HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 29 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
April 29, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Barry Buchanan, Ken Mann, and Carl
Weimer
Absent: Rud Browne and Pete Kremen
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2014 -024)
Crawford asked for clarification on the meeting location for today's purchase of
development rights (PDR) tour.
1. WATERSHED PLANNING UPDATE
Planning Unit
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the Planning Unit met last Wednesday
and discussed a revised policies and procedures agreement (on file). There were no
changes to the decision - making processes. It provides more clarification. There was a lot
of discussion about consensus. Consensus is required to adopt the watershed management
plan and the instream flow process. Other decisions can be made without complete
consensus on more procedural items. There was consensus on these changes. The
Planning Unit will formally adopt at the next meeting in May.
Buchanan referenced changes in line 137 and asked for a definition of what it means
to address an issue. Stoyka stated a couple of caucuses have been completely inactive. If
there are several meetings to move something forward, and there was consensus along the
way, an inactive caucus that shows up can't hold up consensus with disagreement.
The Planning Unit also adopted the framework for the work plan and will work on it
more at the next meeting. It's a draft now from one caucus, and it hasn't been really
considered.
Brenner stated she was amazed there was so much agreement at the last meeting
among all the caucus representatives. They got a lot done.
Stoyka stated the Planning Unit's next task is the work plan. After that the Planning
Unit will work on the budget. They also want to make progress on several items
recommended by the Joint Board and County Council. They want to list all these requests
and begin addressing them, including documentation of representation and clarification of
the decision - making process.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann asked about clarification of the decision - making process and asked if the
Council requested a non - consensus process. He asked if the Planning Unit rejected that
suggestion and decided on clarification. Stoyka stated there was confusion about when full
consensus was required and when a lesser approval standard was allowed. Instream flow
changes require unanimous consensus. The watershed management plan adoption
suggests consensus, but requires consensus of the governments and a majority of
caucuses. The changes address what the Council wants.
Mann stated it seems the Council asked for something that wasn't feasible. Stoyka
stated there was general confusion about when consensus is required. If the Council feels
like there needs to be more changes to be more productive, they can look into it.
Mann stated that if the Planning Unit is happy and can make progress, he supports
them. Stoyka stated it seems that the slow process was agreeing on what to bring to the
table, not on reaching consensus.
The last item is that he's bringing forward the contract for the facilitator for another
six months.
Joint Board
Stoyka stated the Joint Board meets quarterly. The next meeting is May 29. The
watershed staff team will recommend to the Joint Board that it directs the staff team to
start working on the next five year plan update for the Lower Nooksack Strategy. It will be
brought up at the next Joint Board meeting. That presentation will also be brought to the
Council at a Natural Resources Committee meeting.
Brenner asked if the Council needs to have another meeting about the Joint Board.
The Executive must bring any budget items to the Council for review and approval before
going to the Joint Board. Stoyka stated he doesn't recall that being discussed, but will look
into it. The Joint Board adopts an annual budget.
Brenner stated she's more concerned about what is actually spent. If the Council
says no, the Executive won't bring it to the Joint Board and the money won't be spent. A
budget is a prerequisite to spending money. Stoyka stated the Joint Board has its own
funding, which originally came from the County years ago. The Joint Board decides how it's
spent.
Brenner stated the requirement for Council approval is in whatever document used
to set up the fund. She will send that information to staff and councilmembers. Stoyka
stated the Council will get more regular updates on the Joint Board at these meetings.
Also, they put together a request for qualifications (RFQ) for groundwater modeling
proposals. The Joint Board approved moving forward in the Abbotsford Sumas aquifer area.
It is part of the watershed implementation groundwater modeling effort. The 2012 water
budget was supposed to look at surface and groundwater, but it actually only looked at
surface water. They want to look at groundwater now by developing a model. They will
begin with an area smaller than the entire water resources inventory area (WRIA) 1 area.
The scope of the RFQ depends on the budget. The Joint Board provided $120,000 and the
State provided a total of $100,000.
Weimer stated that seems like an item that the Council hasn't approved, but possibly
should. Stoyka stated he would look into it.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenner stated the Joint Board is administrative. Approving contracts is legislative
first. The Council is supposed to approve the expense before the Joint Board starts
discussing it.
Coordinated Water System Plan
Stoyka stated they are close to signing a consultant contract to start the process.
They have selected RH2 Engineers to start the update process. Because of the vagueness
of the update, the consultant recommends starting with a small contract to meet with the
water utility coordinating committee and scope what will be included in the update. Then
the consultant will be more comfortable providing a cost estimate for the full update. The
small contract is $18,000 to start the process, which will better inform the entire project.
