July 51h Birch Bay Beach Cleanup: Over 45 community members volunteered the morning after Independence Day to clean up firework debris that would have otherwise washed into Birch Bay. Friends of Birch Bay State Park, Whatcom County Health Department and the Birch Bay Chamber also assisted cleanup efforts throughout the bay, totaling 4.06 tons of garbage collected. August 2nd Cherry Point Beach Cleanup: Over 110 volunteers from the community and local organizations joined the Cherry Point Industries (BP, Alcoa, Petrogas, Phillips 66) for a beach cleanup on August 2. Groups split up along a 10 mile stretch of r ~- beach from Point Whitehorn to Neptune Beach. A mountain of trash bags filled a dumpster at the BP Recreation Area after the event. Large immovable debris such as creosote logs, derelict boats and large buoys were documented using the "MyCoast" app for later retrieval. Food, hats and prizes for most obscure item, heaviest bag and other categories were provided by BP. BBWARM hosted an outreach table at the event with information on our new Adopt -a -Block program. TERRELL CREEK LANDOWNER STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM BBWARM and the Whatcom Conservation District began the collaborative Terrell Creek Landowner Stewardship Program in 2010. This program uses a social marketing approach to help Birch Bay residents and rural Terrell Creek watershed landowners adopt stewardship practices to protect and improve water quality and habitat. Among many other projects in 2019, BBWARM and the WCD coordinated outreach to Terrell Creek property owners to promote restoration priorities through the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and followed up with landowners who inquired about watershed stewardship opportunities on their properties. In 2019, BBWARM and WCD hosted multiple outreach events to promote this program, including: • Terrell Creek Restoration Work Parties — BP property on Jackson Road • Beach Cleanup Events — Cherry Point Recreation Area and central Birch Bay • What's the Point: A Free Beach Discovery Event — Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve • Run with the Chums Sk Fun Run/Walk —BP Highlands in Birch Bay • Orca Recovery Day: Restoration Work Party — Nooksack River, Ferndale • Watershed Watchers Volunteer Training Event — BP Heron Center & Community Church BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 10 11 Run with the Chums 6N The 71" Annual Run with the Chums 5k Fun Run/Walk was one of the most successful events of the year. Approximately 300 runners, walkers, volunteers, kids and dogs gathered at the BP Highlands on September 14 to celebrate healthy water, healthy habitat, and healthy people. The event kicked off with a 1k Smolt Sprint full of salmon-themed obstacles for young racers. Along the route of the 5k, informational signs provided participants with water quality and conservation tips and information to ponder as they moved through this inspirational setting. BBWARM staff attended the event to provide program information and help teach the community about proper dog waste disposal with the Poop Toss game. Watershed Watchers Program The Watershed Watchers volunteer program encompasses activities and trainings such as water quality monitoring, beach cleanups, habitat restoration work parties, storm drain monitoring, litter removal, and education and outreach opportunities. Volunteers were encouraged to use a new Water Reporter app to report stormwater problems associated with drainage, pollution, erosion, infrastructure, maintenance needs, and illegal dumping. BBWARM staff developed a new Adopt -a -Block program in 2019 as part of the existing Watershed Watchers program. This collaborative effort with the Whatcom Conservation District and the Birch Bay Visitor Information Center was designed to give concerned citizens and environmental stewards the opportunity to adopt portions of the community and commit to keep them free of litter, debris and other contaminants. In September 2019, Adopt -a -Block formed a partnership with the Whatcom County Health Department's Adopt -a -Road program to provide a dumpster and extra supplies for volunteers. In 2019, nearly 100 community members had expressed interest in volunteering, 14 litter cleanup kits were checked out, and 34 Adopt -a -Block volunteer hours were recorded. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 11 12 Pet Waste Education BBWARM continues to promote proper pet waste pickup and disposal by maintaining and stocking twelve Mutt Mitt stations (pet waste bag dispensers) with assistance from community volunteers, Whatcom County Parks and the Sanitary Service Company. Educational material and games centered around pet waste make an appearance at most BBWARM outreach events. In December 2018, a storm destroyed nine of the BBWARM Mutt Mitt stations. New signs were fabricated by the sign shop, and the stations were repaired in early 2019. Staff also coordinated with Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) program staff on a pet waste campaign that involved a radio ad, videos, a new website and temporary signs encouraging park visitors to pick up pet waste. In November 2019, a new Mutt Mitt station was installed on Jill Street at the request of the Salish Breeze homeowner's association (photo right). BBWARM Monthly e-Newsletter Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources Management District Monthly Announcements Sign up to receive the BBWARM e-newsletter at: www.bbwarm.whatcomcounty.org. The BBWARM monthly e-newsletter provides information on upcoming meetings, water quality results, volunteer opportunities, news articles, community events and more. MailChimp's advanced analytics give staff the ability to track individual interactions (open rate, click rate, website activity, number of bounces and unsubscribes). This reduces the staff time required to manage multiple distribution lists and provides valuable insights into if/ how the information is being consumed. The twelve newsletters sent out in 2019 were opened a total of 2,044 times and links were clicked 516 times. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 12 13 WATER QUALITY MONITORING d r� BBWARM participates in a comprehensive water quality monitoring program for the Birch Bay watershed managed by Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources. Monitoring focuses on fecal coliform bacteria pollution and provides information on trends and baseline bacteria concentrations. The overall goals of the water quality program are to protect public health, meet water quality standards, and protect the shellfish beds in Birch Bay. The monitoring program identifies priority areas for water quality improvement. Fecal coliform monitoring data is updated monthly and made available online at: www.whatcomcounty.us/2608/Routine-Monitoring-Results. Water quality monitoring activities in 2019 included: • Collecting water quality BB10 FSsle samples throughout the 68°® „ " nn21. 6629 Imo B B6,5 968 •�- ,,� c Terrell Creek watershed twice ae16° ° BBBB6'' maay sae Re 3 nns AEI a month in coordination with BB;' a,r,h Bey qrp.— Whatcom County Pollution , Trinrer °, 'm1PR iere.l' T'bTar� Identification and Correction ii6T.ec+ BG (PIC) program and citizen volunteers. 1 • ..,Ter5.9 • Pox pn { T°17.7 Gr a.iewan I ' - •Ter69 - �ribFine - • Collecting water quality � & � - - N o T., a samples at coastal drainage A' 0.5 ,•,� sites monthly in partnership Legend .Ter84 • Biich Bey FresM1water5lafime with Washington ,T"°`E""' Conservation Corps crew a, nywa�RM1aa members and volunteers. Water quality monitoring sites in the Birch Bay and Terrell Creek watersheds. • Conducting follow-up sampling in priority areas with elevated bacteria levels. • Posting monthly sampling results and biotoxin closure updates for recreational shellfish harvesting. • The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) evaluated water quality results collected by Whatcom County Public Works and published the "2019 Shoreline Survey of the Birch Bay Shellfish Growing Area." No impacts were identified along the shoreline that would result in a downgrade in classification of the commercial shellfish growing area. BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 14 13 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION BBWARM program management and administration activities in 2019 included: • Developing annual budgets and work plans • Producing monthly staff reports, quarterly financial reports and annual progress/financial reports • Coordinating and staffing three BBWARM regular business meetings and one annual retreat • Investigating 64 citizen reports of stormwater-related problems; responding to public inquiries, emails, phone calls • Generating the annual BBWARM fee roll • Responding to fee questions and rate adjustment requests, evaluating special cases, annual inspection report reminders, updating impervious surface layers • Maintaining the incident response database • Evaluating and ranking all capital improvement and small works projects identified in the three subwatershed master plans. 2019 Expenditures The BBWARM stormwater program is funded through a service charge based on the amount of impervious surface on each developed parcel in the Birch Bay watershed. These fees go into a dedicated BBWARM fund and are leveraged with additional grant monies when possible. In 2019, $788,675 was collected in service charge fees and $1,280,980 was spent on BBWARM stormwater program expenses. Expenditures by program area for 2019 are shown below. 2019 BBWARM Program Areas Total Percent Administration $62,112 4.8% Program Management and Development $27,775 2.2% Incident Response $4,805 0.4% Capital Improvement Projects $1,028,672 80.3% Water Quality $6,007 0.5% Maintenance & Operations $1,227 0.1% Small Works Projects $68,896 5.4% Education & Outreach $61,688 4.8% Stormwater Program Support $513 0.0% Habitat Improvement Program $19,286 1.5% Total $1,280,980 100% BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 15 14 2019 EXPENDITURES CONTINUED Year-end financial data in this report were compiled March 20, 2020, and while not expected to change, the data are not final until the completion of the annual financial audit. Official financial records are maintained by Whatcom County separately from this report, which is provided for informational purposes only. Detailed information on BBWARM fund revenue and expenditures is available in the 2019 Financial Report. Capital Improvement Projects 80.3% Water Quality �0.5% � Maintenance & Operations 0.1% Small Works Projects Education & 5.4% Outreach 4.8 % qJ CStorrnwater Program Support 0.0 % Administration Habitat 4.8% Improvement P rog ra m hr 1.5% Program Management and Development 2.2 % Incident Response 0.4 % Total 2019 BBWARM Expenditures: $1,280,980 BBWARM 2019 Annual Report 16 15 4ekVIAJ Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources 17 Management District 2019 Financial Report Fund Overview Funds for the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) District program are generated through a dedicated Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) subzone service charge. This charge for developed properties in the BBWARM District began in 2009. It was authorized by the FCZD Board of Supervisors (Resolution 2008-16) to implement recommendations from the 2006 Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. Service Charge Rates BBWARM service charge rates are based on the percentage of the parcel covered by impervious surfaces such as pavement, gravel driveways and buildings (Table 1). Undeveloped properties are not charged a fee. For single-family residences, an average impervious area of 4,000 square feet is used to calculate the percent impervious area, or development density. This average is based on measurements from a random sample of 152 single-family residences in the BBWARM District and was established as the equivalent service unit (ESU). Each single-family residence is charged for one ESU according to their development density range. A rate adjustment is available for small single-family residences with less than 2,000 square feet of impervious area. For all other developed properties, impervious area is measured and the number of ESUs is calculated. These properties are charged for each ESU according to their development density range. Table 1. BBWARM Service Charge Rate Structure Development Density Range (Percent Impervious Area) Monthly Fee per ESU Yearly Fee Per ESU Low (1 - 10%) $5.02 $60.24 Medium (11 - 50%) $6.25 $75.00 High (>50%) $8.71 $104.52 Fee Roll Process The BBWARM fee roll is developed every fall using multiple custom -designed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Access databases with the most recent aerial photography and assessor data available. Reference Documents For more information, read the Birch Bay Stormwater Funding Analysis and Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan at www.bbwarm.whatcomcountv.ore/about. Fund Balance The BBWARM fund is dedicated to support the BBWARM stormwater program and cannot be used for any other purpose (WCC 100.03). Total fund revenue, expenditures, and balance from 2009 to 2019 are summarized in Table 2 below. From 2009 — 2019, BBWARM has collected an average of $740,601 per year in fees. BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 1 17 Table 2. BBWARM Fund Revenue, Expenditures, and Fund Balance since Inception 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 BBWARM Subzone Revenue BBWARM $682,924 $721,462 $720,344 $742,784 $721,257 $739,695 $767,088 $733,648 $756,663 $772,070 $788,675 Subzone Fees Interest $9,061 $28,083 $15,296 $18,434 $10,290 $11,874 $13,255 $12,752 $16,630 $21,725 $28,124 Penalties $6,357 $1,688 $2,797 $3,518 $2,561 Federal Grant $10,000 $41,861 $103,039 $26,376 $97,018 Reimbursement State Grant $73,309 $20,676 Reimbursement Unrealized $7,965 $4,781 $6,331 $4,660 Gain/Loss Other Misc. $500 $730 $200 $200 $100 $200,000 $200,000 Revenue Total BBWARM Subzone $691,985 $760,045 $778,231 $864,257 $823,466 $777,226 $786,800 $941,757 $771,430 $797,313 $1,116,378 Revenue BBWARM Subzone Expenditures Annual $37,149 $190,236 $675,729 $440,885 $983,692 $1,054,308 $663,407 $842,166 $507,234 $920,009 $1,280,980 Expenditures Prior Period $1,148 Adjustment Total BBWARM Subzone $37,149 $190,236 $633,869 $440,885 $983,692 $1,054,308 $663,407 $842,166 $507,234 $920,009 $1,280,980 Expenditures Net Income/ $654,836 $569,809 $144,362 $423,372 $160,226 $277,082 $123,393 $99,591 $264,196 $122,696 $164,602 Loss End of Year $654,836 $1,224,645 $1,327,147 $1,768,495 $1,609,417 $1,332,334 $1,475,678 $1,599,267 $1,835,568 $1,712,872 $1,548,270 Fund Balance 2019 Expenditures BBWARM expenditures for 2019 totaled $1,280,980. Annual expenses are summarized by program area in Table 3 and Figure 1. Detailed expenses are listed in Table 4. Expenses listed for capital projects are for 2019 only. Since projects span multiple years, these figures are less than total project costs. The BBWARM program is supported by Whatcom County Public Works Stormwater Division staff. In 2019, BBWARM funds paid for a full time program specialist position, 50% of a stormwater engineer III position, and extra help assistance. Salary and benefits for staff support are divided by program area. BBWARM receives additional stormwater staff support from Whatcom County Public Works through other county funding sources. Year-end financial data in this report were compiled March 20, 2020, and while not expected to change, the data are not final until the completion of the annual financial audit. Official financial records are maintained by Whatcom County separately from this report, which is provided for informational purposes only. BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 2 Table 3. Summary of 2019 BBWARM Expenses by Program Area 2019 BBWARM Program Areas Total Percent Administration $62,112 4.8% Program Management and Development $27,775 2.2% Incident Response $4,805 0.4% Capital Improvement Projects $1,028,672 80.3% Water Quality $6,007 0.5% Maintenance & Operations $1,227 0.1% Small Works Projects $68,896 5.4% Education & Outreach $61,688 4.8% Stormwater Program Support $513 0.0% Habitat Improvement Program $19,286 1.5% Total $1,280,980 100% Figure 1. 