HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session February 18 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
February 18, 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, Rud Browne, Barry Buchanan, Pete
Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: Ken Mann
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2014 -024)
1. BBWARM FUNDING REQUEST FOR BIRCH POINT FLOODING STUDY
Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, submitted information (on file). Staff met
with the Flood Advisory Committee about asking to help develop a pre- engineering design
report for a flooding area on Birch Point.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the advisory committee
recommended approval of funding the study cost of 30 percent, up to a maximum of
$18,000 in flood district funds.
Keats Garmen, Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resource Management (BBWARM),
described the area and history of the problem. BBWARM is helping the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) find a solution, but has focused recently on public right -of -way
and areas of greater population density. These areas are private property. The BBWARM is
reluctant to get into private property issues, but the problem has been on their list since
2005. With the DNR request, there may be a possibility for partnership. The flood advisory
committee is recommending funding of a study for a solution. BBWARM will also consider
funding the study. They hope to move forward with the study and find alternatives this
year to come up with an engineering report and recommendations, develop an estimate of
cost, and attempt to engage multiple parties to solve the drainage system problem. He
asked if the Council wants to discuss policies to avoid this kind of problem in the future.
Weimer stated he supports moving forward. He asked why DNR isn't paying for the
study if it caused the problem. Garmen stated his question is why DNR permitted a huge
cutting area without looking at their lease land below and the related impacts.
Weimer asked whether the County code includes a mechanism to require an
engineering study like this before converting property, not after. There is a similar problem
at Birch Point. Olason stated staff talked about this with DNR on several occasions. He
wants to get the preliminary design study going and keep it as simple as possible. The
more people involved in the study, the longer it takes to get a final package out the door.
The idea is that a proposed funding plan would be a component of this predesign report.
That's when they would work with private property owners to get some kind of commitment
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
on their contributions. Owners include Trillium and DNR. There is a willingness to
contribute, but they don't know by how much.
Garmen stated the Trillium property sold to a Canadian company, which continues
logging.
Weimer asked about spending the money to install a bigger culvert versus doing the
study. Olason stated the last time that was done, they didn't do a study and the slide just
shown is evidence of what happened. Sizing it correctly is critical. They don't have a good
idea on exactly how everything works, and they need to know how to build it in a critical
area.
Garmen stated it's been eroded with the existing pipe. The ground is unstable.
Scott Hulse, BBWARM Advisory Committee member, stated they're looking at
characterizing this problem and a longer term solution to understand what's going on in the
entire area and how extensive the problem will become when the area is developed.
Garmen stated a community member suggested a temporary fix to channel the
water south instead of north. There are few pipes on the entire stretch of Semiahmoo
Drive. It may overwhelm the pipe at that end.
Brenner stated everyone has learned from the existing problem. Don't delay a fix
until the Council develops a policy. Put in a temporary fix with a bigger culvert. Olason
stated they are concerned about blowing the pipe off the hill if they enlarge the County
culvert.
Brenner stated the culvert looks too small. Olason stated the pipes were
overwhelmed at the outlet point going down to the beach during past events. The water
went around the pipe, down to the beach, saturated the ground, and slipped out from under
the pipe. In that case, the culvert handled more water than the outlet pipe could take.
They need a full system there, otherwise someone will have a problem.
Garmen stated two detention ponds feed this problem. With more development and
build out, there will be a lot more water. There must be a more effective system. They
may need additional outlets.
Olason stated Mr. Hulse is alluding to a bigger issue. This study is for this project
and this outlet pipe, with the idea they will repair it soon.
Kremen asked if Trillium violated any DNR permits or followed best management
practices. Olason stated the conversion initially went further than the County permit
allowed. Eventually they came under a County permit, which required the sediment ponds.
They've had some problems with how the ponds function.
Kremen stated the DNR is culpable. DNR is not rectifying the problem. Olason
stated he's dealt with DNR forest practice staff regarding clearing and DNR real estate staff
who manage the lots along the drive. He's dealing with the DNR staff person managing the
real estate. The DNR recognizes that they're going to contribute to a solution. The DNR
agency is complicated. DNR is a party to the solution, but the County doesn't want
everyone involved in the preliminary design study because it's a small effort and it will take
longer to get going.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
53
Browne asked if the study is for this problem or for future development. Olason
stated they will consider what the future buildout contribution will be. On that discreet site,
they'll look at future development, but this predesign study isn't about broader policy
conditions.
Crawford referenced the original mission of BBWARM and stated the project is not in
Birch Bay, involves a DNR- permitted project and how it impacts DNR property, includes
property leased by people who have built very expensive homes and have resources to deal
with issues. He's skeptical about this request. He asked the mission and purpose of the
BBWARM in terms of what they're supposed to be fixing, and what this project has to do
with that mission and purpose. Olason stated Birch Point and Point Whitehorn are in the
district because critical areas have impacts from drainage issues. They also look at life
safety issues and environmental impacts. When a high bank of that size falls off, it creates
a severe impact to the water quality of an adjacent beach. This event went far out into the
bay and took weeks to wash away. It's a big dump of nutrients in the bay.
