HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session September 22 20091
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
September 22, 2009
Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford
Bob Kelly
Carl Weimer
Seth Fleetwood
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2009 -024)
1. REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF THE SUMAS MOUNTAIN SEDIMENTS,
INCLUDING SWIFT CREEK AND THE SUMAS RIVER
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated that recently an agreement was
signed with federal and state agencies that identifies the respective roles of everyone. He
submitted a copy of the agreement (on file, Exhibit 1). Another agreement with the State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) will soon come to the Council for work done on Swift
Creek. He submitted a map (on file, Exhibit 2) and described the location of Swift Creek.
Over the course of time and due to information new to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the EPA changed its story.
Jeff Hegedus, Health Department, submitted and described a map (on file, Exhibit 3)
on asbestos concentrations. They need to quantify whether or not and how much asbestos
existed in the water of the Sumas River, the upland area, and along the bank. This past
May, the EPA comprehensively sampled a section of the river. The range of asbestos is .25
percent to 33 percent in the upland soil samples. On the bank, the range of asbestos in the
samples is 1.75 to 23 percent. This is not a surprise. They need to consider all of Sumas
River, not just Swift Creek. The technicians speculate why there is more asbestos in the
Sumas River than in Swift Creek. However, that isn't relevant. The results of those
samples depend highly on how the sediment settles during a flood event. They do have
significant quantities of asbestos in the Sumas River, similar to Swift Creek. He submitted a
handout of the advisory for swift creek naturally occurring asbestos (on file, Exhibit 4) and a
packet of materials for property owners (on file, Exhibit 5). A public meeting with all the
agencies and the public is planned for the end of October. The concerns about the amount
of asbestos system -wide isn't diminishing. Everyone is accepting the inevitability of the
concern. The primary health message is that there is a significant quantity of naturally -
occurring asbestos that presents a health risk, and people should minimize exposure.
New information comes from the sample results on Sumas River for the upland area,
bank, and water that verify large amounts of asbestos. In the past, people have had a hard
time accepting that fact. Now they have lab results.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, 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
Kelly asked if it is just now that the administration has come to grips with the fact
that they have significant amounts of asbestos. Hegedus stated it is not. There is
increasing acceptance by the public and agencies that there is a level of asbestos that is
concerning.
Hutchings stated federal agencies say they need more information to prove to
superiors and Congress that this problem warrants federal monies. Another side is saying
they should not open this door before everyone figures out how to manage this problem.
Hegedus stated they did another study of groundwater. They did not find asbestos
in that water, which people use for drinking water.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should do some preventative work such as seeking
out a timber harvesting moratorium to not exacerbate the slide area. The last rain event
contributed to debris flow. That's the last thing they want to do.
She asked if some of this information should also affect their growth decisions,
regarding how Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas will expand their job base and everything
else. Don't add more people close to contaminated lands. Hutchings stated the forestry
question is valid and has been asked before. There are two landowners in this area. One is
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). There haven't been any recent harvests
in the Swift Creek watershed. The concern is noted, and staff will have that conversation.
Regarding land use, the Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) has been
talking about the area from the standpoint of critical areas and land use. The City of
Nooksack wants to stay away from those areas that might be inundated. Those
conversations are occurring. They will continue those conversations.
Weimer asked about 25 percent of the upland area being contaminated. He asked if
a sample from Whatcom Creek would be zero. Hegedus stated it probably would be.
Brenner asked if this is similar to the mining thing in Montana. It's naturally
occurring. She asked why the federal government is different here. Hegedus stated that in
Montana, people were occupationally exposed for a long time. It is very different from this
situation, where there is much less exposure.
Brenner asked why they used to think it was okay. They had this discussion years
ago. Hegedus stated naturally- occurring asbestos and its toxicity is an emerging area of
study. They used to think that if there was less than one percent asbestos, the dose is low.
That thought is being revisited now. They no longer think that less than one percent is an
acceptable risk.
Hutchings stated there was a permitting action in response to the Public Works
Department's ongoing dredging program that brought this issue forward. The perceived
health risks put limits on how they handled the material, which drove the cost up
substantially. There is nowhere along the historic banks of Swift Creek where they can
store this material. That means they must create capacity on the alluvial fan to capture
mass quantities of this material before it goes down the creek, or hauling it elsewhere. All
the options of substantial regulatory challenges.
