HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session June 25 20131
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
June 25, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Councilmember Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Courthouse Fifth Floor Conference Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue,
Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen
and Carl Weimer
Absent: Kathy Kershner
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2013 -024)
PRESENTATION REGARDING SWIFT CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
SWIFT CREEK SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN (SCSMAP), AND
RESOLUTION REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE SCSMAP.
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated they finalized the SCSMAP and
related environmental impact statement (EIS). They plan to adopt the action plan and
resolution in the next two or three months.
Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, described the contents of the SCSMAP.
This issue has been studied since 1976. The action plan is to respond to and solve
problems as much as possible and to identify and prioritize goals. They must comply with
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Wheeler Consulting issued a draft EIS and final
EIS, which now allows them to move forward with an action plan and related projects. He
and Dan Gibson are preparing a draft resolution that is in line with Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and State Department of Ecology (DOE) in terms of regulatory liability under
the Model Toxics Control Act (MOTCA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Everything is contingent on Whatcom County
coming to an agreement with EPA and DOE regarding regulatory liability.
Brenner stated the County doesn't have liability. If someone dumps something
dangerous on the County, no one can say the County can't do something to alleviate the
situation. Middleton stated Whatcom County, the State Department of Transportation, the
State Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers have all used the
material.
The funding for the action plan is not set up. The State and federal government will
have to participate in funding the action plan. The plan is contingent on a satisfactory
agreement of the liability issue and on available outside funding. If those can happen, the
SCSMAP is what the County would like to do for the situation at Swift Creek. The Council
should adopt the action plan by resolution, proceed forward to resolve the funding and
liability issues, and move forward with the action plan.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, 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
Knutzen asked about an action plan item about the combination of the two forks.
Middleton described the phases of the plan. The Council would decide to start working on
the action plan through the water resources annual improvement program.
Brenner asked how putting material in a gravel pit would be different from
stockpiling. Middleton stated that in a gravel pit, they would fill a hole in the ground and
cover it up.
Brenner stated they can do that with a stockpile. She wants to know if it is cheaper
to move the material to a gravel pit than to stockpile. Middleton stated that if they leave it
where it is, it's in people's backyards. That property will no longer be used for agriculture.
He doesn't know the cost.
Knutzen asked about salmon enhancements efforts if the river is moved. Middleton
stated this is still clean water. They would be adding habitat. He doesn't know the cost.
He would like to investigate those effects.
Brenner asked if it could overflow in the Breckenridge water system if they don't do
something. Middleton stated it can break through and end up in Breckinridge. The real
problem is that the metals in the material will damage habitat.
Brenner asked why it can't be a superfund site. Brueske stated the EPA has not
officially ruled that out.
Knutzen asked about funding from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). Middleton
stated it it's possible. This has been a line item in the legislative budget. The situation has
regional and international effects. The DOE has a lobbyist who is waiting for County action
before looking for funding from the State legislature.
Brenner asked what would cost $65 million. Middleton stated the cost of doing this
work is dozen of millions of dollars. The planning estimate of the total cost could be $65
million, but they have no engineering estimates to confirm that planning estimate.
Brueske stated a reason for the north fork reroute is that it's an action they can take
regardless of the liability, because they are dealing with clean water.
Knutzen stated Breckenridge still has a healthy salmon population. More habitat
would not be a bad thing. Middleton stated it is now trapped clean water. Get the clean
water out of there to use it for fish habitat and get water off the slope.
Brenner asked the history of the landslide before the 1940's. Middleton stated two
faults run east. In the 1930's, it started to really slide. There was a debris flow event in
the 1970's. Since then, the debris is moving more, faster, and steadier. The sediment
material and sediment behavior have changed.
Brenner asked if anyone has done scientific research to determine if the material can
be bound up and used. Middleton stated there is always hope that there can be a
commercial response. If there is a market for the material, the material will go away. The
staff don't believe that will happen. There are cheaper places to get asbestos.
The next step is to introduce a resolution at the July 23 Council meeting. A draft
resolution will approve the action plan and the phase 1 proposals. The annual and six -year
water resources improvement programs should include phase 1 and phase 2.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, 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
Crawford asked who is paying for all this. He hopes they can get grants to cover all
the costs. Middleton stated the County can do some of phase 2 and phase 3 in- house. Use
grants for rerouting or investigating a repository site. Construction will have to come from
outside funding.