Crawford stated it's going into the ocean. It's not a contained water body like Lake
Whatcom. Terrell Creek has high bacteria levels again. He asked the priority to deal with
lease holders who have million dollar homes on DNR land that are being impacted by the
activities of DNR. He doesn't diminish the problem, but county taxpayers may not
understand why the County would fund this when there are other concerns elsewhere. In
hindsight, they maybe should not have included these problems. Garmen stated BBWARM
has been trying to ignore private property issues and focus on areas with greater
population density. They focus on the watershed itself, but this hasn't gone away.
Someone should deal with it. Maybe that should be DNR. They asked for help from
BBWARM. BBWARM wants to help by doing this study. BBWARM will not pay for this fix.
Crawford stated it seems the County's interest is the road. He agrees with the
BBWARM advisory board.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. He's not opposed to a
small study, but he is concerned about who will pay for the solution. The DNR and the
developers should pay for the solution. They will benefit from the solution. Property is an
investment. There are no guarantees. If they want to develop the property, they must pay
the infrastructure needed to safely develop that area with minimal or no impacts to existing
residents.
Brenner stated the County should do it, because it can move quicker than DNR, but
the County should bill the DNR for the study. The problem came from the property and the
DNR is liable.
Browne stated they must work on an ordinance that allows the County to do cost
recovery.
Weimer stated they must still have the broader policy discussion and whether the
County can look at impact fees as properties like this are developed. He supports moving
forward with the study.
The Council concurred.
Brenner stated this is damage they must pay for, not an impact fee.
Weimer stated this is a quicker way to address the problem.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
52
53
2. SYRE FARM BANK STABILIZATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, described a 2007 repair and maintenance
application from a property owner. The application went through the repair and
maintenance program prioritization, but it didn't rank high enough. The property owner
considered his own repair, but the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fisheries) wanted
a different fix. That fix didn't work. The problem has gotten bigger. They've lost about
seven acres out there, more than two of which were farmland. The property owners asked
for another project of the advisory committee, which asked staff to look at alternatives.
Staff retained Herrera, which did a preliminary alternative analysis.
Gus Kays, Herrera Environmental Consultants, submitted and read from a
presentation (on file). He described the location and its history and showed historical aerial
photos of the area. The outside bend of a meander has a higher velocity flow, and the
inside bend has a lower velocity flow. Over time, this particular meander moves
downstream and also laterally. When the riprap bank unravels, the river gets behind the
riprap that remains and destroys it from the back side. That was the beginning of the
problem. The downward meander trend has slowed in the last month, and now it's mostly
moving laterally. A pile of debris in the middle of the river isn't helping. If the bank corner
holds, the meander will move past it and engage the riprap again. The river will continue to
get pinched until it jumps across and the meander moves downstream quickly. He expects
the bank to continue to erode if they do nothing.
Browne asked the most realistic worse case scenario. Kays stated the worse case
scenario is different from what he realistically expects. The worst case scenario is one or
two five hundred year floods. There would be other issues throughout the county at that
point. However, he expects the meander to continue to migrate downstream.
Browne asked the likely maximum loss of land on the farm. Kays stated it depends
on if the corner holds.
Browne asked if they could lose one - quarter of land. Kays stated they could. He
continued the presentation and described the alternatives.
Cooper stated the alternatives went through the comprehensive water resource
integration program (CWRIP) database and received scores. The engineered log jams had a
broader public benefit, but less certainty of arresting erosion.
Brenner asked if the worst erosion started when they stopped dredging. She doesn't
understand why Fisheries doesn't care that there is so much erosion the water is brown.
She asked how a revetment can degrade habitat more than it is degrading now, why they
don't dredge the islands, and the difference in erosion if there was major flooding for the
next several years.
Kremen stated councilmembers were emphatic about coming up with a solution as
soon as possible when they toured the site last July. This year has had low precipitation.
The damage or erosion exceeds what he expects it to be. A main objective of the County is
to protect farmland and protect habitat. Nothing has been done in the past six months.
They knew what the solutions were six months ago. They saw this coming in 2007, and the
projected costs were less than $20,000. He's frustrated they haven't done anything.
Determine which solution makes the most sense in terms of cost - benefit, and then do it.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
Cooper stated the report came back in August and it was presented to the advisory
committee, which didn't recommend it. The log revetment is the best option that she and
Mr. Kays recommend.
Browne asked the County's actual obligation to do this. If ranked at 155 on the
CWRIP database, there are 154 other projects ranked higher. The proposal is to spend
$100,000 per acre to stop this erosion. They have lost seven acres total, but only two were
farmland. The worst case is to lose 20 acres of farmland, which totals $100,000 per acre
for fully productive berry land that costs $20,000 per acre. There are other projects with a
better return on investment. The entire farm is assessed at $182,000, and a taxable value
of $40,000. He'd rather spend the money acquiring the acreage that will be lost. It would
be much cheaper.
Kremen stated that's assuming the worst case scenario doesn't occur, and Highway 9
is wiped out.