Brenner stated the sloughing off has nothing to do with logging. Hutchings stated
that is correct.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, 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
Kelly asked if this is primarily a flood issue or health issue. Hutchings stated that it
used to be a public works issue, but has morphed into a public health question. The work
EPA did in response to the January flooding made it clear that it is a health issue. There is
no public works project to contain this sediment. The management of the landslide is more
like a civil project. There are some things they may be able to do to contain the material in
the medium term.
Kelly stated the County government can't address the civil issue of this source, which
will never go away. He asked if Whatcom County has control over only the flooding issue,
even though they can't separate the two issues. Hutchings stated that's correct.
Brenner asked if they can get an agreement with the EPA to start dredging again.
Hutchings stated they can in a very limited way.
He referenced the joint agency agreement with the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers
(Exhibit 1). Those agencies that have been pressing for health - related solutions have
recognized that there is a balance between not having a solution and burdening people with
other kinds of health risks from flooding and living in this environment. They have been
willing to talk about an appropriate health message and making commitments.
County staff met with these agencies, which acknowledged that the local agency
can't fix this problem. He described the agreement, which addresses who bears liability.
This agreement includes a safe harbor agreement. This is about recovery, not emergency
response. It's about recovery. It's about creating an environment in which people can help
themselves. The State and federal agencies have been difficult to work with on that issue.
They want to make it a local government problem and just tell the County what to do. The
County finally got to the point where it identified the State and federal responsibilities under
various laws. During the last flood event, the County demonstrated that it's not afraid to
call those agencies and ask them to participate. Those agencies have come to terms with
that.
If the County is going to work on an interim containment strategy, it must be able to
acquire flood easements and potentially acquire land. The County has no interest in forcing
people to sell land. This isn't about creating a safety net for residents. If a program like
that comes forward, it must come from the community. If the County is going to allow new
development to occur, there is culpability. He read through portions of the agreement. The
agreement won't fix the problem, but it changes the tone of the discussions.
Brenner stated the information they recently found out about isn't that asbestos
exists, but that this particular type of asbestos might be more harmful. Hutchings stated
that's right.
Hegedus stated the EPA uses the same coefficient for all kinds of asbestos to
calculate risk.
Brenner asked if they can prioritize this area if Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) does voluntary buyout for flooding. Hutchings stated buyout properties
have to meet cost - benefit requirements. The program focuses on recurrent river flooding.
The program isn't set up for this kind of problem. At some point, people are going to ask
for help. There will have to be a policy decision about what that help will be.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is an option to develop a voluntary buyout program.
The policy discussion will be on the areas they want to target and sources of funding. There
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, 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
are many houses in the danger areas. She asked at what point it will be a flood issue. She
asked at what point they can say that this is a health issue and it's not safe for people to
live there. Hutchings stated the EPA's threshold doesn't result in direct action to condemn
houses or that sort of thing. A more likely problem is that it would be possible for
homeowners to abate asbestos contamination, but it may be too difficult financially or not
the risk. The question is about developing a mechanism to help people relocate when they
are ready. Fully vet alternatives before they go forward. Any program has to come from
the community.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she just wanted to know what the driver will be.
Hutchings referenced a map of Swift Creek naturally occurring asbestos (Exhibit 3).
Ecology has $1 million that is focused on containing asbestos that might otherwise be
released from Swift Creek. The focus is a low -cost action to reduce the potential impact of
Swift Creek breaking out of its banks, while buying some time to allow development of a
longer -term solution. It would have to be a low -cost solution that protects the largest
number of people possible. It must start high up on the alluvial fan and work its way down.
It is a series of setback levees or berms that would contain Swift Creek on the alluvial fan
and would protect the mill and mushroom plant employees. Reinforce the berms
downstream to reduce potential that it breaks out of its banks. It will both enhance existing
levees and create new levees. This can only be done if the landowner, which is Great
Western, agrees.
The million dollars of State money plus the County match would get a portion of this
work done. The State legislature understands that moving ahead with this appropriation
means the County will be back later for the rest of the money.
The other area of concern is South Pass Road. The Public Works Department interest
is to maintain health and safety associated with transportation infrastructure and keep
transportation routes open. South Pass Road keeps sinking. Raising the road in the future
has implications. They must think about building up a fund balance to accomplish that goal
down the road.