2019 BBWARM Expenditures Capital Improvement Projects 80.3% Water Quality 0.5% -Maintenance & O t' / pera ions 0.1% Small Works Project! 5.4% Z,� &hL J11C Education & _ Outreach 4.8% Stormwater Program Support 0.0% Habitat Improvement Program 1.5% Program Management and Development 2.2% Incident Response 0.4% Total 2019 BBWARM Expenditures: $1,280,980 BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 3 Table 4. Detailed 2019 BBWARM Expenses by Program Area 2019 BBWARM Program Area Subtotal Total Administration Salary & Benefits $29,520.41 Extra Help $1,361.02 Supplies $982.58 Software - ArcGIS, Dropbox $152.25 Professional Services - Fee Roll $10,958.75 Building Maintenance Fees $1,181.00 Telephone $573.77 Travel - Training $991.58 Registration/Tuition $1,325.00 Space Rental Interfund - Office Space $1,200.00 Insurance Premium $641.00 Administrative Cost Allocation $13,034.00 Books - Publications - Subscriptions $130.31 Advertising $60.00 subtotal $62,111.67 Program Management and Development Salary & Benefits $25,849.91 Extra Help $931.17 Space Rental - Meeting Rooms $808.00 Meeting Refreshments $163.56 Supplies $12.25 Registration $10.00 subtotal $27,774.89 Incident Response Salary & Benefits $4,786.95 Extra Help $17.81 subtotal $4,804.76 Capital Improvement Projects CIP Preliminary Design Salary & Benefits $5,985.55 Professional Services - Engineering/Arch. $28,450.00 Services - Interfund (Permitting, Engineering, Survey) $1,042.76 subtotal $35,478.31 North Cottonwood Drive — Hazel Lane Salary & Benefits $1,964.69 Professional Services - Engineering/Arch./Construction $18,075.78 Services - Interfund (Permitting, Engineering, Survey) $5,141.75 subtotal $25,182.22 BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 2019 BBWARM Program Area Subtotal Total Harborview Road & Birch Bay Drive Drainage Improvements Salary & Benefits $17,635.47 Services - Interfund (Permitting, Engineering, Survey) $17,042.11 Professional Services - Engineering/Arch. $24,126.55 subtotal $58,804.13 Birch Bay Drive & Pt. Whitehorn Rd Drainage Improvements Salary & Benefits $44,261.80 Professional Services - Engineering/Arch. $86,286.01 Contracted Services (Video Inspection, Tree Removal) $31,777.17 Services - Interfund (Permitting, Engineering, Survey) $51,397.44 Supplies $276.49 Printing $112.29 Advertising $461.69 Repairs & Maintenance $228.27 Construction $681,257.86 subtotal $896,059.02 Cottonwood Drive Stormwater Improvements Contractual Services $3,428.69 Salary & Benefits $40.80 subtotal $3,469.49 Birch Point Drainage System Repair Retainage Release $9,678.87 subtotal $9,678.87 Total Capital Improvements $1,028,672.04 Water Quality Salary & Benefits $1,886.08 Contracted Services - Lab Analysis $4,050.00 Extra Help $71.24 subtotal $6,007.32 Maintenance & Operations Services Interfund - Maintenance $1,226.63 subtotal $1,226.63 BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 21 2019 BBWARM Program Area Subtotal Total Small Works Projects Salary & Benefits $35,244.91 Professional Services - Design $9,144.46 Supplies $6,221.23 Services Interfund - Maintenance $16,977.50 Repairs & Maintenance $977.62 Contractual Services $330.00 subtotal $68,895.72 Education & Outreach General Education Salary & Benefits $7,343.43 Extra Help $8,903.38 Printing $1,626.53 Postage $1,677.88 Supplies $510.84 Meeting Refreshments $43.90 subtotal $20,105.96 Pet Waste Salary & Benefits $2,172.03 Supplies - Mutt Mitt Stations $3,322.35 subtotal $5,494.38 Terrell Creek Landowner Stewardship Salary & Benefits $10,605.42 Extra Help $2,905.59 Intergovernmental Professional Services - Conservation Dist. $21,879.02 Supplies $610.13 Meeting Refreshments $87.67 subtotal $36,087.83 Total Education & Outreach $61,688.17 Stormwater Program Support Salary & Benefits $512.58 subtotal $512.58 Habitat Improvement Program Salary & Benefits $4,285.91 Contractual Services $15,000.00 subtotal $19,285.91 Total 2019 BBWARM Expenditures $1,280,979.69 BBWARM 2019 Financial Report 22 DEPARTMENT OF Water Resources Program ECOLOGY g State of Washington Focus on: Future Adjudications 77 + _ I More information Adjudications Protect Water and Water Users Visit our Adjudications page: Adjudications are lawsuits that verify all water rights on a water ecology.wa.gov/Water- source, including Tribal water rights and stream flows. All water Shorelines/Water-supply/Water- users receive notice and have a chance to prove their right in court. rights/Adjudications The court rules on each water right's quantity and history, and ranks rights on a "first in time, first in right" schedule. In times of water scarcity, a water master manages the rights so that newer ("junior") Contact information rights are curtailed before the older ("senior") rights. This is the most fair and complete method of managing a source of water. Robin McPherson Adjudication Assessment Manager Following Ecology v. Acquavella, the adjudication recently completed 360-407-7244 in the Yakima Basin, the Legislature has asked Ecology to recommend robin.mcpherson@ecy.wa.gov whether and where the next adjudications should take place. Where Will Adjudications Help the Most? Adjudication are big undertakings, and the State needs to prioritize where they will make the most difference. Ecology is identifying basins where adjudication is the right tool to protect water and water users. In some watersheds, the history of water rights is unclear, making regulation difficult. Ecology cannot enforce one water user's claim against another — water users must sue each other to stop ADA accommodations impairment by junior users. Water users face uncertainty from year to year because they are vulnerable to interruption. An adjudication To request ADA accommodation brings certainty and protection to all water rights, including stream including materials in a format for flows. the visually impaired, call Ecology How Adjudications Begin at 360-407-6872 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibil Ecology prepares for an adjudication by defining a water source and ity. People with impaired hearing identifying all uses of that source, including streamflow. Water users, may call Washington Relay claimants, and the public all receive notice of the adjudication. Then Service at 711. People with speech Ecology files a lawsuit in state superior court naming all users and disability may call TTY at 877- claimants as defendants. Ecology assists water users by providing available state documentation of their water rights. Water users may 833-6341. also present evidence of their historic water use. Any legal questions on the legal status of a water right are addressed by the court. Publication 19-11-092 November 2019 Page 1 23 Water Resources Program Tribal and Federal Reserved Water Rights Federal law allows Ecology to join Tribes and the Federal Government in state court for general water adjudications. Tribes may prove a number of claims to a water source including water for instream flow, agriculture, or other purposes. The court determines the quantity and priority date of Tribal rights along with all others. Depending on the history of the water right, the priority date might be "time immemorial," the date of a federal land reservation, or the date water was acquired by the Tribe. Before bringing any lawsuit against a Tribe, Ecology will comply with the Attorney General's Tribal Consent and Consultation Policy. Adjudicating Groundwater A water source often includes both surface and ground waters that are connected. All water users, as well as stream flows, are entitled to the security and protection of an adjudication. In a new adjudication, Ecology will describe the water source for the court, including maps and hydrology to show whether groundwater wells impact rivers and streams. If they are connected to the water source, groundwater claimants may prove their history and legality of use, and the court will enter them on the final decree with a priority date. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Adjudications Get Results An adjudication verifies valid water rights based on their past use and any legal exemptions. This keeps water uses fair and legal. A final adjudication decree has the force of law. Verified rights receive adjudicated certificates stating their priority date, quantity, and use. Unlike state -issued permits and certificates, these are not "tentative" decisions. The adjudication is the final word on a water user's relative priority. This includes many very old claims to water that the State cannot otherwise regulate. Adjudications can take a number of years, depending on how many water users are involved. The adjudication of the Yakima River system in Acquavella included 33 subbasins and took over 40 years. Future adjudications will be more efficient due to changes in the law and advances in technology. Collaboration and Settlement The law encourages Ecology to settle water rights disputes. This includes adjudications. Adjudications can encourage settlement and partnership because all water users are joined together in a uniform process. Any final settlement in an adjudication is presented to the court for approval of the agreed water right quantities. This provides transparency and due process throughout the watershed. Ecology's Next Steps Ecology is looking statewide to assess watersheds that might benefit from adjudication. We are considering basins with senior Tribal water rights, streamflow needs, and challenges caused by water user uncertainty and conflict. Ecology will incorporate its assessment and recommendations into an in-depth report to the Legislature. The report will describe the challenges and benefits of adjudicating certain watersheds. Before filing an adjudication, Ecology must consult with the courts and legislature about budget and resources. Ecology is consulting with the courts in preparation for its Adjudication Assessment Legislative Report, required by September 1, 2020. Publication 19-11-092 November 2019 Page 2 provided s -- --ely f or the department of ecology to assess the need, costs, and barriers to initiating the adjudication process in selected wa z�---.r sheds to reduce and resolve uncertainty about water rights. The department shall evaluate multiple watersheds to identify stakeholder and local government interest and concerns about the recess , and to determine the cost of conducting an adjudication in 40 each watershed identified in the evaluation. The department shall submit an evaluation report and recommendations to the governor and appropriate legislative committees by September 1, -20-20. Adjudications Asse- Robin McPherson March 27, 2020 imDEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 5tate2c� Washington t 2020 ■ Superior Court prioritizes rights from oldest to newest � idjudication ■ A single process for all facts, history, and law of water use ■ Final Court Decree lists priority, quantity, and purpose of all valid water rights How do Adj'ud'icat'ir% " s Work?. 1. Ecology defines a water source and identifies users 2. Superior Court sets deadlines and process 3. All water users respond with a claim and supporting evidence 4. Ecology provides a Report of Fi nd n s applying existing state law (municipal exemptions, pumps pipes, etc.) 5. Water users may object to Ecology or each other 6. Court rules on rights and issues a schedule. Partially - perfected rights might have special certificates or be into perfected/inchoate portions " split " Form - Statement of Claim ADJUDICATION STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. 1 rme of Claimant (L asc. First 111) 2. Phone'i umber (day) Phase: amber (evenius<' 3. Street Address: A. Email Address :. Moibing Address (if different from above) b. 1 rme, Address, and Phone number of Lgal Owmer of Prope:rt+- if different from cloimaent '. D riving direuioms to Property on which tTater is claimed 3. Legal Doctrine afthe righl arose o-n whirh claim is based (appropriation, riparian) 9. Perz#, certificate or claim number (attach copT) 10. Docomemtifio-n of Claimed Right (if omT) WATER RIGHT OR CLAZI N .AfBER RECORDM NAhe18(Sj IhI YOUR NAME? ❑ YES ❑ NO IF N O, PROVIDES NAI {l AS SHOWN ON DOCLI UMTATION- IS THIS CLAIM ASSERTING A RIGHT UNDID[ THE H'h 20MON FROM PERMIT PROVIDED WITHIN 90.44.050 RC9i'7 ❑ YES ❑ _1,_ O IF SO, IS A WATER A%= RFPOPT AVAILABLE FOR TER SOURCE WELL? ❑ YES []NO 11.1 ame of the cater source (stream name, :`a groumdttarer WelF, W-) 12. Dote of LuWation afthe waler nse Project 13. Date the Water was pot tofirst nse (commencement afnse) by the llrlis s.trom 9P.tt3-idb(3)f aril imal appropriator 15. L egal description of the location of the point of diversion SOURCE v =E: -'!T RGE. PARCEL4 R'ELLTAG= DO YOU DUW TEE CLAMED POINT(S) OF ❑IVERSION U ITHDR WAL? ❑ y = IF NO. PROVIDES OUWER (S) NAME: 16. Asserted dote of priority efdahmA right 17. Dale afthe aomplelioaof direraion worlts 16. DescTipdO1L of diver_iou or 1T1trdri-.V2I ind cauva_:aece -,-.efts 19. The dimemsioms and rape€itr of ad existing dams, ditche_, Pipelines, storhge thinks or reservoirs fu. {maunt o3 Jana under ur3ga1t0o {current ano nUstortcat maximum ann Year of 33lax3mumi 21. PLMFOSES OF USE NDMAXBrtni WATER QTJANT rrRS t"fABr ED FORT 305E 5=5 PURPOSE OF LISE C-P'.l o- v=6 A-_;E-=T-'tR PER Ov 33F U fE 23. Cezrinit sad Eistarical maximum quentit; of tracer u: Ed for miga pia u 24.FearafkWimumnse: 2S.Numherafresidences and papulhtiansened-6.Tspeauduouite_=cf=ta.l:;Tate_ed 27. Leeal descrimtian ui the land where the Water is rased- indndine 15arrel numbers LEGAL DESMPTIOPf OF LA-9% DS RARE CLAIX DWATERRIGHT 15 USED: 'A SG SFC- TWP. RGE- COUNTY P-AHC'EL OF _iLcru z DO YOU OWN ALL THE LANDS IN THE CLAWED PLACE OF USE? ❑ YES ❑ '40—IF NO, PROVIDE 01%'�E.R(S) NAIS: =E. _ Water still in Ilse = rater i= na longer in use and claimaot does not intend to use zxater in the future 29. I hereby declare under oath that ad statements made herein are true to the best of m; Imowledge. R-Mature of Claim amt 11 IN AID FOR ZEE GO UNTY 02 XITTITWA MIRWITIOU of - = 2G � s:E� 6F Tm Tm OVISIONs of caj= lay CF TSW SLUTa T LATS OfM IS17 OF ]. n z C R 3 S DA Z OF D17E OF 37MEWR 1 1V5.M1AS -W DEaCEE-PTI U OF Jr.iL= - A— aubia Rln, eps* scHIC -����,rOOT �S�y.�� eIy3yi��5T y�OF i"IO OF tea.+ 750V Mnoi er 15 LGQ X,_ poi" Lz 4-1=0 h BIGETS Manure SYppl n f 7� . a- A1.. S- . M. Rufus cook, Emmaut or of the Apr1l ISIG 1870 156.0 Cecil Johluumsoa Tuna 1370 1870 315-0 M. D_ Cook POLM 17 caalnz an NA of SO of Sew y"InmW theaso ys ZMti 95 links; then PIWO of bezinning at the YU cavaer o T. 1S M. R. 20 E. csmim to a stone toes f0m N3 ear _r Inalums nohes} 33 stake; hence E, 1a d7zo tan folzewing the i, o; the S a ox' aW of S uctLen quarter sea wj on 19.j tho=ae Z. W S rvdl said aeotism m, Court rules on rights and issues a schedule SMAMS26- 211312:1"A"- GA MIT a Sic. 3 la_ �R_ _MfFM�T- M -j!i DY5 MZ via_ -C� s wt_ — 3-7 — IM-k SS — �La — 3-9 ;r 1111am _ Bott 1871 1Z71 W. CL 3 � ' 3L92_7 CRO Cry 3.5- 29 Z$O— S-404 za0 _ 0 I4 FOSCOMP 10-7 5 ud'ICa+� n Asse -, ^?0 Report to the appropriate committees of the legislature on the estimated budget needs for the court and the department to conduct the adjudication. RCW90.03.110(2)(b) Need, costs and barriers Reduce and resolve uncertainty about water rights Evaluate multiple watersheds Local interests and concerns Watershed Evaluations ■ How thorough and fair are current regulations? ■ How certain are paper rights? ■ How complete is the hydrology? ■ How effective is stream protection.? ■ What other solutions have been attempted? ■ How vulnerable to future risk? ■ What would it cost and how long would it take.? Watersheds Evaluated Nooksack UDper Columbia/ Lake Roosevelt Spokane Adjudications Assessment ,.00L5acLmj an C b May 3,2019 *i, Hon. Maia D. Bellon, Director Washington Department of EcologyPO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 J1A COU Re: Petition for General Water Rights Ad udication for WRIA-1 u� Pursuant to RCW 90.03.110 Dear Director Bellon: �\ On behalf of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and pursuant to RCW 90.03.110, 1 am hereby petitioning the Washington Department of Ecology to institute a general water rights adjudication for surface waters and related groundwaters of Water Resource Inventory Area —1 (WRIA-1), the Nooksack River Basin. As you know, the Nooksack River and all its tributaries, together with adjacent marine waters, constitutes the Nooksack Indian Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. As such, the entire watershed is vitally important to the Nooksack way of life. The Nooksack people rely on the River not only for domestic use, but also for fishing, hunting and gathering and for almost all cultural activities. As the Washington legislature has found, a determination of water users' rights will provide the necessary certainty to allow rational planning and development, even more critical in these times of increasing pressure on water resources. We therefore petition the Department to commence a water rights adjudication for surface and groundwaters of WRIA-1 as soon as possible. By a copy of this letter, I am notifying other governmental units in WRIA-1 of this petition. