HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session June 24 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
Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
June 24, 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, Ken
Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2014 -024)
1. WATERSHED PLANNING UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works, gave an update on the Watershed Planning Unit and Joint
Board processes.
Planning Unit
Stoyka stated the Planning Unit met on May 28. During that meeting, the Planning
Unit signed the process and procedure agreement. The changes clarified decision - making
processes related to statutory requirements, watershed management plan adoption, and the
instream flow recommendation. For all other decisions, the Planning Unit changed its
approval process to a simple majority.
The Planning Unit is also working on its work plan and a budget. They agreed on the
general work plan, but have not yet agreed on specifics. When the work plan is done, the
Planning Unit will develop a budget.
Joint Board
The last meeting of the Joint Board was May 29. The Joint Board declined to amend
the structure and function document of the Planning Unit to allow a County councilmember
to represent the County on the Planning Unit instead of the staff. The Board's rationale was
that it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Watershed Planning Act. Technically
qualified staff are supposed to represent the governments. There was also concern from
other entities that the Planning Unit would become more political than technical.
The Joint Board also discussed and declined proposed changes to the operating
procedures to designate a quorum of the Joint Board and Joint Board approval by three
members instead of five members. The attendance of one member has been sporadic. A
recent audit determined that all five members must approve a decision, so there can't be a
meeting unless all five members attend.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
The Joint Board received the updated Planning Unit work plan and budget. The
Board also considered a management team recommendation to approve the 2014 -2016
Puget Sound Action Agenda Local Update by the Puget Sound Partnership. They've worked
on the update for the past year.
Kremen stated he's concerned about the Joint Board quorum issue and with the
County putting time, staff, and financial resources into a process and preparing for meetings
that may not take place. He's concerned that one of the initiating governments has not
been participating. He asked why the Joint Board continues to not accomplish anything
because of the one agency that doesn't participate. It's a waste of everyone's time and
money.
Weimer stated the Nooksack Tribe has had a hard time showing up at the meetings,
but the Chairman has designated a representative and they've said they plan to be at the
meetings from now on. County Executive Jack Louws made it clear that there's no reason
to meet if people don't show up, and the Joint Board should end if that situation continues.
It was discussed clearly with the people who were in the room.
Crawford stated there is inherent conflict of interest by the Lummi Tribe and
Nooksack Tribe because their petition for adjudication is counter to this process.
Brenner asked for a copy of Mr. Stoyka's notes.
Mann asked if any of the other initiating governments have a weak attendance
record at the Joint Board. Stoyka stated all the other governments have consistently
attended.
The Joint Board also approved $12,000 to complete the data integration project to
consolidate all the flow and habitat data. The consultants said the data documentation is in
bad shape. Staff agreed.
Brenner stated funding decisions are supposed to first go to the County Council for
review and approval before going to the Joint Board. Stop making funding decisions until
the Council has the Executive's response.
Stoyka stated the Joint Board received a status update of the:
• Lower Nooksack Strategy, which the Council will receive later in this meeting
• Ground water modeling project, for which they are scheduling consulting
team interviews.
Joint Board's annual outreach event that includes a water banking seminar in
September.
2. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE
Stoyka stated the Coordinated Water System Plan is included in the budget for this
year. They are in the process of preparing an initial scoping contract with RH2 Engineering,
the selected consultant. Until they determine the scope, it would be difficult to do a cost
estimate. There was a meeting in June on the scope of the update with agency
representatives and major water purveyors. They will use that information to develop the
main contract for the Coordinated Water System Plan. He prepared a resolution for the
Council to adopt at its July 8 meeting. It is a call to convene the Water Utility Coordinating
Committee to shepherd the Coordinated Water System Plan update process. The resolution
will include the scope of the update and designate a Council representative on the Water
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
Utility Coordinating Committee. The first meeting of the Water Utility Coordinating
Committee will be in August. The process will take about a year.
Weimer asked if the funding for the Coordinated Water System Plan comes from the
money designated for the Joint Board or from other sources. Stoyka stated it comes from
Flood Control Zone District funds.
3. STATUS UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES) PHASE II STORMWATER
PERMIT
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated staff will bring forward requested
budget information to the Council at the July surface water work session. Today they will
summarize the permit update.
Cathy Craver, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation on
the NPDES Phase II Permit (on file). The new permit requirements began August 2013. It
includes significant changes over the next few years.
Browne asked how to proactively provide information on the 2014 Stormwater
Management Program to people in addition to putting information on the County website.
Craver stated they host outreach events in Birch Bay and Lake Whatcom. They plan to host
workshops on private stormwater facility maintenance. They will contact people through
mailers, announce events on the NPDES website, and provide updates at various community
meetings. They work through existing programs and contacts.
