HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session November 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
November 18, 2014
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Barry Buchanan, and Rud Browne
Absent: Carl Weimer, Ken Mann, and Pete Kremen
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2014 -024)
(Clerk's Note: The work session began at 10:30 a.m. without a quorum of the
Council. See below for the call to order at 10 :40 a.m.)
3. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) ISSUES
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated this item will be rescheduled.
Instead, the Council will have a discussion of proposal to send a letter to the Army
Corp of Engineers regarding the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
Project (PSNERP) (AB2014 -428).
1. WATERSHED PLANNING UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the Planning Unit approved a work
plan at its last meeting. At its next meeting, it will discuss and possibly approve a budget
for the work plan. After the Planning Unit meeting tomorrow, there is no more money for a
facilitator. He will recommend to the Planning Unit that they proceed with a meeting on
December 17 to discuss groundwater modeling work and get input on the Coordinated
Water System Plan update. There is also a special Planning Unit meeting on December 3,
when the State Department of Ecology will give a presentation on instream flow rules. The
four questions for Ecology are: how are the current Nooksack rules set and how does it
work; what is the science behind setting instream flows; how will Ecology set or modify
instream flow rules now versus how it was done in 1986, and; what would Ecology do if
there were a request to modify the current Nooksack instream flow rule, particularly in light
of the Swinomish ruling and with the current Hirst case. Also, the environmental caucus
has returned to the Planning Unit.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item continued after the Call to Order.)
CALL TO ORDER
(Clerk's Note: The Council achieved a quorum at 10 :40 a.m.)
Councilmember Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Crawford stated they need to elect a temporary chair for this meeting, since the
Council Chair and Council Vice -Chair are not present. He opened nominations.
Browne nominated Councilmember Crawford.
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, Page 1
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Browne and Buchanan (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer, Mann and Kremen (3)
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2014 -024)
1. WATERSHED PLANNING UPDATE
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from earlier, before a quorum.)
Stoyka stated the Joint Board budget was presented to the Council. The Joint Board
approved its budget. It is close to finishing the scope of work for the groundwater modeling
project consultant.
2. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the first meeting of the Water Utility
Coordinating Committee (WUCC) was in November, and they will begin meeting monthly in
January for about a year. The consultant will start on the updates and begin producing
information.
Brenner asked about the budget for the consultant and how often the WUCC will
meet. Stoyka stated the budget is $176,000, and the WUCC anticipates having 12
meetings. Most of the budget is for the actual update.
Crawford asked if the new water improvement districts (WIDs) will have an impact or
input. Stoyka stated they will not. This is just for public water systems and is specific to
potable water supplies. It is for any system that has to have a water system plan. All
public systems are invited to participate. The WUCC consists of all water systems that have
at least 50 connections, which is about 64 systems. They are the official voting members of
the WUCC. However, they've invited all public water systems to participate.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of proposal to send a letter to the Army Corp of Engineers regarding
the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) (AB2014-
428)
Crawford described a recent newspaper article about the Lummi project to remove
dikes and so forth in an area south of Slater Road as part of a shoreline enhancement
program. The Council received a letter from the Farm Bureau suggesting this project would
destroy farmland. He would like to know if that's accurate.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, submitted a handout (on file) and described
the history of this project, which is aimed at looking for habitat improvement opportunities.
Most of the work so far has been done in Olympia. There's no hydraulic analysis. The
project is very conceptual at this point. The County's current comprehensive flood hazard
management plan (CFHMP) still plans for a setback levee along Ferndale Road, which
includes the estuary salmon restoration project (ESRP) throughout reach one. The PSNERP
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, Page 2
1 project will not condemn land and is totally voluntary. They must work with the
2 landowners. There is opportunity in working with the PSNERP people. The County is
3 preparing comments that say the County is moving forward with its plan, and they need to
4 work with the County to create projects that the County and landowners can and want to
5 do. She described the next steps in the process. Move the local process along and develop
6 big, pricey projects that the County can hand off to the Army Corps of Engineers.