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the Nooksack Indian Tribe's petition. Sincerely, Ross Cline Sr., Chairman Nooksack Tribal Council cc: Hon. Jeremiah Julius, Chairman, Lummi Indian Business Council Hon. Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive Hon. Kelli Linville, Mayor, City of Bellingham Hon. Jeffrey L. McClure, Whatcom PUD #1 President 5016 Deming Road • P.O. Box 157 • Deming, WA 98244 Administration: (360) 592-5176 • Fax: (360) 592-2125 34 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 771 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 June 7, 2019 Ross Cline, Sr., Chairman Nooksack Tribal Council PO Box 157 Deming, WA 98244 Re: Petition for General Water Rights Adjudication for WRIA 1 Dear Chairman Cline: It was my distinct privilege to receive your Petition for Adjudication dated May 3, 2019. I fully appreciate the importance of the Nooksack Tribal Council's decision to petition the State of Washington to adjudicate water rights in the Nooksack basin, and I will make sure your petition is fully and thoughtfully considered. As you know, the Legislature appropriated funding for the Department of Ecology to conduct a state wide assessment to determine where the next water rights adjudications should occur. We will soon hire an individual dedicated to this assignment, and this new member of my staff will report directly to Mary Verner, my Water Resources Program Manager. The assessment of all basins in the state will take into account the areas where demands for water exceed supply, where many claims for water remain outstanding, where conflicts exist among water users, and where tribal senior water rights have not been quantified. The Nooksack River Basin embodies these characteristics and certainly will be evaluated. Outreach to the Nooksack Tribe will be among the earliest steps assigned to the new member of my staff. A report summarizing the assessment and making recommendations for prioritized adjudications is due to the Legislature on September 1, 2020. The assessment will be fast -paced and I thank you, in advance, for your willingness to cooperate with my staff to gather pertinent information and perspectives. Sincerely, o�aN Maia D. Bellon Director cc: Jeremiah Julius, Chairman, Lummi Indian Business Council Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive Kelli Linville, Mayor for the City of Bellingham Jeffrey L. McClure, Commission President, Whatcom County District 1, PUD ®� _ 35 Lea LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 2665 KWINA ROAD BELUNGHAM, WASHINGTON 98226 (360) 312-2000 January 29, 2020 Laura Watson, Director Washington State Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Subject: Lummi Nation Petition for General Stream Adjudication in WRIA-1 Dear Ms. Watson: The Lummi Nation requests that the Washington State Department of Ecology commence a general stream adjudication for surface waters and related groundwaters in Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA-1), which includes the Nooksack River basin, pursuant to RCW 90.03.110. WRIA-1 is within the traditional territories of the Lummi Nation. The Lummi Nation is a federally -recognized Indian Tribe and a party to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott. The Lummi Indian Reservation is located at the mouth of the Nooksack River where it flows into Bellingham Bay. The Lummi have fished from the Frasier River to the environs of Seattle, especially the Nooksack River, since time immemorial and the Lummi Nation has adjudicated treaty rights to continuing fishing the Nation's usual and accustomed grounds and stations. The Lummi Nation retains a federal Indian reserved water right to instream flows in the Nooksack basin and adjacent coastal watersheds sufficient to support these treaty fishing rights. The Lummi Nation also retains a federal reserved water right for consumptive uses necessary to fulfill other purposes of its reservation. State -permitted water diversions have reduced flows in the Nooksack River and threaten the fish species that make up the Lummi Nation's treaty fishery. State sanctioned water withdrawals within the Reservation threaten the Lummi Nation's reserved water rights on the Reservation. A general stream adjudication of surface waters and related groundwaters in WRIA-1 appears to be the most appropriate action to resolve the ongoing water rights conflicts throughout the basin and provide all water users with the certainty and finality that is needed to move forward together in the shared management of our water resources. If you have any questions, comments, or requests, please contact Merle Jefferson, the Executive Director of the Lummi Natural Resources Department. He can be reached at 360-312-2328 (office), 360-410-1706 (cell), or merlej(_ lummi-nsn.gov. Sincerely, Lawrence Solomon, Chairman Lummi Indian Business Council cc: Duane Mecham, DOI Solicitor's Office/Lummi Nation Federal Negotiation Team Chair WRIA-1 Watershed Management Board 36 AWB Board Scott Bedlington, Bertrand WID Kevin Te Velde, North Lynden WID Jeff De Jong, South Lynden WID Mike Boxx, Laurel WID Marty Maberry, Drayton WID Andy Enfield, Sumas WID AG WATER BOARD Whatcom Ag Water Board Position Paper on Water Right Adjudication in the Nooksack Basin The Whatcom Ag Water Board (AWB) is a coalition of the six Watershed Improvement Districts (WIDs) established in Whatcom County. Farmers created the WIDs to enable agriculture to address a variety of issues facing our community: drainage, water quality, habitat restoration, and water resources. Over the past few years, the Department of Ecology ("Ecology") has expressed interest in initiating a new water rights adjudication somewhere in Washington State, as the adjudication in Yakima is completed. Ecology received funding from the Legislature to review where a water rights adjudication could be conducted, and the Nooksack Basin is one of the potential locations. Over the past few months, we have carefully reviewed the question of whether Ecology should initiate a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin. Our conclusion is that a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin would be harmful, and potentially disastrous, to agriculture and our entire Whatcom County community. We have reached this decision after considerable review. Our review has involved a significant amount of research into the adjudication process, it time and cost, potential impacts on irrigated agriculture and other water right holders, and the existence of other mechanisms to address water resource issues in Whatcom County. The AWB appreciates the candor and professionalism of Ecology's staff to explain the agency's review process, educate us on how an adjudication would be conducted, and discuss potential outcomes. We have also talked with all other major non -tribal water resource stakeholders to answer a fundamental question: Will a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin serve the interests of agricultural families and communities in Whatcom County? The answer is clearly no. A water rights adjudication would ultimately result in a significant loss of irrigated agriculture, and other types of water rights would also be eliminated or reduced. Whatcom County has approximately 40,000 acres of irrigated agriculture, thousands of acres and likely at least 50% of agricultural water use would be negatively impacted by an adjudication. 204 Hawley Street, Lynden WA 98264 360-354-1337 info@agwaterboard.com 37 Our opposition to a water rights adjudication is also based on our conclusion that processes other than water rights litigation would result in greater environmental benefits for the Nooksack Basin. The agricultural community respects and understands the significant legal status of tribal reserved water rights - but water supply is neither the sole nor primary cause of decreased fish populations. Expensive and prolonged water rights litigation will be divisive, rather than uniting stakeholders in efforts to address a wide range of issues to improve fish populations and the environment of Whatcom County: habitat restoration, water quality, instream flows, protection of agricultural and natural resource lands, and improved water resource infrastructure. Further, the circumstances of an adjudication would likely result in pro -active salmon recovery efforts ending, or being indefinitely suspended. Over the past few years, the AWB, WIDs, and individual farmers have engaged in a number of proactive efforts to address both instream and out -of -stream water resource issues in Whatcom County, as well as related habitat and water quality issues. We fully recognize the importance of addressing the needs of all water resource interests, and a number of efforts are underway to do so. These efforts include: • Implementing instream flow projects through SB 6091, Surface to Ground conversions and stream augmentation • Ecology's amendment of the Nooksack Instream Flow Rule Chapter 173-501 WAC and the AWB's Foster Pilot Project for tributary flow enhancement • Drainage -Based Management (DBM) planning process • Habitat enhancement projects by individual farmers and our WIDs • Water quality protection programs leading to improved conditions in shellfish beds There is more proactive water resource and related habitat restoration work underway in the Nooksack Basin than in perhaps any other basin in Western Washington, and a water rights adjudication lawsuit would jeopardize these proactive efforts. Farmers do not want our citizens, businesses, and local governments to spend our community's limited time and money litigating against each other in court. Instead, we are committed to continuing the processes underway, improving them, and establishing negotiated agreements and funding that advances all our interests. We are implementing a number of ideas to improve water resource management in Whatcom County, and we welcome new ideas from other interests. But adjudications result in harsh and inflexible outcomes - and the loss of water rights. We believe the state should invest in multiple benefit solutions instead. We are distributing this position paper, Ecology's focus sheet on water right adjudications, and our attachment addressing questions about the adjudication process for the entire Whatcom County community to review. We welcome further questions and discussion on this critical issue. Ultimately, we request your support of our position and ask that you join us in opposing a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin. AG WATER F30ARO BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WATER RIGHTS ADJUDICATIONS At the Ag Water Board's February 12, 2020 meeting with the Department of Ecology, we discussed a variety of issues regarding the agency's review and report on potential water right adjudication locations, and implications for irrigation and other water rights. Farmers raised a number of questions at that meeting, and additional questions have been raised by farmers and community members in recent weeks. This question and answer document, prepared by AWB Attorney Bill Clarke, addresses those questions. Question 1: Why is Ecology conducting this review of potential locations for a water rights adjudication? A: Ecology sought funding from the Legislature in 2019 to review locations around the state for a future adjudication. The 2019 Operating Budget provided Ecology with funding "to assess and explore opportunities to resolve water rights uncertainties and disputes through adjudications in selected basins where tribal senior water rights, unquantified claims, and similar uncertainties about the seniority, quantity, and validity of water rights exist." 2019 ESHB 1109 Sec. 302(6). Over the past few years, Ecology has expressed interest in initiating new adjudications, as the Acquavella adjudication in the Yakima Basin nears completion. Question 2: Will Ecology recommend to the Legislature where a water rights adjudication should occur? A: Ecology's review will conclude with a report to the Legislature by September 1, 2020, analyzing water resource issues in a number of basins, and describing those conditions. The report will likely detail whether those conditions would support or hinder an adjudication, the existence of other alternatives to an adjudication, the extent of local support, and other factors. More information is in the attached Ecology Focus Sheet. Question 3: Does Ecology need authorization from the State Legislature to initiate an adjudication? A: There is no statute requiring legislative approval prior to Ecology filing an adjudication. RCW 90.03.110(2)(b) requires that prior to filing an adjudication, Ecology must "[r]eport to the appropriate committees of the legislature on the estimated budget needs for the court and the department to conduct the adjudication." The law also requires Ecology to consult with the court system regarding the adequacy of funding. While the extent of legislative 39 support for an adjudication will be a factor in whether and where Ecology files an adjudication, the Legislature's main role is to provide funding (or not), as Ecology and Office of the Attorney General have underlying authority to decide whether to file a lawsuit or not. Question 4: Who conducts the water right adjudication? A: The water right adjudication is conducted by the Superior Court in the basin where the water rights exist. For example, the Yakima County Superior Court conducted the Acquavella adjudication, and had a specific judge assigned to preside over the adjudication process. Question 5: Are all types of water rights included in a water rights adjudication? A: The Yakima adjudication and many other older adjudications only addressed surface water rights. There has not been an adjudication initiated since Ecology changed its position on groundwater/surface water interactions, or since Ecology started imposing limits on exempt wells by rulemaking. It is likely that a future water rights adjudication would include both surface and groundwater rights, including exempt groundwater uses. Permits, certificates, and claims would be included for all purposes of use. Question 6: Does state law govern how a Superior Court conducts an adjudication? A: Yes, RCW 90.03.110-.245 governs water right adjudications. These statutes are provided at the end of this memo. In addition, as a civil court case, the Superior Court Civil Rules, and on appeal, the Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the adjudication. The adjudication statutes also allow the Pre -Trial Orders developed in the Yakima Adjudication to be used in other county water right adjudications, as