Browne asked if staff provide information to land disturbance permit applicants.
Craver stated the Planning Department provides background and resource information a
person needs regarding a land disturbance permit.
Browne stated they want to contact someone at the point where there is a direct
relationship to their activities. Consider whether there are other ways to reach people
through their decision - making processes.
Brenner stated have a simple generic pamphlet to give to people. Craver stated
municipalities engaged in a lot of public review when the new permit was issued. At the
same time, they moved forward with Lake Whatcom development regulations. There was
outreach and workshops for groups such as the Building Industry Association (BIA). They
can look at other ways to provide information.
She continued the presentation with the 2013 highlighted accomplishments, which
include outreach efforts, the Lake Whatcom overlay district, and stormwater facility
maintenance. New permit requirements include the Birch Bay urban growth area, increased
monitoring, increased inspection of stormwater facilities, low impact development, and the
Lake Whatcom total maximum daily load (TMDL) permit.
Crawford asked about the 2,700 catch basins. He asked how catch basins are
maintained right now. Craver stated sometimes maintenance is complaint- driven.
Maintenance and Operations (M &O) has a maintenance schedule for different areas. The
permit requires a strict documentation process for every catch basin inspection.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
Browne asked what material is captured in the catch basins. Craver stated the catch
basins capture anything that washes into the system. It isn't treatment, but it is effective in
capturing pollutants.
Kremen asked when the County first started installing catch basins and if there is
information that catch basins are effective.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated they started installing catch
basins 50 years ago.
Craver stated the catch basins are effective, but infrastructure ages. They need to
inventory the status of the catch basins and find home owner - installed catch basins. They
must figure out which basins need to be replaced or repaired and which are fine.
Kremen stated catch basin effectiveness depends on how well they're maintained.
Craver stated they will identify that information through the documentation process.
Stoyka stated all have been mapped.
Mann stated catch basin designs have evolved to collect more pollutants. He asked
why it takes six months to repair a catch basin when they identify a needed repair. Craver
stated the six month standard is a permit requirement and a problem for some small
jurisdictions. If it will take longer than six months, they need to explain why. With 2,700
catch basins, many factors affect how long it would take to do repairs.
Buchanan asked if different catch basins have different maintenance requirements.
Craver stated all catch basins are inspected for structural integrity, amount of sediment,
and other generic factors. They will review any unusual designs on a case -by -case basis.
Crawford asked how long it takes to inspect and maintain a catch basin and how
many they can do in a day. Christensen stated it depends on the location and the amount
of traffic. They could do two or three in an hour under the best conditions.
Craver continued the presentation on inspection and replacement for development.
They must implement annual inspections of stormwater treatment and flow control facilities
for all new development by December 2016. Maintenance will be required if inspection
shows they exceeds standards set by the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington.
Crawford asked if there will be a tracking program for all new construction. Craver
stated there will be if it was built after 2016. There isn't a requirement for inspections of
development occurring before 2016, but jurisdictions must provide education and outreach
so people can maintain their systems. The County currently does that outreach and
education. The County knows where those systems are. The details of the inspection
program haven't yet been developed. All the jurisdictions are working on programs that are
amenable to the community and manageable for the jurisdictions.
Crawford asked if they are doing that in phase 1 in other jurisdictions. Craver stated
they are. Some jurisdictions allow the homeowner to provide information to the county,
and other jurisdictions require and provide inspections for free or for a fee. There will be
phase 1 examples to consider. This is all based on what gets permitted. The regulations
will be set up through the Planning Department.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
Browne asked the logic of not going back in time and inspecting the older catch
basins and systems. Craver stated the Department of Ecology can't create requirements
and enforcement mechanisms that go back in time. Instead, get those residences as much
information as possible to encourage and empower the owners to maintain the facilities.
Browne asked if the County would lose its permit. Craver stated it would not. There
is the potential for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) auditor to levy fines for not
complying.
Stoyka stated King County was fined this past year because they were not
adequately completing all their permit requirements and not keeping adequate records.
Kremen asked if there were sanctions against King County. Craver stated she
doesn't know specifically, but it may happen.
She continued the presentation regarding field assessment monitoring. The permit
also requires regional monitoring of water quality improvements. Either the County or
Ecology can monitor the regional locations. Whatcom County opted to have the State do
the monitoring. She will bring forward information on the regional monitoring areas when
she receives it.
She concluded the presentation and stated the last major new requirement is
incorporation of low impact development in the County codes and regulations. The
administration and Council will schedule action.