Browne stated he would like to know the County's legal obligation if they plan to
spend $100,000 per acre to protect 20 acres of farmland.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Browne. This project didn't rank
highly. He and former Councilmember Nelson developed the CWRIP to put all the projects
in a priority and not get excited about a particular project that may not have much actual
benefit. He asked if this will go back to the advisory committee now the report is done.
Cooper stated staff couldn't develop the project during the fish window, which was
already open by last July, unless there was some sort of emergency. The county couldn't
get permitting. The advisory committee knew the County couldn't do anything in 2013 and
wanted to see how the site would fare through the winter.
Weimer asked if the riprap on the north end would open and the meander would
move north. He asked if there is an alterative to move it away from the farmland and make
the river move straighter or away from the farmland. Cooper stated riprap removal is
possible. They could maybe set back the riprap.
Kays stated there are lots of in- between fixes. They are finding a solution that they
know for sure will work. The list of alternatives isn't exhaustive. They chose options that
they knew would stop erosion. They can do a more in -depth alternative analysis.
Weimer asked if a riprap setback would cost the same as the other alternatives.
Kays stated it won't alleviate the problem in the long term. Over the long term, there will
be more meanders that come down the river.
Brenner stated do experimental dredging to cut off some of the corner that is forcing
the river into the property. Cooper stated they aren't doing experimental dredging. They
developed a pilot gravel removal project, but it isn't dredging. Gravel bar scalping is
different from dredging.
Brenner stated use this site as another pilot project for gravel bar scalping. Cooper
stated there is an extensive state environmental policy act (SEPA) process. They didn't get
a permit to do a pilot project. They didn't do the pilot project, but the project is developed.
The permitting process will likely require an environmental impact statement.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
53
Brenner stated include this location in the project. Cooper stated they could. By the
time they get a permit, the meander will have moved all the way through the area.
Kremen stated strategically remove gravel debris. Sediment removal would be
better for habitat than letting the erosion continue.
Browne stated they all agree they would rather not have the erosion issues, but
there are 154 other projects on the ranking that have a higher priority. The County has a
limited amount of money.
John Mayberry asked if the erosion would eventually get to the road. Kays stated
there's a chance it will get to the road in the next 100 years.
Mayberry stated doing nothing is not an option. They will keep losing ground and
any project will cost more. The County is responsible to take some kind of action.
Weimer asked if they need a decision to so something this year. Cooper stated it will
be hard to do something this year. The permitting process will take awhile. There will be
endangered species consultation, and the project will be designed as a fish project.
Brenner stated she understood that once it's permitted, the process will be in place
for future projects, making it less costly and time consuming. Cooper stated the project to
remove gravel is a one -time project to learn if they want to avoid an environmental impact
(EIS). If they want to remove gravel multiple times and at different sites, they have to go
through the EIS process.
Brenner stated the cost won't be $2 million to do an EIS on each site. She supports
selective scalping or dredging. Begin to move toward that, and it will be cost - effective once
they get started.
Crawford asked if there are other sites on the Nooksack River that are threatening
active farmland. He asked what makes this different from any other areas that are
experiencing erosion and how important this site is relative to other similar projects that are
threatening farmland. Cooper stated it's consistent with other projects for threatened farm
land. The highway is now at a low risk, so it's really about farmland preservation. Other
sites have that issue. The project taking most of her time is keeping the levees in the
system. If they want to move forward with this, they'll have to juggle projects.
Crawford asked if a levee can be built here. Cooper stated a levee won't arrest
erosion without riprap. Kays stated this is a high terrace that doesn't get much flooding.
Crawford asked the elevation. Cooper stated it's around 140 feet.
Crawford stated the Nooksack River has many miles to go before getting to
Bellingham Bay and a zero elevation. Cooper stated the U.S. Geological Survey has
identified the Nooksack River as a major source of sediment when compared to the entire
Puget Sound. She will come forward now to request funding for a three -year study
regarding the entire sediment situation.
Crawford asked if they can deal with sediment at the mouth of the river and whether
that would have a positive impact at this site. Cooper stated it wouldn't have any affect on
this site.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Crawford asked why they are looking at this project today and not seeing it as part
of a presentation on similar situations all along the river. Cooper stated the Council added it
to the budget.
Weimer stated the Council added it in December and told staff to deal with the issue.
The Council didn't discuss where it fit within the priorities.
Weimer stated put this before the flood advisory committee to ask about whether it
works in terms of other flood issues. Many other issues on the CWRIP have nothing to do
with flood issues. Cooper stated staff can also look at it on the work plan.
Weimer stated look also at what projects would drop because of this.
Kremen asked if the advisory committee ranking was guided by staff. Cooper stated
they are two different ranking processes. The CWRIP ranking is separate from the flood
repair and maintenance ranking. If the Council wants the staff to do this, they'll drop
whatever other work they have and do it.
Brenner asked for minutes of the advisory committee meeting.
Weimer stated have the flood advisory committee take another look at this project.
He wants to know what on the work plan is a higher priority that may fall off the work plan.
The Committee concurred.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on March 25, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 2/18/2014, Page 7