determined by the Superior Court. Question 7: Who provides legal representation for water right holders involved in the adjudication? A: Holders of water right permits, certificates, claims, or exempt uses would be responsible for hiring legal counsel to represent them in this court case. Water rights of a similar type or location may be joined together in sub -proceedings, and water right holders may be able to obtain joint representation. Just as in other types of litigation, the Superior Court has the discretion to organize how the adjudication process would be conducted to increase efficiency and minimize the cost and burdens on the parties. The State is represented by the Ecology Division of the Office of the Attorney General, and federal interests are represented by the U.S. Department of Justice and individual attorneys for tribal governments or other federal parties. The State is the Plaintiff in the lawsuit, and all state water right holders, the federal government, and tribes are Defendants in a water rights adjudication. Question 8: What are the initial steps in an adjudication? A: Ecology, as Plaintiff in the lawsuit, would file a Summons and Complaint in Superior Court. Ecology would then serve the Summons and Complaint on the known Defendants, which would be the known water right holders of record. Because of the inaccuracy of water right records, Ecology would also publish the Summons in a local newspaper, directing holders of water rights to file a Notice of Appearance in the Superior Court action. The adjudication statute also provides for the filing of an "adjudication claim," which is a document that a provides details from the water right holder as to his or her claimed water right. Question 9: How does an adjudication relate to an adopted Ecology minimum instream flow level? A: There has never been a water rights adjudication in a basin with an Ecology -adopted instream flow rule. Under RCW 90.03.345, a minimum flow adopted by rule is an appropriation of water, with a priority date as of the effective date of the rule. In the Nooksack Basin and many other basins with rules adopted in the 1970s and 80s, the instream flow rule adopted by Ecology was adopted as a surface water rule - meaning junior groundwater rights and exempt uses would not be impacted by the instream flow rule. However, Ecology has since changed its interpretation of its own rules and prevailed in the Postema Supreme Court decision. This decision affirmed permit denials by Ecology based on connectively between groundwater and surface waters closed by Ecology rule. So, it is likely that after a water right adjudication, Ecology would curtail or regulate both surface and groundwater rights and exempt uses that are junior to (a priority date later in time) than the Ecology instream flow level. Question 10: Could a water right adjudication result in curtailment or limitations on domestic wells or water rights for domestic human consumption? A. If the prior appropriation were strictly applied by Ecology after an adjudication, then domestic wells could be subject to curtailment. This is because many of Ecology's adopted instream flow levels will not be met at some point during the year, and so junior water rights subject to interruption include junior exempt uses like single domestic wells. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that Ecology would, in fact, order curtailment of indoor domestic uses to occur because of the obvious negative impacts to human health, the economy, and other factors. It is possible that Ecology would enforce an adjudication decree to limit outdoor domestic uses, limit indoor uses to a certain level, limit junior municipal or domestic water rights, or require mitigation for out -of -priority domestic uses to avoid curtailment. 41 Question 11: If Ecology Curtailed All Water Rights Junior to its 1985 Instream Flow, Would Ecology's Instream Flow Level Be Met? A. No, in years with low snowpack and/or less rainfall in the spring or summer, actual flow levels are much less than Ecology's adopted flow level. In these types of low flow years, Ecology's flow level would still not be met even if junior, and most senior water rights were eliminated. Question 12: If water rights are relinquished as a result of a water rights adjudication, will those quantities of water be available to others as new water rights? A: No. While the original purpose of water rights forfeiture laws was to ensure that water was allocated to water users that would put water to beneficial use, that is no longer the case. In recent decades, water rights relinquishment does not create new water supplies that can be reallocated to water right permit applicants. This is because of Ecology's position that many basins are over -appropriated, or because of Ecology instream flow rules that have closed basins to issuance of new water rights. Relinquishment of water rights through an adjudication would benefit instream flows and/or senior water rights. Question 13: Could an adjudication impact water rights that have previously been reviewed by Ecology through a water right change or transfer? A: Yes. When a water right is changed or transferred, it is subject to a "tentative determination of validity and extent" by Ecology. This review by Ecology evaluates whether the applicant has a valid water right, and what quantity is valid based on the history of beneficial use. This Ecology review is only a "tentative" administrative review, as under the water code, only a Superior Court in a water right adjudication can issue a final determination as to the validity and extent of a water right. So, it is possible that based on different evidence or law applied by the adjudication court, that the Court's determination of a water right could differ from Ecology's earlier administrative review. In addition, during the period of time since an Ecology change or transfer decision, the beneficial use of water could have changed. Thus, the valid quantity at the time of adjudication could be less than the quantity previously approved for change or transfer by Ecology because of reduced beneficial use since the Ecology decision. Question 14: Who in Whatcom County or the Nooksack Basin has expressed interest in or support for a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin? A: To our knowledge, only the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe have requested a water rights adjudication. Part of Ecology's process of reviewing water right adjudication locations will include outreach to water resource interests to evaluate the existence of local support for an adjudication in different parts of the state. 4 42 Question 15: Can federal and tribal water rights be included in a water rights adjudication? A: Yes. The adjudication of federal water rights is one of the few subject matters where state courts have jurisdiction over federal parties. This is because of the McCarran Amendment, which is a provision in federal law creating a waiver of federal sovereign immunity to enable federal rights to be adjudicated in state court. Federal water rights are most commonly established through federally -reserved water rights. Federal courts have ruled that when the federal government establishes a federal reservation of land, there is an implication that such reservation of land includes a reservation of water rights as necessary to accomplish the purpose of the federal reservation. This is the case for a variety of federal reservations of land - military bases, national parks, wilderness areas, or Indian reservations. As to Indian reservations, courts have recognized federally -reserved water rights in two parts. The first part is the reserved water right for on -reservation uses. The extent of this water right turns on the language of the treaty creating the reservation. For example, if the purpose and language of the treaty evidences an intent to develop on -reservation irrigation, then the on -reservation water right would include a quantity of water for irrigation use. The on -reservation part of the water right has a priority date as of the date of the Indian treaty. The Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe are parties to the Treaty of Point Elliott, signed in 1855, which would be the priority date for on -reservation water rights. The second part of reserved rights that tribes would assert is for off -reservation implied instream flow water rights. This type of water right is far less certain as to its existence, quantification, and location, and a full review of this issue is beyond the scope of this memo. The extent of this type of water right, for which tribe, at what level, at what location, at what time, etc. - would depend on a multitude of factors. This type of water right could have a priority date of "time immemorial" - because the usage predates the creation of the reservation by treaty. Question 16: Is there a difference between the state instream flow level adopted by Ecology rule, and a tribal off -reservation implied instream flow? A: It is unknown how the flow level in an Ecology instream flow rule compares to an adjudication -court established tribal implied instream flow water right. In some basins, the Ecology instream flow level comports with Ecology's original interpretation of the state water code, that instream flows were a "minimum" flow level. Other, more recent Ecology instream flow levels (generally, those adopted after 2000) included a much higher flow level, not a hydrologic minimum, but at a higher flow level to benefit fish species throughout a variety of life stages. There has never been a water rights adjudication in Washington State involving both a treaty -based reserved instream flow water right and a state instream flow adopted by rule. 43 Question 17: Does having water rights adjudication filed by Ecology prevent a water rights negotiation or settlement process? A: A water rights adjudication is a civil case, and so like other lawsuits could involve a settlement discussion. However, as a multi -party lawsuit with potentially thousands of defendants, the process of such a settlement effort would first involve considerable negotiation and likely briefing to the adjudication court as to how such a settlement discussion would be structured. Question 18: Would a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack Basin take into consideration prior Ecology positions and representations as to agricultural water rights? A. Ecology's regulation of water rights in the Nooksack Basin includes a number of unique circumstances that do not exist in other parts of the State. One of these is the so-called "Husseman Promise," referring to a former Ecology employee who worked with a number of agricultural water users to have groundwater permit applications filed in the 1980s and 1990s. Ecology represented that such applications on file would protect existing groundwater uses until they could be approved by Ecology. However, even though Ecology's Nooksack Basin rule was originally adopted as a surface water rule (under which the pending groundwater applications could still be approved), Ecology later changed its interpretation of its own rules, so that groundwater applications cannot be approved. These types of equitable arguments could be raised in an adjudication, though it is unclear how a Superior Court would address these types of issues in the midst of an adjudication. Question 19: Would a water right adjudication prevent other existing water resource management efforts from proceeding forward? A. Strictly speaking, there is no legal prohibition to continuing forward with efforts such as the WRIA #1 Regional Water Supply Plan and Drainage Based Management processes while a water rights adjudication is underway. However, an adjudication would create significant practical, financial, and political barriers to continuing these efforts. If an adjudication were initiated, individual farmers and other water right holders should prioritize devoting time and financial resources to the litigation. Further, if an adjudication is filed in a basin, it would be a signal from Ecology that the agency views existing basin efforts and processes as insufficient to address water resource issues. Without support from Ecology, it is hard to envision those processes continuing. WHATCOM COUNTY icom CO& EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Ave. Suite #108 �gs►irx��0 Bellingham, WA 98225 April 29, 2020 MEMO TO: Members of Ag Water Board FROM: Satpal Singh Sidhu, County Executive SUBJECT: Possible Water Adjudication Process Satpal Singh Sidhu County Executive I have received the position letter from the Ag Water Board (AWB) a few weeks ago about the possible Water Adjudication process in Nooksack Basin (WRIA 1). Though we are largely dealing with our response to the COVID 19 crisis right now, I have had a chance to review the position letter. I have also been made aware that Washington Department of Ecology is likely to decide soon on a potential region to initiate an adjudication of water rights. One of the basins that is being considered is the Nooksack River Basin (WRIA 1). Both local tribes, Lummi Nation and Nooksack, have stated their support for an adjudication and have submitted letters requesting Ecology to initiate one. Various water interests in Whatcom County have been engaged in water planning activities for over 20 years to resolve long-standing water management issues including participation in the watershed planning process under RCW 90.82. While a lot of good work has been accomplished during this time, there is a lot more to do to resolve these issues, including implementing the Watershed Management Plan approved by County Council in 2005. There have been several efforts by various stakeholders to engage in settlement discussions, yet, significant agreements on water management issues have not come to fruition. According to Ecology, an adjudication process would provide an opportunity for a negotiated settlement between the affected parties. Your letter states that the Ag Water Board is opposed to an `adjudication' process and is interested in re -starting the water settlement talks from basic principles created in 2015 by the Lummi Nation with input from the Nooksack Tribe, and other major water right holders (e.g. PUD and City of Bellingham). I am keen to see resolution of water management, water use, water quality and water security issues in Whatcom County. This is especially important so that our citizens can be provided with economic and environmental security for future generations. The resolution of water issues was a cornerstone of my campaign for the executive's office in 2019. As soon as I took office in January, facilitating water settlement discussion has been one of my top priorities, prior to potential adjudication proceedings by DOE. Understand I am not taking a position either in favor or against initiation of an adjudication in the Nooksack Basin. I support the parties coming together and engaging in meaningful negotiations, whether it is a prelude to an adjudication or a separate process. I am willing to support this effort through provision of staff who can play a neutral role in facilitating settlement discussions. Whatcom County is in a unique position to play this role in that it represents all people in the county and Office 360 778 5200 Fax 360 778 5201 45 TRS 711 Page two Ag Water Board, April 29, 2020 recognizes the range of needs and perspectives of its residents and has a vested interest in the resolution of these issues. Furthermore, Whatcom County is not a water purveyor or a significant water right holder; therefore, it does not have a direct stake in the negotiations, eliminating any conflicts of interest that might be present with other parties. I believe time is of the essence in getting these discussions going. Conflicts over water are already causing problems for many constituents and these problems will only get worse with a growing population and as the effects of climate change