Crawford asked that councilmembers watch a 2009 Frontline documentary called
Poisoned Waters. It is informative about the bigger picture from the federal level about
what is going on in Puget Sound. The documentary shows evidence of egregious
stormwater pollution into Puget Sound. The City of Bellingham diversion into Lake Whatcom
provides a large amount of phosphorous loading, but Ecology decided to not count it as part
of the phosphorous loading. There are polluters that are bigger than the pollution from
residential development. It's backwards to ignore a constant enormous polluting source and
put a disproportionate amount of expense on all the little sources, including private
homeowners. Craver stated she can address the County's jurisdiction and issues. Regional
problems are discussed in a regional forum.
Crawford stated he hopes the most obvious stormwater pollution contributors are
addressed. It's good in the long run. Don't exempt any problems, or there will be disparity.
Christensen stated private businesses and industries have their own NPDES permit,
under which many of these problems can be covered.
Kremen stated thousands of homes have antiquated systems that create many
contaminants and pollutants that go into Bellingham Bay. It would be more effective to
address those sources of contaminants than to go after the development that hasn't yet
been built. It's disproportionate and ineffective. The amount of pollutants they're
preventing from new development is infinitesimal compared to old sources that have been
spewing contaminants for decades.
Craver stated there is a limited amount of enforcement that Ecology and the County
can do on past development. It's easier to look into the future and create stricter
requirements. There are also regulations in place and enforcement for any property
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
producing pollutants that flow into the County system. That won't necessarily retrofit the
development, but it may. It would take a great legislative effort to do that.
Crawford thanked Ms. Craver for a great presentation.
Browne stated the education and enforcement issues are similar to those issues
regarding septic systems. Find a way to develop and coordinate the two efforts.
4. STATUS OF LOWER NOOKSACK STRATEGY
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation (on
file) on the Lower Nooksack Strategy, the watershed planning and implementation
chronology, and development and framework of the strategy.
Mann asked what a transparent, accountable, and scalable market process for
furthering resource -based economic activity and growth is.
Henry Bierlink stated it is Planning Department's ag watershed project for a natural
resource marketplace. It includes water banking, land use banking, and ecosystem services
banking.
Crawford stated the language should indicate that the court - approved settlement
with the tribes regarding water rights will include beneficial outcomes for all parties. Stoyka
stated this was before the tribes made a request for a federal settlement. Their goals are
listed in the second desired outcome from the strategy.
He continued the presentation on the 2010 strategy framework from the Joint Board;
financial strategy and task management; summary of objectives; associated cost estimates
and actual expenditures; and the tasks, status, and challenges of each of the five
objectives.
Brenner asked what's been done on objective five regarding the natural resources
marketplace.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they are
using grant money to look at the North Lynden Bertrand Creek and Fishtrap Creek
watersheds and to monitor and track improvements that can be made to watershed
activities or agricultural practices. He hopes to bring forward two pilot projects this fall.
Stoyka concluded the presentation on the summary of the objectives and Joint Board
decisions.
Weimer asked if the two tribes are interested in negotiating now that the Joint Board
approved all those goals. Stoyka stated they aren't regarding instream flows, but they may
on other objectives.
Weimer stated they will need to remove objective one regarding instream flow
settlement from the plan. Stoyka stated that's correct.
Crawford asked if there is a way to bring the tribes to the table. They are in charge
of instream flow and monitoring. He asked if they can get the tribes to commit to this
strategy. Stoyka stated the tribes provided funding for the data integration project. The
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, 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
44
45
46
Nooksack Tribe has outside funding for some monitoring in addition to the County's
monitoring. The Joint Board fund is made up entirely of funds that came from the County.
Crawford stated they should communicate with the tribes as they update the plan. It
would be meaningful to the community if the tribes participated in this effort, including
financial participation.
Weimer stated the Lummi Tribe does a lot of independent monitoring. Stoyka stated
the expenditures that he listed didn't include in -kind contributions from the tribes. There
are in -kind contributions. In terms of funding these activities, there are tribal contributions
to efforts.
Crawford stated they can indicate the value of the tribal contributions and the source
of tribal funding.
Mann asked if there is a process to measure how much water they need. Stoyka
stated quantifying need is the main goal of objective three. The Coordinated Water System
Plan update will forecast water needs for public water systems. The next step would be to
look at other non - public water system needs, including agriculture, exempt wells, and
industrial uses.
Kremen stated the tribes are more successful
mixed messages of the tribal request for adjudication
the issues. He hopes they can request funding jointl y .
initiating governments should pursue federal fundin g
secure federal funding.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
at securing federal funding. There are
and the ongoing joint effort to resolve
It's time now to work together. The
together to improve their chances to
The Council approved these minutes on September 16, 2014.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 6/24/2014, Page 7