That should be signed in the next few days.
Weimer asked if the lead is the Public Works Department or Health Department.
Stoyka stated the lead is the Public Works Department, with input from the Health
Department, Planning Department, and State Department of Health.
Next, the Ag District Coalition is presenting a resolution to the Council on May 6 to
get Council support of the Ag District Coalition. The agricultural community is moving
forward with forming up to six watershed improvement districts (WIDs).
Rod Vande Hoef, Ag Coalition District Board, stated they want to create five more,
but it may be three or four if they can't get enough signatures together.
Brenner asked if it goes on the ballot. Vande Hoef stated it does.
Weimer asked if any proposed WIDs will get on the ballot this fall.
Henry Bierlink stated one proposal has enough signatures now.
2. STAFF REPORT FROM FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON 2014 WORK LOAD ALLOCATIONS
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, submitted a handout (on file) and described
projects and staff allocation on the work plan. The Swift Creek project has preempted the
Syre property project. The Deming levee improvement project and the Jones Creek
reflection berm projects would need to stop until the Syre property project is constructed.
The advisory committee would like to move the Syre project forward, but couldn't rearrange
the work program, given other priority projects. The advisory committee asked her to ask
the Corps of Engineers for technical assistance. She made the request two weeks ago, but
hasn't yet heard back from the Corps.
Brenner stated several projects indicate that no staff is available. She would like to
see which of those projects could get grants and matching funds from the State or federal
government if the County provided staff. She asked if they need more staffing. Cooper
stated they do need more staffing. There is opportunity now for State funding.
Crawford asked if Gary Goodall is no longer in the road department. Cooper stated
he isn't, but he still coordinates with the road department.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Weimer stated the County contracts out engineering for stormwater projects.
Cooper stated it still takes 2.5 months of engineering time to administer the consulting
contract and design the bid. It takes time to administer the contract, put it out to bid, and
engineer it. The design for Canyon Creek is done, but it must be updated. It still takes
time.
Brenner stated it seems repetitive for the County staff to do the design work, and
then have the contractor go over it. Cooper stated many laws dictate how they do things.
Crawford asked how the Glacier /Gallop alluvial fan project got so high on the list.
Cooper stated she would look into the scoring for that item.
Crawford asked if that alluvial fan study is related to flooding. Cooper stated it is
related to debris flow. They haven't done the level of hazard analysis they did for Jones
Creek and Canyon Creek to look for past indicators. This is just to deal with the alluvial fan.
This project has been number three on the list for awhile.
Crawford stated it ranks as a high priority, but he's not sure it would actually be a
high priority. Cooper stated debris flow is more likely than landslides.
Crawford asked if it has happened before. Cooper stated not since she's been with
the County.
Weimer stated he will send the actual comprehensive water resource integration
program (CWRIP) database to councilmembers, which shows all the ratings for each project.
Brenner stated there's a complete Department of Transportation (DOT)
environmental deficiency study on file for the Glacier area. Cooper stated she needs to re-
read it.
Brenner stated the Council received an email from Dr. Easterbrook. This issue is his
expertise. The County needs to incorporate some of that information. Have Dr.
Easterbrook speak to the Council.
Weimer stated Dan McShane and John Thompson are aware of the information from
Dr. Easterbrook, but no one has looked at the area for 20 years to see if there has been any
movement.
Brenner stated they seem to have a lot more information that people are interested
in having.
Crawford stated the presenters indicated it would be difficult to predict future events.
They didn't imply that Dr. Easterbrook and his students hadn't done a lot of work. Much
data is there, but it isn't predictive data about what will happen in the future, especially
regarding risk analysis. Regarding landslides, he's not in favor of the County deciding to
move everyone out of every landslide risk area. There are real flooding and resource
allocation problems to address in Whatcom County.
Mann stated he agrees in principle. The County government isn't in the business of
disaster - proofing everyone's lives.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Weimer stated he agrees that the County can't disaster - proof, but they might want
to make people more aware if they consider moving to Glacier. Avoid the question of why
no one said anything if something does happen.
Brenner stated it's not the County's job to decide the value of someone's home.
They could do provide information for future construction, but not for someone who buys an
existing house.
Cooper stated the County could do a study on Glacier /Gallup to identify the highest
risk areas. That would be a tool that the Planning Department could use, similar to what
they use in the Canyon Creek and Jones Creek areas.
Mann stated geologic hazard maps are already available. Cooper stated those maps
are different from the detailed modeling work that tries to project what the debris flow
might do.