continue to develop. I urge all water user interests to begin discussions as soon as possible to showcase to WA DOE the seriousness of parties to seek a mutually agreed local solution. Sincerely, S An'� Satpal Singh Sidhu County Executive M, City of Bellingham May 15, 2020 Robin McPherson Adjudications Assessment Manager Department of Ecology Water Resources Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Dear Ms. McPherson: Thank you for taking the time to meet with my staff regarding a potential adjudication of the Nooksack basin. We understand that several basins are being considered for the next adjudication and that you will be making a recommendation to Ecology this month and then to the legislature in September about which basin you (and Ecology) believe is most suited to an adjudication process at this time. As you know from speaking with my staff, specifically Renee LaCroix and Amy Kraham, the City does not believe the adjudication process is the best vehicle for solving WRIA 1 regional water issues. From our early 2000s negotiations with the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Ecology, the federal government and others to the present day, we continue to feel that a locally led solution is best. The communities of Whatcom County are committed to a sustainable future. To that end, the City of Bellingham supports senior tribal water rights for instream flows and other tribal treaty rights, as well as out of stream uses, such as water for irrigation for responsible and sustainable agriculture. The City further supports responsible development through adherence to the GMA, which protects our local food sources. As you may be aware, the City participated in the Three Forks negotiations with the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, Ecology, and to a limited extent, the Department of the Interior from 2005 through 2010 when the Lummi Nation withdrew from the process largely due to its position that the federal government needed to be involved in the settlement process or in the quantification of tribal treaty water rights. At the time, Ecology was unable to create a scenario in which such a federal presence would not be required to come to a settlement. A draft settlement agreement was produced that, if executed and entered by the court, would have solved most of the issues we face today and likely obviated the need for a basin -wide adjudication. The City believes that the framework of that process and draft agreement could be used to reinitiate settlement discussions. The City also believes that Ecology should adequately fund local water supply planning efforts already in process which will facilitate resolution of many issues. Last week the (360) 778-8000 1 info@cob.org I www.cob.org 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham WA 98225 47 WRIA 1 Management Team unanimously agreed to invest $100,000 of NEP funds (administered through Puget Sound Recovery Programs) in Drainage Basin Management Planning (Strategy 4 of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board 2018- 2023 Work Plan). As you are aware, adjudications take multiple decades. I understand that Ecology feels that lessons have been learned from the Yakima Basin process and that the time and expense would be more limited in the next adjudication, but the City believes that the process would take at least ten years and probably twenty or more, incurring extraordinary expense during a pandemic which has severely impacted City and state resources, and engendering extreme animosity amongst the parties. There are numerous legal issues that may need to be litigated prior to the actual work of the adjudication beginning, the interplay of municipal water rights, recent case law, and adjudication procedure being only one such issue. In addition to believing that there is a much more efficient and effective path forward, the City does not believe that the Nooksack Basin is ripe for adjudication. You may recall the conversation you had with my staff in which you discussed the lack of technical information regarding high flows in the river. You let staff know that Ecology was under the impression that all the major parties agreed on instream flow. However, that is not the case. The streamflow study conducted by Utah State University was never completed, and the modeled flows were not validated by observed data the City collected for an Endangered Species Act Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan on the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River. The City did not join the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe's request for federal adjudication several years ago partially due to the City's dispute with the USU model and lack of validation. The discrepancy between the USU modeled conclusions and site -specific data illuminates the wide gap between the technical understanding and agreement of the water rights holders in the Nooksack and illustrates the fact that WRIA 1 is not ripe for adjudication. The science is not there yet, and it will take time and a significant financial commitment to get to that point. The City believes that Ecology's budget would be better spent supporting development of a Regional Water Supply Plan and Drainage Based Management approach as outlined in Strategies 3 and 4 of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board 2018-2023 Work Plan instead of initiating acrimonious litigation. As stated above, the City understands that the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Tribe have important and sovereign interests in settling their water rights and ensuring enough water is left instream for fish and habitat. The City also understands that strong local agriculture is critical to feed our community and wants to find solutions to the lack of water legally available to farmers in the Nooksack watershed. And we know that the other water purveyors, like the P.U.D. need certainty and we agree with both of those groups that an adjudication is not the path best suited for the solution. We also understand that an adjudication only includes parties with legal water right, while a negotiated settlement could include the valuable interests and perspective of many others in the basin. The City of Bellingham has a large perfected water right in the Nooksack River. We are prepared to help solve regional problems within a negotiated settlement structure, which could include applications for changes to the City's Nooksack water rights certificate, which could include moving water downstream and into trust. We will assign staff to help negotiate and implement solutions, including working toward securing funding to complete the USU work. We Page 2 of 3 48 will need Ecology's help to do this, both financially, and in the processes necessary to ensure the outcome desired by all, including forbearing initiating a claim for adjudication. Sincere)y, Seth Fleetwood, Mayor City of Bellingham cc: Laura Watson ME Page 3 of 3 STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF ADJUDICATION IN THE NOOKSACK RIVER BASIN Environmental Caucus of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit May 26, 2020 The Environmental Caucus is a member of the Water Resource Inventory Area No. 1 (WRIA 1) Watershed Management Project Planning Unit. We envision a future Whatcom County where our community is unified in restoring and protecting a resilient ecosystem as our highest priority. Members of the Environmental Caucus include nonprofit organizations, community groups, and individual citizens in Whatcom County. We support an adjudication of all water rights within the Nooksack River Basin. We also support the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Indian Tribe in the protection and quantification of their treaty protected water rights. The Nooksack River watershed and the salmon, wildlife and communities that rely upon it face long-standing water -resource issues — primarily too little water in the river and streams during the summer months. These problems have been recognized for at least two decades. Several local entities, both government and nongovernment, developed plans and conducted projects during this time. Nevertheless, the problems are not moving toward resolution. Indeed, primarily because of climate change, these problems are getting worse and will almost surely continue to worsen during the rest of this century. Our many years observing and participating in local water -supply processes suggest that adjudication is now the only viable path to increasing flows in the three forks, tributaries, and mainstem Nooksack River. Adjudication is complicated, expensive, and takes years to reach resolution. But we see no other way to encourage, motivate, or compel the key parties (Lummi Nation, Nooksack Indian Tribe, farmers, and Department of Ecology) to the negotiating table. As Ecology notes, "Adjudications can encourage settlement and partnerships because all water users are joined together in a uniform process."1 Also, the end result of adjudication is certainty on who has water rights. To be clear, we hope that the potential of adjudication preempts completion of and obviates the need for that process by producing a negotiated settlement. One approach that might work better than either the current process -dominated one or adjudication would require Ecology to vigorously bring the parties together to develop regionwide solutions. A deadline from Ecology to begin enforcing state water law combined with financial support would motivate the participants to negotiate in earnest. Ecology, along ' Ecology, Focus on: Future Adjudications, Pub. 19-11-092, Nov. 2019. 50 with the farmers, tribes, and other local interests, could then make a strong case to the state legislature to allow implementation of locally developed solutions. Alas, Ecology shows no sign of such leadership. Karlee Deatherage Environmental Caucus Representative to the WRIA 1 Planning Unit 51 Private Well Owners' Caucus Position Regarding Adjudication of the Nooksack Basin May 19, 2020 Ecology began reviewing in 2019 whether and where the next Washington State water rights adjudication should take place, and will make a recommendation to the Legislature September 1, 2020. Nooksack Basin in Western Washington, Upper Columbia/Lake Roosevelt, Spokane, and Walla Walla in Eastern Washington, are specifically called out for evaluation, but it is possible a few other locations may be considered. An internal Ecology recommendation will occur June 2020 prior to the final report evaluating uncertainty about seniority, quantity, and validity of water rights. The WRIA1 Planning Unit Private Well Owners' Caucus ("Wells") does not support Nooksack Basin water adjudication. Wells concludes that a water rights adjudication in the Nooksack would ultimately result in costly and timely efforts to water users in defense of their water rights when cooperative processes would be of greater benefit to the Nooksack basin both environmentally and economically. Below are considerations in reaching this conclusion: 1) Water Supply -Adjudication is a better fit for semi -arid areas (such as Eastern Washington) where streams are experiencing declining flows. The Nooksack River has not shown any discernible change in overall flow in the last 30 years, in spite of the population of Whatcom County nearly doubling over that time frame. 2) Water Adjudication Process -- Water Adjudication is a legal process, with everyone most likely needing to hire legal aid to complete the process. The Court makes the final decree listing priority, quantity and purpose of all valid water rights. This is a costly, time consuming effort that diverts resources from Watershed planning. 3) Local Watershed Planning -- Working locally for watershed planning has been advocated by State Government as the best way to resolve competing uses of water. The WRIA1 Planning Unit, with representation from all water users, has been designated as the lead in local planning efforts, including pilots such as farmers moving surface water to groundwater rights, and this process should continue. Adjudication will most likely stop this planning process due to redirection of time, effort, and money to an adjudication. 4) Groundwater rights -- Inclusion of ground water rights in the adjudication will greatly complicate the process, significantly increasing the time, effort and cost required. 52 5) Instream Flow Rule -The existence of instream flow rules for the Nooksack Basin would also complicate the adjudication process, further increasing the time, cost, and effort involved. 6) A Static Situation Related to Water - With a completed adjudication in place, the Whatcom community loses the flexibility to effectively adjust planning and implementation of local water resources as conditions change in the future. 7) Uncertainty of the Final Result -- The final decree for the Yakima Basin adjudication granted the Yakama Indian Tribe senior water rights for instream flows for fish and aquatic life which have no specified quantity of water. If this were to occur in the Nooksack Basin (likely, in our opinion), no one's water rights would be certain, as the Lummi Nation and/or Nooksack Tribe could increase their claims for instream flow. This would also likely result in additional future costly litigation. For the reasons outlined above, Wells does not believe that an adjudication is appropriate for the Nooksack basin, and that the interests of all parties are best served by the ongoing WRIA 1 planning process. 53 WOULD ADJUDICATION, AT LONG LAST, RESOLVE NOOKSACK RIVER WATER -RESOURCE ISSUES?' Eric Hirst Bellingham WA May 2020 How can we best resolve long-standing water -resource issues in the Nooksack River Basin? These problems — primarily too little water in the river and streams during the summer months — have been recognized for at least two decades. Several local entities, both government and nongovernment, developed plans and conducted projects during this time. Nevertheless, the problems are not resolved. Indeed, primarily because of climate change, these problems are getting worse and will almost surely continue to worsen during the rest of this century. After completion of an adjudication of surface -water rights in the Yakima Basin, the Washington State Dept. of Ecology (Ecology) proposed to begin adjudication in another basin.2 Ecology is considering the Nooksack River as a potential site for such a process, with a report on its recommendations due to the legislature in September 2020. Locally, opinions are divided over the best way to resolve these issues. The Nooksack Indian Tribe and Lummi Nation, which hold the most senior but unquantified water rights in the basin, both support adjudication. Local farmers, represented by the Ag Water Board (AWB), oppose adjudication. My sense, based on five years of observation and participation in local water -supply processes, is that adjudication may be the only viable path to increasing flows in the three forks, tributaries, and mainstem Nooksack River. Adjudication is complicated, expensive, and takes years to reach resolution. But I see no other way to encourage/motivate/pressure/compel the key parties to the negotiating table. (To me, the key parties are the two tribes and the farmers along with Ecology.) As Ecology notes, "Adjudications can encourage settlement and partnerships because all water users are joined together in a uniform process."3 Also, the end result of adjudication is certainty on who has water rights, in lieu of the current situation in which many water rights are ambiguous. To be clear, I hope that the potential of adjudication preempts completion of and obviates the need for that process by producing a negotiated settlement. The purpose of adjudication is to inventory and clarify water rights, to eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty about these rights. At the end of the process every water user knows how much water 1 I thank Henry Bierlink, Jim Bucknell, Bill Clarke, Karlee Deatherage, Dan Eisses, Steve Jilk, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. 