Next, a framework plan for this will come to the Council in the form of an agreement
with Ecology.
Larry Mades, 7689 Oat Coles Road, Everson, stated there is 67 million cubic yards of
material on the side of Sumas Mountain. At the current rate, it will continue to slide for the
next 600 years. Unless they do something on the mountain, the same problem will occur
and won't get any better.
Hutchings stated a line item in the million dollar appropriation is to do some bores in
the alluvial fan to determine whether there is marketable gravel that could help offset the
cost of developing the kind of civil work project discussed for many years. To get that
conversation on center, there must be evidence of a solution for the longer term. That's
part of this solution.
Brenner asked if that gravel would be contaminated. Hutchings stated it would not.
It's low in the stratigraphy.
2. REVIEW OF THE 2009/2010 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BUDGETS
AND DISCUSS EXPECTATIONS FOR 2010
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, 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
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion
of the meeting.)
]on Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted and read through a handout (on
file). He read the handout on the Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) fund balance analysis.
He described the budget lapse at the end of 2009, which includes 1.25 full -time equivalent
(FTE) employees that were not paid for during 2009, a number of flood control projects for
which the County received reimbursement, and a number of capital projects earmarked for
stormwater design and construction in the Lake Whatcom watershed that they will not
spend in 2009. Those capital projects for stormwater design and construction need to be
re- budgeted in 2010.
Instead of having a substantial ending fund balance, the result is a substantially
better position at the end of 2009 than was budgeted. This is not saving the fund. They
are just deferring the cost of projects, which will come back and bite them. Between 2010
and 2011, they continue on the same projection of a huge decrease in the ending fund
balance. All the deferred projects will eventually come forward.
Brenner asked if funding for homeowner retrofit and compliance and education would
come from the conservation futures fund. They don't have anything to do with flooding.
Hutchings stated the Board has to make that decision. They have supplemented the
mandated stormwater programs from the FCZD fund and real estate excise tax (REET) II
during this two -year budget cycle.
Brenner stated the levee construction is a capital facilities project to make sure roads
are available for people to get to businesses. Hutchings stated that is correct.
Brenner stated there are better things to spend this money on than parking lots.
Hutchings stated that based on the Board's response, he will write a supplemental budget
request consistent with the Board's wishes. They'll talk about it more in detail next month.
Weimer asked from where they've saved $700,000. The Council passed funding for
such things as shellfish protection response for Chuckanut and Birch Bay. He asked if they
are still in the budget. Hutchings stated they did that work in -house at a substantially lower
cost. There has been a real effort to save money. It's been a burden, but they've managed
to get that work done. He can provide information on those line items.
Brenner stated prioritize public health and safety before anything else.
Weimer stated that is a high priority in the coordinated water resource inventory
project (CWRIP) process.
Brenner stated some of the items on this flood control list have nothing to do with
that. Public health and safety is her priority.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see a comparison. Regarding the deferred
levee, she asked how they determined it was appropriate. She asked if they are
comfortable with it as it is. She asked if there is a risk if they defer it too much longer. She
would like to know what this flood fund should be used for legally. If it can be used for
things other than flood projects, the Board should prioritize those items.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, 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
Hutchings stated the Board invested in an effort to make sure expenditures are
consistent with the expectations of the Board and everyone involved in the planning
process. They used that process last year to develop the budget, which includes the
Deming levee repair. Now, they are still working on those high priorities. This is consistent
with that previous prioritization. The construction of a number of these projects are
deferred a year or so.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they call it the flood fund, but half the county pays into it,
and isn't at risk for flooding. It's appropriate to pay some of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) work out of this fund.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration looks at the legal
applicability of the fund each time there is an expenditure from the fund. The
administration is happy to share that legal review.
Brenner stated everyone in Whatcom County benefits from flood prevention because
they use public roads and facilities.
Hutchings described the specific budget lapses from stormwater, natural resources,
and flood programs.
Brenner stated set up the homeowner retrofit program as an incentive program
rather than funding it with County money. Allow incentives that would make people exempt
from the program. Sometimes, people should take responsibility. They should be
incentivized.
Hutchings stated stay on top of these priorities
down the road about the budget priorities.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
They must be on the same page
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council(g-.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2009, Page 6