7
8 Crawford asked about the concern about losing farmland. There are farmland areas
9 that are allowed to flood during certain times of the year. He asked if this is the same
10 situation. Cooper stated it depends on what works for the landowner. They need to work
11 with the landowners. There is an opportunity to do that. The focus of the project is estuary
12 restoration.
13
14 Crawford stated estuary restoration may be on the priority scale, but would not be
15 the County's top priority. He would like to know how local prioritization comes into this
16 process. Cooper stated they said their next step is to work with the community.
17
18 John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated the agricultural soils get wetter
19 the farther south they go. The salmon recovery plan includes salmon habitat objectives for
20 the lower river. The County looks first at human life and safety. The lower river project
21 includes habitat benefits and detriments. A challenge with the Army Corps of Engineers
22 project is ensuring that they listen to local priorities. The County may have other, higher
23 priorities, but this may be a way to accomplish different things from another pot of money.
24
25 Cooper stated there are serious water quality concerns that need to be addressed.
26
27 Thompson stated the Lummi Nation has conceptually supported restoring habitat on
28 the river and in Lummi Bay. Right now, the biggest holdup is the water quality issue.
29
30 Crawford asked how the County gets involved in this process. Cooper stated the
31 County staff is preparing written comments in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
32 process.
33
34 Crawford asked how they get this issue in front of Congress. Cooper stated this
35 comes from the Army Corps authorization to complete work. For the Corps to keep moving
36 forward, they need Congressional approval and funding. The County will have plenty of
37 time to get organized and say what it wants from the program.
38
39 Brenner asked if staff will list the County's concerns, which will include agricultural
40 land and public safety. Cooper stated that's correct. She described the comments they're
41 preparing.
42
43 Browne stated they must look carefully at the value of the Army Corps projects in
44 the county to make sure there is an actual net value to the County. Cooper stated she's
45 hopeful that they will negotiate and agree to any project that has a net benefit to the
46 County.
47
48 Browne stated there are still big water rights issues the County must solve. The best
49 place to draw water is where the fresh water hits the salt water. Incorporate into the
50 discussion the option of drawing water for agricultural use at this point. Cooper stated
51 that's beyond the scope of the County's project, which focuses on flood and fish.
52
53 Browne stated it's worth looking at them jointly.
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, Page 3
1
2 Crawford stated it's frustrating that this is all happening in Olympia and Washington
3 D.C., but ten of the 11 projects are north of Everett. He's concerned that they are making
4 decisions for the County. Cooper stated their perspective may be that there is a better
5 opportunity to restore habitat here than in the highly urbanized areas to the south.
6
7 George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, stated they must adhere to the policy
8 of no net loss of farmland and agricultural land of long -term significance. There should not
9 be these sorts of projects without appropriate mitigation. There are over 4,000
10 development rights on prime farmland. They should mitigate at a factor of two -to -one, so
11 they can increase the farmland base in prime farmlands. He's concerned that a staff person
12 will look at this farmland and conclude that it's marginal. That's not the test for no net loss
13 of farmland. It's not the test of the Growth Management Act (GMA). It's marginal due to
14 decisions made out of context of the land base many years ago. Going forward, make
15 strong comments that the County's policy is no net loss of farmland, that any projects must
16 recognize the importance of certain areas to deliver those functions, and that the County
17 will protect its farmland. He doesn't argue against reestablishing fish and wildlife habitat or
18 hydrologic services. However, they can't continue to erode the farmland. Loss of farmland
19 is critical. Don't surrender it easily.
20
21 Brenner moved that the Council write a letter reflecting Mr. Boggs' comments. She
22 will work with Mr. Boggs.
23
24 Jim Hanson stated it's impractical that thousands of acres will be purchased for
25 restoration. There is a discrepancy between appraisals and market rate. The concept that
26 all the farms will be gone and everything will be back - sloped into streams is unrealistic.
27 However, supporting the research and development feasibility step proposed, the County
28 could gain useful information regarding flood control and practical environmental restoration
29 projects. The Lummi River project is highly difficult technically due to water quantity issues.