Crawford asked if they anticipate grants will be available. Middleton stated he's been
told the State legislature has this as a very high priority for funding. They are trying to get
the EPA to participate also. They may be able to tap into superfund site funds. Robbing the
flood control fund can't happen. No funding is available there.
Brueske stated they made it clear to DOE and EPA that the County can't tax people
through the flood fund.
Crawford stated go forward with the assumption that they will not use local tax
dollars to do this. Middleton stated the question becomes what to do if they don't get
funding. The County will keep the roads open as best it can and respond as best they can
with the resources they have. The EIS covered that as the no action alternative. What little
resources there are to help the community will keep the roads open, protect their
backyards, and keep the material from encroaching onto their property. That's not a
solution.
Crawford asked the cost of the work, not including moving the river. Middleton
stated the cost is dozens of millions of dollars.
Knutzen asked if they approached Homeland Security, because it's becoming an
international concern. Middleton stated they have not approached Homeland Security, but
he has heard from the State Department in the past. They are trying to work through the
Army Corps of Engineers. At some point, the local legislative body, state legislators, and
federal legislators will have to get involved and push it.
Brenner stated at some point it may be time to sue the State and federal
governments. They are the ones who are claiming the County has liability. If the County
doesn't maintain it, it will be a public safety issue for the people out there. It seems like at
some point, they have to do something other than not let them do it. Middleton stated that
is the intent. He doesn't care what happens in Washington D.C. He cares what happens to
these residents.
Kremen stated that during the last four or five years he was County Executive and
during the past two years, they have annually requested funding from the entire
congressional delegation. They've received nothing. The acuteness of the problem and the
fact that it is an international issue causes a higher likelihood of getting some federal or
State assistance, but it's not that probable. He doubts any funding received will be
adequate to address the issues.
Knutzen asked if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has any
responsibility. Middleton stated FEMA responds after a flood event.
Knutzen asked if FEMA is responsible for cleaning up the sediment after a flood
event. Middleton stated that is a question for Dan Gibson. It will be addressed in the
proposed resolution.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, 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
He hopes the adoption of the plan and the publication of the EIS will make DOE
stand up and take a look. Now they've been forced to pay attention. The issue is whether
they will come up with funding.
Brueske stated adoption of the plan by resolution is key to getting funding and
settling liability. There are two components of liability. The first is a consent decree that
outlines all agencies with responsibility. The second is a trust agreement to set up
management long -term and establish a trustee.
Brenner stated the consent decree should be clear that the County has responsibility
to its residents, but the State and federal have liability. Brueske stated the EPA has been
working on this more briskly since February.
Middleton stated things didn't move much until the County published the draft EIS,
after which meetings started happening.
Crawford asked if there is any movement toward EPA changing the bar on stuff like
this. This has never caused any case of mesothelioma. The statistics of it happening are
very low. Part of the issue has been that the federal government set the level of the
naturally occurring material. People have suffered from the regulations, not the materials.
This is because the federal government said that there is something bad happening out
there. Middleton stated he's not heard anyone from EPA say they over - reacted.
Brenner stated professionals in the field have reviewed the information and said that
this wouldn't pass scientific muster. People are just making political comments and
decisions.
Kremen stated he is skeptical about the severity of the problem from a health
perspective. The Health Department has gone back 50 years, and there is not one reported
case of mesothelioma. The action simulation tests conducted by the EPA resulted in two of
the eleven tests having unacceptable levels. There is minute possibility of contamination
that will have ill health effects. According to their tests, there wouldn't be ill- effects.
Middleton stated the SEPA officials and other staff decided to include in the EIS a
health impact analysis, which is a much higher level of review than a normal EIS. They
pulled all that testing information and published it. The health impact analysis has gotten
EPA to start talking about sediment solutions.
Kremen stated an EPA spokesperson was quoted as saying that the contamination of
the material is the equivalent of breathing the air in downtown Seattle.
Brenner stated the EPA has actually done a disservice to the people in the area if it's
not a problem. If they are hurt financially, it's another problem. She has a problem with
how the EPA dumped this alleged problem on the County. The County should fight it.