2 Ecology, Focus on: Future Adjudications, Pub. 19-11-092, Nov. 2019. 3 Ecology, Focus on: Future Adjudications, Pub. 19-11-092, Nov. 2019. 54 he/she/it can use, for what purpose(s), when and where. By itself, adjudication does not put more water in streams and rivers. However, the process would likely extinguish some water rights and eliminate some existing water uses, which would increase stream flows.4 In particular, the Tribes' senior water rights to instream flows might require reductions in the rights of other out - of -stream water users. And the certainty about one's water rights after adjudication is complete would allow water users to negotiate with greater confidence than they now have. TRIBAL STATEMENTS In May 2019, the Nooksack Indian Tribe petitioned Ecology to begin adjudication in the Nooksack Basin, and the Lummi Nation did the same several months later.5 6 The Lummi Nation noted, in its letter to Ecology: "State -permitted water diversions have reduced flows in the Nooksack River and threaten the fish species that make up the Lummi Nation's treaty fishery. State sanctioned water withdrawals within the Reservation threaten the Lummi Nation's reserved water rights on the Reservation. A general stream adjudication of surface waters and related groundwaters in WRIA- 1 [Water Resource Inventory Area 11 appears to be the most appropriate action to resolve the ongoing water rights conflicts throughout the basin and provide all water users with the certainty and finality that is needed to move forward together in the shared management of our water resources." AWB STATEMENT A key sentence in the AWB statement is that "at least 50% of agricultural water use would be negatively impacted by adjudication." My interpretation of this statement is that more than half of the irrigation water that farmers use is not authorized by Ecology and might not be part of a basin wide adjudication.$ Some farmers worry, appropriately, that adjudication could drastically reduce their water use. In turn, such reductions in available water would encourage some farmers to sell their land to developers, yielding rural sprawl, which most Whatcom County residents would oppose. Fortunately, farmers, in aggregate, in each of the six watershed improvement districts hold more than enough water rights to cover both permitted and unpermitted irrigation water use.9 Transferring water rights among farmers could be a complicated process and might (with support 4 The AWB notes that "Relinquishment of water rights through an adjudication would benefit instream flows and/or senior water rights." (Ag Water Board, Background Information on Water Rights Adjudication, April 2020.) 5 R. Cline, Sr., Chairman Nooksack Tribal Council, letter to Maia Bellon, Director of Ecology, "Petition for General Water Rights Adjudication for WRIA-1 Pursuant to RCW 90.03.110," May 3, 2019. 6 L. Solomon, Chairman Lummi Indian Business Council, letter to Laura Watson, Director of Ecology, "Lummi Nation Petition for General Adjudication in WRIA-1," Jan. 29, 2020. 7 Ag Water Board, Whatcom Ag Water Board Position Paper on Water Right Adjudication in the Nooksack Basin, April 2020. Ag Water Board, Background Information on Water Rights Adjudication, April 2020. 8 This 50% estimate includes agricultural water use that lacks claims, permits or certificates; is subject to relinquishment; claims that were improperly filed; junior water rights; pending applications; and other reasons. 9 E. Hirst, Unpermitted Irrigation Water Use in Whatcom County, Sept. 2017 2 55 from Ecology) resolve long-standing problems, but has not been considered in the Nooksack basin. Thus, adjudication could produce an outcome in which farmers who now use water without authorization would obtain access to legal water (e.g., through leases or purchases). Even if adjudication (or the negotiations that obviate the need for adjudication) yields less water for farmers, most can still operate by using water more efficiently, focusing water use on the most productive crops and soil types, and shifting to crops that require less water. AWB argues that "processes other than water rights litigation would result in greater environmental benefits for the Nooksack Basin." Neither the 2-page statement nor the 6-page Background Information supports this statement. Indeed, it is now 15 years since completion of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan, and many projects in that plan were not implemented, were not implemented fully, or not documented.10 The most recent such plan is the WRIA I Watershed Management Board 2018-2023 Implementation Strategy. 11 This document is a plan to develop a plan rather than a resource plan itself. The plan identifies "technical appendices," which were not available until several months later. It also includes several milestones that have already been missed. More important, this plan does not include the elements needed to clearly identify and address water supply and demand problems: forecasts of future water needs; identification of a range of supply, storage, and efficiency resources; analyses of different resource portfolios; and selection and implementation of a preferred resource plan.12 Even more important, flows in the mainstem Nooksack, forks and tributaries continue to decline during the critical summer months. And the water -resource situation will surely get worse because of climate change, the adverse effects of which are already being felt. Flows in the Nooksack River are expected to be lower than current flows (which are already much lower than historical) by about 15% in the 2050s.13 Summer temperatures are expected to increase substantially over the next few decades and summer precipitation is expected to decline, leading to greater use of water for irrigation.14 10 WRIA I Watershed Management Plan, June 2005; WRIA I Detailed Implementation Plan, July 2007. 11 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board, WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board 2018-2023 Implementation Strategy, Aug. 2019, approved Sept. 2019. 12 These factors might be addressed in two new projects that focus on three pilot sub -basins: Regional Water Supply Plan and Drainage -Based Management. Because both projects are in the beginning phases, it is too soon to know whether they will adequately address long-term water -resource issues. 13 Tribal Climate Tool, https://climate.northwestknowledge.net/NWTOOLBOX/tribalProjections.php 14 H. Morgan, Maps of Climate and Hydrologic Change for the Nooksack River Watershed, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Dec. 2017. 56 AWB argues that ongoing and planned "salmon recovery efforts" would be terminated or suspended during the many years required to complete an adjudication. It is impossible to know whether that would occur. An alternative possibility is that the "hammer" of adjudication would strongly motivate Nooksack water users and other interested parties to come to the table and negotiate in earnest. AWB notes the projects that farmers have implemented to help improve instream flows, in particular streamflow augmentation on Bertrand Creek and conversion of surface -water rights to groundwater. These are both important activities. However, documentation of the effects and cost effectiveness of these efforts is meager.15 We have only one day of data (from September 2017) to show that stream augmentation works. And the only analysis of water -rights conversion is for Bertrand Creek. What about other times and locations in the basin? How expensive are these projects? How much will they increase streamflows? How cost effective? These crucial questions have not been addressed. AWB mentions "the inaccuracy of water rights records." The combination of (1) Ecology's water -rights database, which is riddled with errors; and (2) the huge amount of water used for irrigation without legal authority presents a major obstacle to resolution of local water -supply problems. Adjudication would, once and for all, resolve these long-standing, critical problems. AWB asks whether curtailment of junior water rights would allow Ecology's instream flow rule to be met. To me, this is not the right question. The proper one is whether adjudication would result in meaningful increases in summer streamflows throughout the Nooksack Basin. ECOLOGY STATEMENT16 Ecology's April 2020 presentation on adjudication provides a compelling argument FOR conducting adjudication for the Nooksack Basin. Slide 16 contains this key statement: "This [adjudication] is the only way to get a final inventory of all water users. It shows, for the first time, the total legal water use on a source and their relationship to each other. Otherwise we do not have this information." And Slide 18 says: "Without an adjudication, Ecology (and the counties) have no accurate inventory of water rights. This means we are uncertain about seniority, validity and availability. All water rights are vulnerable to interruption. And Ecology cannot prioritize or regulate Federal or Tribal rights." And Slide 21 says: is C.S. Lindsay, "Stream Flow Augmentation: Bertrand Creek, Whatcom County," Baker to Bay Symposium, Ferndale, WA, Sept. 20, 2017. 16 R. McPherson, "Adjudications Assessment," Ecology, April 22, 2020. 4 57 "Without an adjudication, it is not clear what water anyone and everyone are legally entitled to. This makes it difficult for parties to mitigate trade, buy or sell water. The significant uncertainty in the Nooksack could be why compromise and solutions have taken so long compared to other areas. Adjudication brings all parties closer to their true (and ultimately inevitable) legal right, so negotiations are more efficient. Since all parties bear risk in litigation, there can be increased incentive for senior right holders (such as Tribes) to reach solutions. Sharing in this uniform risk can motivate parties to come to the table and reach creative solutions they might not otherwise." CONCLUSIONS My assessment of our local water -supply situation, which motivates my reluctant support for adjudication, is: Urgent Need for Action Now • Salmon are doing poorly, and largely because of that the Orca are also doing poorly. • One of the many factors affecting salmon health is low streamflows throughout the Nooksack Basin. • Low flows lead to higher water temperatures, less dissolved oxygen, and reduced access to habitat, all of which are bad for salmon. • The situation will almost surely get worse because of climate change: drier and hotter summers lead to more water use for irrigation; and less snow, earlier snowmelt, and less summer rain mean lower streamflows. • We should move quickly to identify, define and implement a suitable mix of supply, storage, and efficiency projects to fill the growing gap between supply and demand. Persistent Barriers to Participation by Key Stakeholders • Responding effectively to water -supply problems requires active support and cooperation from farmers. But state regulations, especially the use -it -or -lose it requirement, discourages farmers from improving irrigation efficiency, likely a large and very cost-effective way to address these issues. And Ecology's unwillingness to study and adopt solutions to the large amount of water used without authorization also inhibits farmer participation in solutions. • Responding effectively to our water -supply problems requires active support and cooperation from the two tribes. Neither the Lummi nor the Nooksack have been clear about how much water they believe they are entitled to under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott. They have also not been clear on how much water is needed in the mainstem and tributaries to support healthy salmon populations. Lack of Leadership • Finally, no entity is in charge. We have a multiplicity of groups, including utilities, watershed improvement districts, PUD #1, and WRIA 1 Planning Unit, Staff Team, Management Team, and Watershed Management Board, but no organization has stepped forward to lead the way to a sustainable water future. Although the participants in the various WRIA 1 processes are generally well intentioned, we are too focused on process, yielding a failure to produce. That is, we plan and then plan again, but still — 20 years later — have no long-term strategic plan that we are implementing. Given this continuing inability to comprehensively address local problems (as opposed to the current project -by -project piecemeal approach), I see no alternative to the opportunity (or threat, depending on one's perspective) of basin wide adjudication. I would love to be proven wrong on this point and see local entities get serious about negotiation and resolution without adjudication. The Whatcom County Executive wrote: Various water interests in Whatcom County have been engaged in water planning activities for over 20 years to resolve long-standing water management issues including participation in the watershed planning process under RCW 90.82. While a lot of good work has been accomplished during this time, there is a lot more to do to resolve these issues, including implementing the Watershed Management Plan approved by County Council in 2005. There have been several efforts by various stakeholders to engage in settlement discussions, yet, significant agreements on water management issues have not come to fruition." I agree and hope the pressure (but not the reality) of adjudication yields substantial, long-lasting solutions to our water -supply problems. One approach that might work better than either the current process -dominated one or adjudication would require Ecology to vigorously bring the parties together to develop regionwide solutions. A deadline from Ecology to begin enforcing state water law would motivate the participants to negotiate in earnest. Ecology, along with the farmers, tribes, and other local interests, could then make a strong case to the state legislature to allow implementation of locally developed solutions. Alas, Ecology shows no sign of such leadership. Winston Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time....."18 In the same manner, adjudication may be the worst way to resolve local water -resource issues except for all the other approaches that have not yet worked. 17 S. Sidhu, Whatcom County Executive, "Memo to Members of Ag Water Board," April 29, 2020. 18 https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ 6 59 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No. i Ms. Laura Watson Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Ms. Mary Verner Manager Water Resources Program Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 of Whatcom county P.O. Box 2308 • 1705 Trigg Road May 20, 2020 Ferndale, WA 98248 P: (360) 384-4288 F: (360) 384-4849 email: info@pudwhatcom.org www.pudwhatcom.org RE: PUD Comments on Ecology Review of Requests for General Stream Adjudication in WRIA-1 Honorable Director Watson and Ms. Verner: PUD No. 1 of Whatcom County (PUD) has a long and committed history in supporting and promoting regional water resource solutions in the Nooksack Basin. As Ecology has a deadline this September to bring a recommendation to the State Legislature, and potentially a proposal for funding of an adjudication in a basin in the State, the PUD offers here its viewpoint on what Ecology's recommendation to the legislature should be.. In reviewing the request for adjudication filed by the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the PUD notes that the expressed goals are to "move forward together in the shared management of our water resources"', and to "allow rational planning and development"2. The PUD strongly and unequivocally supports these goals, as evidenced by its actions of the past years. The PUD looks forward to engagement directly with the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe and others to pursue these goals and welcomes committed leadership from the Department of Ecology in the pursuit of these goals with meaningful and measurable implementation actions. A primary goal of the PUD has been and continues to be the improvement of flow in the Nooksack Basin and tributaries for additional habitat benefit, as well as finding solutions that meet the needs of salmonids, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe and local residents, and businesses. The PUD has expressed a willingness to commit more water from the PUD's mainstem source to improve the flow in the stream to meet fish habitat needs, as evidenced in its advocacy for and willingness to lead the California Creek Streamflow Restoration project. 