Mann stated make the geologic hazard maps available online. That is sufficient
warning and notice to people. Don't put anything on a deed. Someone should always check
any property before buying it.
Jeff De Jong, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, referenced the Syre
property project and stated the Advisory Committee would like a mechanism to move
forward on projects like the Syre property when they come up. They don't want to take
away from the large scale projects on the work plan. If it is within the budget to tackle
something like this property, it's difficult when staff time is the only holdup. Get the
department staffed up or more easily contract some of this work to be done. Be able to
take on something when the need arises.
Weimer asked if there are other staff in other divisions of the Public Works
Department who can work on something like this. Cooper stated they would be busy, too.
Brenner stated hire staff and engineers on contract to do County business.
Crawford asked the difference between the land and easement acquisition program
number one and the update to the land and easement acquisition program project. Cooper
stated they developed a land and easement acquisition program in 2000 that needs to be
updated to reflect actual implementation procedures. It's administrative.
Mann asked how the staff like working with this work plan document. Cooper stated
there are some changes she would like to make, but on the whole it works well.
Mann stated other departments can benefit from a format like this.
Ellen Baker stated the State Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted an
environmental deficiency study in Glacier when the bridges were replaced. They have a
very good idea of what is likely to happen. It's a good report. Cooper stated she's seen it,
and needs to read it again.
3. FLOODPLAINS BY DESIGN FUNDING
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the Nature Conservancy and other
organizations and agencies created a consortium to promote a broad approach to flood plain
management, with multiple objectives. They allocated $50 million in the 2013 -2014
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
biennium toward integrated floodplain projects that focus on flood and fish habitat. She's
hearing now that it must also work for agriculture. That's a great opportunity for Whatcom
County. Of the $50 million, Whatcom County received $2 million for Canyon Creek and $1.4
million for the Deming levee improvement project.
Currently, they are developing a proposal for the 2015 -2017 legislative request.
They are promoting a reach -scale analysis, and she made a presentation to the group on
the system -wide improvement framework (SWIF) process. This is a good time to get in on
some of this funding. By May 23, she will develop a preliminary proposal to the Department
of Ecology. They encourage project packages. They will invite specific communities to
provide additional information, and then develop their proposal for the State legislature by
August 1. Eligible projects must reduce flood risk and protect and restore floodplain
ecosystem functions. Eligible project types are pre- construction, meeting feasibility and
design, acquisition, and construction. A 20 percent match is required. Equal weight is
given to flood and fish habitat. Points are also assigned for other benefits, including ag
viability and water quality improvement. She is developing a proposal package that
includes Marietta acquisition, a Marine Drive area bridge design, and early action projects
identified in the SWIF process that may include small -scale levee setbacks. The Tribes want
to focus beyond the levee and on the comprehensive flood hazard management plan. The
Fish - Farmer initiative is a budget allocation that could fund projects that primarily get at fish
habitat and farmland preservation and productivity. The dedicated funding for these
projects would exist outside the work plan and wouldn't have to compete with other projects
on the work plan. Funding would be for design, construction, and staff support time.
Brenner referenced the Marietta acquisition with the Tribe and asked if it requires
some scalping of the area. She asked if the Tribe will work with the County if the County
doesn't consider dredging. She asked if the Nooksack Tribe will insert themselves into the
Marietta project. Cooper stated the County doesn't need to do anything with the river to
acquire properties in Marietta. The tribes at the table wanted to look at the entire
floodplain, not just at the levee system. The USGS sediment study will provide the science
for the sediment management work.
Crawford asked if there are opportunities to manage debris flows in the hills. Cooper
stated their focus is the bigger river systems.
Crawford stated the phrase floodplain by design' implies a flat area that is designed
to flood. This is much broader. Cooper stated it is much broader, on the scale of an entire
reach.
Weimer asked when the money is coming. Cooper stated it would be available in
2015. The money would last over a four -year period, but they could potentially ask for
more in two years. This is the time to bring in staff. She would like a funding stream to
support staff with or without outside money.
Crawford stated they need to talk about adding new staff with the Executive.
Jeff De Jong, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, stated he cautions
about going after grants if they don't know where matching funds will come from and if the
grants cost valuable staff time to complete the project. Don't create new projects just to
get grants. Cooper stated the project package should include projects on the work plan that
are important. She hopes the plan will have broad support.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Weimer stated that staffing levels are more of a problem to doing projects than the
amount of money in the flood fund.
De Jong stated that if the flood fund balance is less of a concern, the County should
be able to do projects such as the Syre property project.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on May 20, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 4/29/2014, Page 7