Regardless of what they do, make sure they aren't going to leave people in the area with
financial problems.
Middleton stated the naturally- occurring asbestos is an issue, but not the biggest
issue. The community lives below a landslide area that is dumping a lot of material. The
County is already protecting people from landslides at Jones Creek and Canyon Creek.
Whether or not there is asbestos, the landslide problem exists and will cost more than Jones
Creek and Canyon Creek. Because there is asbestos in the material and the State and
federal government have brought up the problem, the County should work on the sediment
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, 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
problem and the State and federal government should work on the asbestos issue. That's
the proposal in the action plan.
Knutzen asked if there are efforts to coordinate this work seasonally. Middleton
stated the problem is they can't work on it until September because the material is very
runny. The overall plan is to just get it out of there. Whether or not they install sediment
basins, find a place to put the material. Phase 3 is to start looking at that.
Larry Brown, Sudden Valley Board President, stated it sounds like they are saying it's
a benefit to have the EPA concerned about this issue so they become a funding source for
work that has to be done. Middleton stated any time the federal government is involved is
usually not a great thing. The County won't have a choice. If the EPA is going to be
involved, it can help fund this.
Brueske stated if it's not a superfund site, it is limited to some small emergency
response funding.
Kremen stated that from the beginning when the EPA created the issue, he
immediately requested the EPA to fund or assist in funding to address the problem. He was
told at that time and several times since that they have no money. Maybe things have
changed. He hopes they will get State and federal assistance. The action plan is essential
to getting funding.
Tom Fenton stated Jerry Hammer suggested 35 years ago that they contain the
material at a basin at the bottom of the hill. Give Roland Middleton the opportunity to
investigate opportunities to move the water to a different location.
Larry Meades stated Swift Creek flows through his and others' properties. They
appreciate looking at the long -term, but they needed something done this year and next
year to save the bridges and roads. Oat Coles Road was flooded for four months last
winter. It drained because they dug out the culverts. The ditch on the east side of Oat
Coles Road is full of sediment. They need to get it out, but no one wants to touch it. Get it
out of the culverts so the culverts can drain. Now, the streambed is higher than the
culverts. He sometimes has to pump the water out of his property 24 hours per day. Also
think about immediate actions. He agrees with and appreciates the long -term effort.
Brueske stated they are working on a project for small -scale dredging in that area in
September.
Crawford asked if this rises to the level of a flood event for FEMA. He asked if the
County Executive can declare an emergency for this area, which triggers FEMA involvement.
Brueske stated the 2009 event was a State declared emergency. He doesn't think the
Executive - declared emergency affects FEMA. If they somehow got that FEMA money, they
always have EPA over their shoulder saying they are encouraging additional liability by
moving the material. Addressing the liability is the key. All FEMA projects have been
reimbursement of local projects. FEMA doesn't coordinate its own projects.
Shirley Gelwicks stated a concern is that removing the culvert across the South Pass
Road, which carries all the ditch water and drainage water, would cause a big flood.
Middleton stated they are talking about moving the water to a different location. They have
to address how to keep the Swift Creek water from flooding out the residents.
Gelwicks stated water is collected from both sides of the ditch. Middleton stated
there is a spring from her property that flows to Breckinridge. It's not part of Swift Creek.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, 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
They hope to address all that water with water from the north fork so it flows through there
and does not flood her property and to remove the material from Swift Creek so the water
on Ms. Gelwicks' property is able to again flow into Swift Creek. Right now, it's dammed up
because of the levy.
Gelwicks stated the level of the creek is 20 feet above the surrounding field.
Brueske stated the plan includes restoring that grade.
Middleton stated they hope to move the material, not have to stack it up, and
capture it at the basin so it doesn't accumulate in anyone's backyard. That's part of phase
3.
Gelwicks asked the proposal for raising South Pass Road. Middleton stated there is
no proposal to raise South Pass Road. He explained the phases to Ms. Gelwicks.
Brueske stated they plan to introduce an ordinance on July 23, 2013.
Middleton stated he will also provide information on when they are getting the
dredging done.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:38 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on September 10, 2013.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Council Clerk Bill Knutzen, Council Vice -Chair
- Minutes Transcription
Surface Water Work Session, 6/25/2013, Page 6