1 Lummi Nation January 29, 2020 Letter to Ecology Director Watson. 2 Nooksack Indian Tribe May 3, 2019 Letter to Ecology Director Bellon. Page 1 of 4 Commissioners: Atul Deshmane, Jeff McClure, Mike Murphy • Stephan (Steve) Jilk, General Manager M� PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No. i of Whatcom county Another example is the Coldstream Dairy Project, in which the PUD was asked by the Department of Ecology to lead. This Project, utilizing a cutting -edge filtration system, will transform cow manure from a 2,500 dairy cow operation into clean water to be held by the PUD as "new" water. The PUD is in a position to facilitate water supply solutions throughout the Nooksack Basin. Any such process, however, will require a committed Ecology financial and expertise investment into a defined process with definitive actions with administrative and legal creativity applied towards mutual goals. The PUD believes that such a process will have a higher likelihood of achieving an outcome aligned with the aforementioned goals, rather than a positional, litigious adjudication process that is resource and time consuming. As we have expressed to Ecology staff in the past, this process needs Ecology's administrative, policy and legal creativity and financial commitment. This region needs Ecology to join the PUD, the Tribes, and other stakeholders in leading pathways to solutions. The PUD believes that a firm commitment from Ecology to a definitive negotiated process is more likely to result in a meaningful, timely and implementable regional solution. Ecology's recent presentations indicate that it sees a Nooksack adjudication as taking 10-20 years to complete, which is difficult to reconcile with recent experiences, such as the Yakima Basin adjudication that was limited to surface water, while the requested adjudication in the Nooksack Basin includes surface water and groundwater and more than one tribal claim. The PUD has the history and proven commitment to working on solutions to regional water resource issues with the diverse jurisdictions in Whatcom County. The PUD has proven that it is prepared to do the work that needs to be done to facilitate, find and implement regional water resource solutions. Recently, the PUD completed a Drought Contingency Plan funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Drought Response Program and the PUD. This planning process was supported by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, the City of Bellingham, the City of Lynden, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, Washington State University Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Whatcom County Executive Office, and the local Ag Water Board. This Whatcom County Drought Contingency Plan was prepared to assist local agencies responsible for planning for, and responding to, drought conditions in the County and for coordinating such activities with the State of Washington. The PUD is presently administering the development of a WRIA 1 Regional Water Supply Plan ("Water Supply Plan"), on behalf of the WRIA Watershed Management Board 3. This plan can and should be a first step in a negotiated, non -adjudicative process. The Water Supply Plan development is mostly funded by a grant from the Puget Sound Partnership. The work being undertaken now is phase I of two phases to complete the plan. The second phase of this is scheduled for completion in 2022. The PUD recommends that Ecology request funding from the legislature for a new and specific process for addressing water supply, water allocation and water quality in the Nooksack Basin and its tributaries. 3 The WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board consists of PUD, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the City of Bellingham, and Whatcom County. Page 2 of 4 61 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No. I of Whdtcom county We recommend that Ecology fund work to evaluate and recommend science -based solutions to the following matters: i. Instream Flow Requirements, including instream flow and water quality improvement projects that benefit salmonid populations and habitat. ii. Water Quality Requirements. iii. Habitat Restoration and Protection Requirements. iv. Water Supply Requirements, including evaluating water supply storage opportunities designed to benefit salmonids, local residents, and the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and supplanting and replacing illegal, non - potable ground and surface water uses with PUD and/or other entities surface water supply. v. Accountability. vi. Necessary policy, regulatory and statutory limitations and solutions, including revisions and/or amendments to the Water Code and/or Ecology policy. The PUD is prepared to meet directly with the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, as well as other entities represented in the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board, to further define the scope of the study and the process to solutions immediately. The PUD would be willing to administer and facilitate such work. We note that communities and tribes in Washington State have achieved agreements in recent years through the execution of agreements that did not require extensive adjudication litigation. One prime example is in the Skagit Basin 1996 Memorandum of Agreement. The PUD would, therefore, encourage all parties interested in the resolution of the Nooksack River Basin issues to examine the range of potential and successful negotiation models that currently exists. The process itself, the development of a potential settlement, and implementation of a settlement, will require significant financial resource commitment from the State of Washington. It is worth restating that it is the view of the PUD that a committed Ecology financial and expertise investment with flexibility and creativity will have a higher likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Such solutions may also require legislative action. Leadership by Ecology in obtaining such legislative action combined with the required resources and expertise cited above, and working with tribal, federal and state elected leadership will be necessary. The PUD is committed to support Ecology in such an endeavor. If Ecology and the Governor would seek a settlement solution in lieu of adjudication, the State must commit to a leading role in all phases and advocate strongly in all forums. The PUD believes that if this process is to be successful, the adjudication recommendation must be deferred. An adjudication process by its very nature may create barriers for many parties, including the PUD, from moving forward with regional solutions and the goals that the PUD has been committed to pursuing as outlined above. I am available to meet with you, as well as others, to discuss and refine this proposal. I can meet with you in Olympia, or over electronic means to maintain social distancing requirements. It is important for the Governor, the State Legislature and Ecology to actively support and participate in these alternative approaches rather than defer this process to the court system. Page 3 of 4 62 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No. i of Whatcom county In the meantime, the PUD will continue to work on regional water resource solutions with the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Department of Ecology, and participating stakeholders in the basin. The PUD has always greatly valued its relationship with the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe and will continue to do so going forward, regardless of any future pathway or process that addresses water resources in the Nooksack Basin. To that end, as District Commission President, I will be reaching out directly to the leaders at the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe, as well as the City of Bellingham to foster discussions. Sin mmission President Cc: Chairman Solomon, Lummi Nation Chairman Cline, Sr., Nooksack Indian Tribe Mayor Fleetwood, City of Bellingham Executive Sidhu, Whatcom County Mr. Henry Bierlink, Ag Water Board PUD No. 1 of Whatcom County Commissioners Mr. Stephan Jilk, General Manager, PUD No. 1 of Whatcom County Robin McPherson, Adjudication Assessment Manager, Department of Ecology Page 4 of 4 63 LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 2665 KWINA ROAD BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON 98226 (360) 312-2000 June 22,2020 Satpal Sidhu, County Executive Whatcom County 311 Grand Avenue, Suite No. 108 Bellingham, WA 98225 Jeff McClure, Commission President PUD No. 1 of Whatcom County 1705 Trigg Road Ferndale, WA 98248 Seth Fleetwood, Mayor City of Bellingham 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Ag Water Board 204 Hawley Street Lynden, WA 98264 Subject: Position Statements on the Potential Nooksack Basin Adjudication Dear County Executive Sidhu, Mayor Fleetwood, Commission President McClure, and Ag Water Board, We have received your letters regarding the potential upcoming general stream adjudication of the Nooksack basin. To begin, thank you. We appreciate your willingness to put forward your concerns about how an adjudication may impact you and your constituents. Clearly, you have presented your opinions as to whether you feel an adjudication is the proper mechanism to resolve the long-standing water rights conflicts in the Nooksack basin. We hear you, we recognize your concerns, and we understand that the prospect of an adjudication brings a level of fear and uncertainty to everyone involved, including ourselves. We understand that an adjudication will take substantial time and resources to complete, and, at times, may become contentious -- though it is our desire that an adjudication be friendly. But, in the end, we firmly believe that an adjudication is essential to finding an enduring solution to protect valuable water resources. Water in the Nooksack basin is a limited resource and will only become more so with the increasing demands of a growing human population and the current and anticipated future impacts of climate change. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we settle our disputes and protect what remains. With limited exceptions, we have been unsuccessful in resolving most of the Iarger water rights conflicts in the Nooksack Basin. An adjudication provides us with an opportunity to permanently resolve these issues by following a transparent, prescribed process where all water claims are given due consideration under the law. We see great benefit in an adjudication because it brings people to the table and keeps them there until resolution is found. In the end, all water users with legitimate claims will come out of the process knowing the priority date and quantity of their water rights. In conjunction with the adjudication, we can work together to find the real and enduring solutions that everyone wants and needs that address No more than just water rights. Meaning, with an adjudication, we will finally have the certainty that is required to enable effective and adaptive planning for our collective futures. We invite you to discuss how we can make this process work for all of us. Please reach out to LIBC Water Resources Manager Kara Kuhlman (karak(jummi-nsn. gov, 360-312-2128) to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, r Lawrence Solomon, Chairman Lummi Indian Business Council CC' Merle Jefferson, Lummi Natural Resources Department Executive Director Ross Cline, Sr., Nooksack Indian Tribe Chairman Laura Watson, Ecology Director Mary Verner, Ecology Water Resources Program Manager Robin McPherson, Ecology Adjudications Assessment Manager 2 65 ,.VA14,. Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources Management District Annual Report 2019 BBWARM Program Update Background/Overview Program Areas & 2019 Accomplishments Capital Improvement Projects Maintenance and Small Works Habitat Improvements Education & Outreach Water Quality Questions? www.bi.j-fvarm.whatcomcounty.org mQ,W AR3 damJ; - BIRCH BAILWATERSHED &AQUATIC RESOURCES MANA E I E NT DISTRICT A the E3irch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Managemerit (BBWARM) District was cyeatedinrespansetocommunityconcernsaboutwater quality, fioadin,and Aquatic Resources Mar bmofaquatic hatritatinthe Birch Bay Watershed. BBWARM'sstorru ater program focuses on protecting water q ual ity and reducing stormwater i mpaets. Fxplare our website to learn more atyautwhat BBWARM isdoing and haw you can get i3woNed, BBWARM Purpose Decrease stormwater impacts (localized flooding/drainage/erosion) Protect and improve water quality and aquatic habitat Overview Community Involvement Community -initiated effort to address water quality problems and flooding begins 1999 o Response to State listing Birch Bay as threatened shellfish area 2003 ❑ Milestones 2001 - Birch Bay Steering Committee 2004 - Birch Bay Community Plan developed 2006 - Comprehensive Stormwater Plan completed r 2007 - BBWARM District (flood subzone) established 0 2008 - Advisory Committee & Funding Resolution adopted 0 2009 - Fees collected, staff hired & work plan developed r 2010 - Full program development & implementation �aR u4c7 H. STREETRD. BLAINE H. STREET RD. "� H; E N 9OF x � SWEET RD. \ Drayton � -- w m w Harbor YNIE RD.- w o NE R D. BADGE RD. z `.. BADGER RD . _ _ r �'NDEN � o ra rJ O G1 o I D. 1 "fi - _ K m � Birch Bay / , 7 BBWARM District Fresh Water Roads [� Parks City Limits BBWARM District a= _w ♦ s w � J i a E. POLE RD. W. POLE D. m m o $ FtRNDA 1 VIEW RD. t� W. J r W. SM w � SLAT RRD � SIA7 D. Y w a 0 o sv Miles Whatcom County Public Works � February 2010 +,s Core Program Areas Capital Improvement Projects Maintenance &Small Works ❑ Habitat Improvement ❑ Education &Outreach ❑ Water Quality Monitoring mQ,W AR3 Capital Improvement Projects Getting stormwater to the bay without causing problems mQ,W AR3 BBWARM Capital Improvement Projects Chare I Terrace Sto r mwato r 5yste m Improvements Project $270,000 2011 Cottonwood Neighborhood drainage 1 it p r ove irants: $468,D00 Seawim drive i Drainage Upgrades 5190, D00 I r I f II'14r{ I 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rearhway Drirre & Hogan Drive Fern}ParkStormwvater .Small WCI k_ Improvements= Prvje--- {_rJ.-J-J-J 5521,D00 Cottonwood Drive Stormwate r Improvements: $85,000 North Cottonwood Neighborhood Storirwater Improvements: $ 350,ODD >210117 2018 P I9 2-02-0 Birch Pan# Birch Ray Dr. & Collaborative Pt. Road & birch Pt. Whitehom Rd Drainage SystemSt-or Day Drive Storm Drainage .Sty r rrnuate r Repair: $244 ODD 'irprcvm eents:-4$1-5M r Imprrnrernent: $1,050,OOD - i Approx. 011- 2020 Total: $4,700,000 Capital Improvement Project - 2011 Charel Terrace Stormwater System Improvements li 40J) Capital Improvement Project - 2013 Cottonwood Drainage Improvements at Cedar Ave Local Outstanding Civil Engineering Honor Award American Society of Civil Engineers Seattle Section mQ,W AR3 Capital Improvement Project - 2014 Beachway Drive & Fern/Park Stormwater Improvements Capital Improvement Project - 2015 Seaview Drive Drainage Upgrades wr U[i 1 f i f �` P. 1 _ t - I , I f, . - ! r ;''� x -.vim , r•' -'p3pf �' --'�� fs �4q' it • w v'h yb�� i- � }, s! � R UK* I 1 4' i-. - - ;r- -eFl d MMP Ai IL'AJ 7E i If I L AW 17 Birch Bay Drive & Pt Whitehorn Road Drainage Improvements Project Highlights New pipes sized to accommodate the 100-year design storm event 600 feet of 1 2" diameter storm pipe 1400 feet of 1 8" diameter storm pipe 950 feet of 24" diameter storm pipe Reroute flows away from failed outfa I I pipe along Birch Bay Drive to improved outfall near Pt. Whitehorn Road mQ,W AR3 Capital Improvement Project — 20?fl Harborview Road & Birch Bay Drive Drainage Improvements This project will improve drainage by installing a new 100-year pipe "Wh Bay Lyn df, .Rd conveyance system along ` Birch Bay Drive and Harborview Road from the intersection of Birch Bay Lynden Road to a new • • outfall in Birch Bay. soon!r' r ,. MHHW 0. 