30 He agrees with comments from Mr. Boggs about no net loss of farmland. Look at the
31 approach for water association expansions and the lack of policy prohibiting exempt wells in
32 closed watersheds. Those are two steps that can be taken to help limit this incursion of
33 residential use into farmland. There are other policy steps the County can take to
34 discourage this through a Comprehensive Plan update and critical areas update.
35
36 Marian Beddill stated she supports the protection of the environment and of
37 farmland. It is from this philosophy that she will base her future arguments and
38 discussions.
39
40 Brenner restated her motion. She also has comments from Scott Bedlington and the
41 Farm Association. Her biggest concern is that this came late. Certain factions in the
42 community are already scared. This may be a way to move forward. She read from the
43 letter from Scott Bedlington.
44
45 Crawford stated it's important to submit comments. He will support the motion, and
46 trust that Councilmember Brenner and Mr. Boggs create comments that are professional
47 and respectful, and state briefly the local concerns. He doesn't know if the letter will be
48 signed by the Council Chair, since he's not in town.
49
50 Browne stated the letter should communicate that local government should be fully
51 engaged in this process, the proposals should incorporate local projects and priorities, and
52 incorporate increased access to agriculture where possible.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, Page 4
1 The motion carried by the following vote:
2 Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Browne and Buchanan (4)
3 Nays: None (0)
4 Absent: Weimer, Mann and Kremen (3)
5
6 Crawford asked if the crops growing on farmland that also serves as a flood overflow
7 area aren't those types of crops. Cooper stated she doesn't know yet. A lot of the seed
8 potato land upstream gets flooded. There could be opportunities, but she doesn't yet know
9 for sure.
10
11 4. HIGH CREEK PROJECT
12
13 John Thompson, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
14 (on file). He described the location and history of the creek, creek maintenance, and
15 flooding. Permitting agencies require a management plan and that the County demonstrate
16 the long -term need for dredging. The plan will be finished in the next couple of months.
17 It's ranked as item 102 on the County's comprehensive water resource integration project.
18 He showed pictures of and described an interim project done during summer.
19
20 Brenner asked if the County can develop a long range plan for dredging for several
21 similar areas. Thompson stated the intent is to identify the preferred options.
22
23 Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the local community is very
24 supportive of this plan. They will dredge this year. It is in the improvement plan. There is
25 money for design and implementation in 2016. They will build the two traps in 2016. After
26 that, it will just be annual maintenance.
27
28 Brenner stated those two traps won't solve the problem. Thompson stated they
29 won't solve the problem. They will help the County manage the program.
30
31 Cooper stated it will be the long term management strategy until they can put it in
32 the gravel pits. The County must pay for long term maintenance of this creek. They will
33 have to include it in the Flood Control Zone District budget every year. She will reach out to
34 the State Department of Transportation for a cost -share agreement.
35
36 Brenner asked if dredging is an option for long term maintenance. Cooper stated
37 she hopes they won't need to maintain the rest of the channel if they maintain the two
38 traps. The material will be focused on the traps. They will have to remove the material
39 every year. The traps will have a five -year maintenance permit.
40
41 Brenner stated removing the material from the traps is the same thing as dredging.
42
43 Crawford stated they will remove 800 cubic yards per year. He asked how many
44 cubic yards it will take to build this project. Cooper stated the preliminary cost estimate
45 was $300,000.
46
47 Thompson stated they will use the removed material to rebuild the berms.
48
49 Crawford asked what happens to the material removed from the traps. Thompson
50 stated it is decent fill material. They have been removing 900 to 1,000 cubic yards below
51 the bridge periodically. He will bring additional items forward to the Council as the project
52 moves along.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, 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
S. CANYON CREEK PROJECT
John Thompson, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
(on file) to summarize the work that's been done. He described the location and history of
the project. He showed photos of and described the project before, during, and after
completion.
Crawford asked how far up the fish go in this canyon. Thompson stated salmon can
survive to about four miles upriver from the north fork. This location is less than a mile
from the river.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:12 p.m.
The CAu ci'1',approved these minutes on March 3, 2015.
ATTE;ST�* "� �.. a.,'`
�;,
Dena B oWn- Ddufis,-Counj it Clerk
ti
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 11/18/2014, Page 6