9.3' Birch Bay Drive & Pedestrian Facility 2019-2021 BBWARM contribution: $250k +staff time Path Type I: On Berm EI. 7t1.0' TI&ti Active B... h Surfec. Crest`- 5' 41 ?P i 6:t - •- 9.9.•7 12� Pahl and Storm Crest"' - 12' AMEM Berm I Swale I Existing Birch Bay Drive 5 Improved (Shoulder 4' Native Coastal Vegetation Path Location Planting (Provides Habitat and Berm Stability) (Provides Bay Views) iPr ovides Water 0ua lity Trea(nant for Pavement and Path) The project purpose is to restore the natural shoreline, protect the �aR roadway from storm damage, and support pedestrian safety with a �� separated berm that runs from the mouth of Terrell Creek (Lora Lane) to Cedar Avenue, approximately 1.58 miles in length along the beach. Maintenance & Small Works The easiest way to keep stormwater systems working properly mQ,W AR3 Maintenance & Small Works ❑ Goals: o Maximize function of existing public stormwater systems Protect and improve water quality Address small-scale chronic maintenance and repair projects f A B c D E F G H I i K L m I S.b..t S.bb... P,.,,-,, C— T,pc CategOF9 D—Fipti.. I 2 Birch Point BIFA Point N.,th BP-7 BP-2 _.F.. .1. N.,.,, Pill near SI.i,h... DFI- $191.000 D,oi-g, C--,.- "'t mg �n a ........ ....... - NblidNiwStorm Event 3 Birch Point SiFA Point N.,th f 4 S—h 5 S—h 6 Birch Point Birch Point South 7 Bud Point Birch Point South 8 l5i'd Point 5IFIh Point South 9 Bud Point 5IFIh Point South 10 Bud Point 5IFIh Point South 11 Bud Point Roger: Slough Lower T,ib 12 Birch Point &mhh— Uplud, 13 C,o,,l N.,th Cottonwood B-1, N.,th 14 C,o,,l N.,th Cottonwood B-1, N.,th 15 Central N.,th Cottonwood S-1, N.,th Cottonwood S-1, N.,th 16 Central N.,th 17 Central N.,th Cottonwood B-1, N.,th 18 Central N.,th Cottonwood B-1, N.,th Cottonwocd 15-1, South 19 Q-,,l N.,th .,i. Ir 20 Q-,,l N.,th Cottonwocd 15-1, South 21 Central North C,tt,,,,,d Beach South 22 C—&N-k lwl.Ok 'A 23 C—,&Altk 1 cClc 'A 24 Central North Hill,d,lk 25 Central N.,th Hill,d,lk 26 C—Ml-k 27 C,o,,l N.,th Hill,d,lk 28 C—MI-4 tddscblc - &h, 29 Central N.,th Hill,d,lk m: Hill,d,lk 30 Central N.,th 31 C—WAI-k :v 32 C—WAI-k 41.&ell 33 Central N.,th Shmtdfc, m 34 Central N.,th Shmtdfc, -I 35 Central N.,th Shi-ffc, ftNN O�w iS,i 36 Central N.,th Shi-ffc, shi-ffc, ¢2 C-111 South C,.,,l R—h- U C-111 South C,.,,l R—h- 44 kcr 45 Q-111 s-eth Central R ache: 47 C-111 South Central R ... h,, 49 C—,as,—k 50 Central South C.-I R-1, 52 C-11 South C,k,,l R—h- 53 54 55 C-111 South Central Upland: N.,th 56 57 58 C—,&S—k o 59 Central South Central Jplhnd, South 20- 7—aT,&, I 61 Central South L.— T—OT,ib 1 62 C—Ias—k 2-- 7-9 TM, 2 63 2—err a 7,& 2 64 C—S—k 2—err a 7,62 6 5 C 2—w 7' 66 c rats k 2—w T—a 7,6 2 67 c rats k 2oii er r—a 7,ib 2 kIN k-'2 gzp 2019 Inspection and Maintenance W Storm damage repairs Broken curb repairs Remove debris from trash racks 826 public catch basins 549 inspected 306 cleaned 73 repaired 2 filter vaults cleaned/replaced Vegetation 6 facilities maintained Collaboration between M&O and Sheriff's correction crew OLOO N. y Y, _ i i 7 rA r �* �„ rR ;� Y•�I� :. r � �� �'�: -� �� . .. i .. .` L � .1 ��- � � _ r _ � �+ _ � - - ��.� ? -. — .,;�`. yam",>, � �•x .�- . , _ �u Me 72- �� b P } ,r N R, MKOPRIPINNININ Small Works Project Examples Fir Street CB and Culvert Placement Project Catch Basin Replacements M i Terrill Drive Drainage Repair mQ,W AR3 BB Drive Homeowner Connection iB Drive Sic __tip.: _ . _ • . t� 1ti4 �� '1 • z d ; rol' • _ r 4b 'r Im dir Halverson Gully Ditch Stabilization r of IR 1 1 ROPERN 44, oto ii• `'N� � "tea k.'Xl�' `y� ,. "� � 'f" _ .F � x" � � _.,, .• � ,V(� # _. f 'i �4� � -• '�- ` .ems . �r. ^p -'� •I0IICC•MKOI• y coming , soon! ■ Other Small Works Projects Incident Response: Illegal dumping and illicit discharges 13 General drainage/erosion issues 13 Construction questions/complaints o Flooding problems o Storm damage Repairs and Maintenance: o Cleaning out catch basins 0 Ditching o Jetting culverts 0 Fixing grout/replacing pipes C' Clearing logs out of Roger's Slough Incident reports responded to: • 19 reports in 2017 • 39 reports in 2018 • 64 reports in 2019 mQ,W AR3 .jF Habitat Improvements Enhancing salmon habitat and working to re -open shellfish beds mQ,W AR3 memo 1 hc r� AL Rr y r f ?P-c-.tnrrjtinn Pry 4.o . • ! •- � � • � •1 .. ram. � r � ` > \��0� � � , i Fish Passage Barrier Removal Project M D %0*0, dr, r. Education R )utreach The easiest way to keep stormwater clean is to keep pollution out in the first place mQ,W AR3 Education & Outreach BBWARM's education and outreach programs seek to increase public awareness of stormwater problems and promote voluntary actions that help protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and stormwater systems. 2019 Outreach Highlights R3 Birch Bay Watershed & Aquatic Resources Management District Monthly Newsletter September 2017 Come Out and Run with the Chums this Saturday! The Sth Annual Run nrith the Chums Sk Fur. Run Walk is scheduled for Saturday, September 16. Join the Chums of Terrell Creek for this famsiy- friendly VN'hatcom Water Week kickoff event. Run with the Chums is a fun, FREE event for all ages and the first goo participants will receive a free event t-shirt! All racers in the our Watersh,^P' P�J Stormwater Capital Improvement Project Update Capital Improvement Projects [CIPs] improve stormwater systems to protect water quality and reduce the risk of flooding. In Birch Bay, drainage and water quality problems exist in places where the infrastructure is undersized, failing or non-existent. BBWARM builds stormwater aps to address these issues. Collaborative Drainage System Repair on Binh Point 2016— This project was constructed in late 2016 to replace a failing stormwater outfall pipe on Birch Point and reduce the risk of flooding and erosion on a steep bluff [pictured right]. Cottonwood Drive 5tormwater Improvements 2017— Construction of a new inlet structure inthe Cottonwood Court neighborhood is expected to begin in September 2017. The improved inlet is designed to reduce the risk of blockage and overflow during winter storms. Harborview Road & Birch Bay Drive Storm Drainage Improvements 2018— The goal of this project is to improve drainage along Harborview Rd and Birch Bay Drive by installing a new conveyance system and a properly -sized marine outfall to Birch Bay. Construction is slatedto begin in 2018. A Storm Watcher vdunte er cogects data a a L*dsnage problem using the 8B WARM repertrng app. New oWdf pipe and energy dVssipater an Birch Point ApM 2017 Volunteer to Be a Storm Watcher! Does your neighborhood have drainage, flooding, erosion or water quality problems? If so, we need your help! Take the first step toward solvingthese stormwaterissu e s by monitoring and reporting conditions in your area before and after large rain events. Residents in the Birch Bay/Terrell Creek watershed will be trained to monitor local roadways, parking lots, ditches, creeks, outfalls and catch basins for problems associated with poor drainage or inadequate maintenance. The information collected will help improve infrastructure and storm - water management practices that keep our water clean and roadways safe! Problem areas will be evaluated by Whatcom County for repair or maintenance. Volunteers will gain the skills necessary to keep drainage systems functioning during storm events and avoid damage to personal property or roads. A training event will be held on September 28 at the Birch Bay Bible Community Church from 6-8pm. For more inform ation on the program and to sign up, visit wvvw. bbwarm.wh atc om c o unity. o ram. Discover Birch Bay Days &Crab Fest A4 - 1w i- .7. I I 6.fli- . - -.. - .- p DiMIMDk 0 1 orw— "07 - vi Al 1� Shoreline Educational Beach Walks 9 mQ,W AR3 w� F mL� rt 1 I I - +Y` rth. # � • r nt lulu in B tr.qN,Fft 4d! A aa 9r Volunteers clean beach at Birch Bay after July 4th Va lu nteers p icked u p trash and deb ri s at Bi rch Bay after the Fou rth cf July. Pictured abave, a team Born the Birch Bay Wafersbed & Aquatic Resources Ma nageme nt Di strict p icku p trash a n J my 6. Fram I_, Lars OJsan, Whatcom County stormwater educatiom spec ial istr Ha4ly Fa ul stich, Whatcom County sta rmwater p ragram s specialist; and A neka awee;ney, Whafcam Con servation D istriers education and outreach coordir atar. PHOTO BY OUVER LAZENBY VlqR Posted nesday, July B, 24120 3-Z pm Terrell Creek Landowner Stewardship Program ❑ 2019 Accomplishments: o Implemented 4 farm plans r Complete extensive livestock survey of watershed Provided technical assistance to 13 landowners Conducted 10 site visits to existing CREP projects Implement new CREP projects: 7.14 acres 2,760 feet of buffer along fish -bearing tributary 3,430 seedlings planted o Workshops and educational events: in Terrell Creek Work Parties Run with the Chums 5k Fun Run Watershed Watchers Volunteer Training mQ,W AR3 Run with the Chums 5k Fun Run/Walk DYNAMIC � OLUNTEER INFO NIG Join your neighbors in protecting Birch Bay & Terrell Creek Water 97 5PM- 7PM I TUESDAY BIRCH BAY BIBLE COMMUNITY CHURCH Light refreshments will be provided! Are you interested in: BEACH CLEAN-UPS WATER QUALITY HABITAT RESTORATION EDUCATION Tell us about your interests at: www.surveymonkev.com/rNVatershed-watchers For more information, contact Holly Faulstich: HFaulsti@co.whatcom.wa.us 360.778.6290 or visit: www.bbwarm.whatcomcounty.org IL A Arl sa UIM On . . . . . . . . . . . WATER REPORTER See Pollution?. Share a photo IF-ollm Adopt -a -Mock 5 Garbage.S . �C. 1 This area has been adopted by: B B 1i1 AR MI Watershed Watchers Adopt -a -Block pfogra fl r �17yF•°+ r { www.bbwarm.whatcamcounty.org OALWAYS PICK UP PET WASTE 0 WASH VEHICLES AT THE CAR WASH, NOT ON THE STREET © FIX VEHICLE LEAKS PROMPTLY QKEEP STORM BRAINS FREE OF DEBRIS © KNOW WHERE YOUR DOWNSPOUTS GO & MAINTAIN YOUR 0INSPECT SEPTIC SYSTEM REGULARLY OCOMPOST OR COLLECT YOUR GRASS CLIPPINGS 0 MINIMIZE FERTILIZER & PESTICIDE USE ON LAWNS OSECURE TRASH & PET FOOD TO DISCOURAGE URBAN WILDLIFE 0 PLANT NATIVE TREES & SHRUBS Watershed watchers program thrived during stay home order Watershed cleanup valunteers Diane Hollands, f_, and liana Campbell maintain a storm dlrain in Birch Bay. CDUR, ESY PHOTO PasRed V ednesday, July 8, = 4:47 pm By Oliver Lazenby Local volunteers spent a record number of flours helping to keep the Birch Bay and Terrell Creek watersheds clean during the stay-at-home order. according to the Birch Bay ~Watershed and Aquatx Resources Management District (BBWARM). 6BWARM's Adopt -a -Block program, which started in September 2019. allows volunteers to adopt a Mutt Mitt Stations & Pet Waste Education Keep our Watershed Clean - Please Pick Up � After Your Pet � Salish Breeze Homeowners Association Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management District ALI". Win , z ' ¢ •V " `gyp f - t # x j # 41 * 44 me, Won't make dog poop disappear. Scoop it,, Bag it,, and Trash it.. 1 mQ,W AR3 C f' ti7 •� J i �j I g p18V tie 4 4MP' —L ._ Ca Go poppy ,�'� I l i C F■' A Water Quality How do we know if the water is clean (or not)? mQ,W AR3 Water Quality Monitoring MW- Goals: 13 Assess current fecal coliform bacteria levels and trends o Identify priority areas for water quality treatment and community outreach o Reopen shellfish growing area closure at mouth Terrell Creek (closed 2008) and meet State standards A� 6i � # � It N N �X�i �'�" aaxnisb da 0-ATb°ctgr°r p4 N B��sn4s • ���, q" dr�onl�h'�`PyrdY� �u5P1 _ EMERG 1E��Y �. R`[do�cc�tNthv^ua� OF1TH15 � -�► - �� 5HEL4FISC ARC �)� VNs gA�� TO fcAY i ^� h is vender �� ', � • �� This er9en�Y desute r an em artment 1' fit g hY the Keaith. *malt r; r .r - 2003 Map created by Whalcom County Public Works. Natural Resources staff . Proscriber 21. 2015. i i; Upper Birch Bay/Terrell Creek 13-Mont1h Historical Fecal Coliform Bacteria Data This table provides the individual results at each station for the past thirteen months. Results in light orange exceeded 100 FC/100mL Results in dark orange exceed 500 FC/100mL \Date �' w7 W CZ, Cw ti1 U v w7 L, o .0 -ti -44i U �1 a1 Cw a v C� O �' F 51 U Iw a 8 T Iw C� 26 .� rz F .: Iw . ti ] 4 Ter 0.1 TribTer LP1 Ter 0.1* TribTer BC2 TribTer BC1 Ter 4.7 Ter 1.6 Ter 1.9 Ter 3.3 Ter 5.4 Ter 6.3 Trib Fin 4 Ter 6.9 Ter 7.8 Ter 8.4 Trib FERN1 11/10/16 17 12 17 25 52 12 23 19 10 20 10 60 22 9 9 30 11/29/16 35 52 37 37 40 28 20 23 32 63 60 30 56 51 48 66 12/13/16 42 5 98 14 37 118 30 33 33 NS 50 38 19 19 9 NS 12/29/16 40 2 64 40 27 100 9 15 4 27 37 27 40 25 30 84 1/12/17 250 40 360 4 NS 76 NS 2 NS 10 15 NS 4 15 17 NS 2/22/17 9 7 9 4 10 2 2 4 2 4 14 32 15 9 2 115 3/9/17 12 7 10 4 112 28 7 14 20 10 9 14 2 10 4 20 3/23/17 5 15 12 2 20 4 9 7 2 19 12 9 4 2 4 7 4/12/17 46 40 37 52 370 38 12 10 5 300 320 210 78 68 9 1,037 4/26/17 50 66 48 94 410 42 45 54 5 9 17 340 9 46 12 510 5/10/17 43 45 52 23 114 42 50 10 10 25 28 30 20 50 35 43 5/23/17 82 1,346 102 178 1,755 74 27 40 28 27 78 30 33 30 23 230 6/6/17 20 88 15 LF ST 44 52 15 17 4 2 2 9 70 6 210 6/21/17 46 500 78 12 LF 25 22 27 ST 60 23 ST 10 27 14 ST 7/6/17 10 50 2 ST LF 4 27 7 ST ST ST ST 54 ST ST ST 7/19/17 22 333 9 D ST 27 1155 ST ST ST ST 92 ST ST ST 8/16/17 9 1 27 1 2 D ST 2 2 380 ST ST ST D LF ST ST ST 8/30/17 2 10 2 D D 2 2 20 ST ST ST D LF ST ST ST 9/6/17 23 74 40 D D 5 19 130 ST ST ST D LF ST ST D 9/19/17 102 973 64 2,700 480 782 600 655 84 ST ST D 1,364 ST ST ST 10/17/17 40 200 28 2,000 1 5 19 2 146 45 191 105 19 138 58 ST ST 10/31/17 7 7 4 LF LF 25 2 2 4 7 4 ST 14 ST ST 1,091 11/16/17 23 2 23 9 106 5 4 7 2 2 2 5 2 4 2 12 11/29/17 14 2 2 5 32 5 2 2 4 2 4 2 7 2 4 7 www.whatcomcounty.us/2608/Routine-Monitoring-Results Birch Bay Shellfish Harvest Closure Area mQ,W AR3 Yards 0 175 350 700 2019 Financial Report The BBWARM stormwater program is funded through a service charge based on the amount of impervious surface on each developed parcel in the Birch Bay watershed. mQ,W AR3 BBWARM Service Fee Funded by BBWARM subzone service charge Dedicated enterprise fund, leveraged with additional grant monies when possible o Approximately $775,000 collected per year Single family residences pay $60, $75, or $104/year o Commercial properties pay at the same rate according to amount of impervious surface Unspent balance reserved for future CIPs &programs 13 Allows construction of future CIPs without financing�WAR� 2019 BBWARIVI Program Areas Total Percent Administration $62,112 4.8% Program Management and Development $27,775 2.2% Incident Response $4,805 0.4% Capital Improvement Projects $1,028,672 80.% Water Quality $6,007 0.5% Maintenance & Operations $1,227 0.1% Small Works Projects $68,896 5.4% Education & Outreach $61,688 4.8% Stormwater Program Support $513 0.0% Habitat Improvement Program $19,286 1.5% Total $1,280,980 100°% ❑ $788,675 was collected in service charge fees and $11,280,980 was spent on BBWARM program expenses in 2019. stormwate�r�WAR� Water Quality 0.5% Maintenance Operations 0.1% Small Works Projects Education & 5.4% Capital Improvement Projects 80.3% Outreach 4.8% tormwater Program Support 0.0% Habitat ,—Improvement Program 1.5% Program Management and Development .% Incident Response 0.4% Total 2019 BB ARM Expenditures: $1,280,980 Fund Projections $Z $1F $1F $1F400 $1F $1F $ $ $40D $ $0 CIP Expenditure Projection 2018-2024 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Questions? Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management District FINDING STORNIWATER SOLUTIONS Holly Faulstich, Natural Resource Specialist III Whatcom County Public Works HFaulsti(E)co.whatcom.wa.us