HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole May 23 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
May 23, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 6:21 p.m. in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood
Sam Crawford
Carl Weimer
OPEN DISCUSSION
1. BRIEF UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE LUMMI ISLAND GROUNDWATER
STUDY (AB2006 -239)
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the
Lummi Island subarea plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for Whatcom County was
updated. The revised draft was issued on February 2004. A State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) determination was made that before a full SEPA determination could be made, a
groundwater study on future withdrawal impacts needed to happen. They have updated
that information in the groundwater study.
The Council approved a budget that included the study. Staff selected Aspect
Consulting as the firm to complete that study. Work began in the fall of 2005 and included
several tasks. The work has continued since then, including coordination with agencies to
include other areas with ground water issues.
Aspect Consulting offered technical memoranda. Technical memorandum number
one (on file) provides a summary of existing data, including different groundwater studies
and interpretations of those. It covered three areas, which include the quantity of
groundwater, seawater intrusion, and arsenic levels. They have a masters thesis work by
Bill Sullivan that did two to three years worth of work identifying wells with those three
issues. He was unable to locate source material for arsenic. They thought it was most
likely from the hard rock. However, it was found to be in both the hard rock and the
Chuckanut formation. There was even some in the glacial marine drift. They were not able
to point to the specific source. A new masters thesis by Erika Martel is looking at that very
issue. She is heiping Aspect Consulting with their work in taking samples.
The technical memorandum one also discusses codes from Jefferson, Island, and San
Juan counties and Hawaii, which have policies and /or regulations for the quantity and
seawater intrusion. Some handle it through their critical areas ordinance, some through
their health code and some through both. The County will need to decide where regulations
will reside.
A public workshop was held in January and was well - participated. Unfortunateiy, the
ferry had an emergency that prohibited the ferry from operating at that time. Other people
sent in comments. They received information from people who attended. He submitted a
Committee of the Whole, 5/23/2006, Page 1
I summary of the workshop (on file), which gave citizens an overview of the technical
2 approach, well data that they have, and the data gaps they are looking for. Of the 50
3 people, he received permission from 35 owners in areas they needed additional information
4 from. In April, tests were taken to update the information in the technical memorandum
5 number one. The information in technical memorandum one is as of January 2006.
6 Additional information will come from well samples from April.
7
8 At the public workshop, many requested that they also do a coliform sample as well.
9 An additional services request (ASR) is before the Council this evening that asks for those
10 funds for additional testing. Those results will be given to the people who participated and
11 allowed the County to test their wells. The County will tell the people what to do with that
12 information. The people can contact the Health Department with questions.
13
14 Brenner asked if there is a map that shows the different risk levels, if people aren't
15 going to participate. Middleton stated they are taking samples from wells in areas where
16 there are unknowns and data gaps. They are not sampling all of Lummi Island. A map
17 showing risk levels is coming. They have taken the existing information and are filling in
18 the blanks. From that, they will identify those risk areas.
19
20 The public asked that Aspect Consulting come back in the fall, after the last tests,
21 and give them a presentation of the findings. That is presentation also in the ASR.
22
23 From existing information, the aquifer was characterized by the general geology in
24 technical memorandum two (on file). It discusses the geologic formations that have similar
25 water characteristics called hydrographic units, aquifer boundaries that give the aquifer
26 yields, flow directions, and storage. It has general locations of seawater intrusions and
27 arsenic locations. They are general locations, but wells nearby with a similar depth have
28 different problems.
29
30 Brenner asked if they can tell the general risk level by looking at aquifers. If people
31 don't agree, they can provide test results. Middleton stated that information is coming up.
32
33 Still to come is a characterization of the contaminated areas and the potential
34 problem areas. Aspect Consulting is working to identify and map those areas, to be used
35 for review of future well locations. Aspect Consulting will develop methodology for County
36 review of those wells, under land use codes or environmental health, to be determined.
37
38 Once they have identified that methodology in July, they will go back to those same
39 35 wells to take another sample in the low point of the aquifer in July. Compare that to the
40 methodology proposed to see if it works during any time of the year. They would like to do
41 those coliform tests during the August time period. A public meeting will be in the fall.
42
43 Aspect Consulting will gather all information and methodology. A final report given
44 to the SEPA official will be adopted as a mitigating measure for the subarea plan, which will
45 be amended to whatever they find, and brought forward for Planning Commission and
46 Council approval. Then, they need to look at the new water withdrawal regulations.
47
48 They are trying not to invent new things. They are looking at what Island and San
49 Juan counties have done. Some of this has moved quickly. Otherwise, they found missing
50 or surprising information. The seawater intrusion was much farther inland than they
51 expected in some areas, and not as far inland as they expected in other areas. Also, they
52 tried to develop methodology to safeguard future wells and neighbors with existing wells.
53
Committee of the Whole, 5/23/2006, Page 2
I Brenner asked if there is a correlation between depth of well and fluoride intrusion.
2 Middleton stated it has to do with location of aquifer and head water.
3
4 Crawford stated if the deeper they go, the more chance of saline there will be.
5 Middleton stated that is often the case.
6
7 Caskey- Schreiber asked about the arsenic distribution map. She asked if there is a
8 concern from the Health Department about arsenic levels.
9
10 ]eff Hegedus, Health Department, stated there is a concern. Arsenic that exceeds
11 maximum contaminant levels (mcl's) should be treated.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council does any kind of mandatory controls.
14 Hegedus stated the owners don't get water availability unless they treat exceeding
15 standards. The department is not monitoring impacts to neighboring properties. It is a
16 concern.
17
18 Brenner asked how treatable arsenic is. Hegedus stated it is expensive, but owners
19 can install treatment systems.
20
21 McShane stated treatments for arsenic vary depending on secondary contaminants in
22 the well.
23
24 Weimer asked if they are looking at what is going into the wells. It seems there is a
25 conflict in zoning between aquifer recharge areas and where houses are put in.
26
27 Middleton stated there is a limit to water supply. Quantity issues are addressed.
28 The study is only for $120,000. They discussed taking that extra step, which would cost
29 approximately $500,000 to map out in detail all aquifer issues. Councilmember McShane
30 had suggested that instead, have a better general understanding of the aquifers and a
31 methodology to handle the quantity, arsenic, and seawater. That is what the contract is for.
32 This will be given back to long range planning to review. The SEPA official will make a
33 determination on that, and it will go back to the Planning Commission. The overall zoning
34 determination is yet to come.
35
36 Weimer stated it will be based on well water in addition to recharge. They are
37 already over the recharge level in some places on Lummi Island.
38
39 Brenner asked if it is legal to do desalination. Middleton stated it is. There are two
40 houses on Lummi Island that have desalination plants. There may be more.
41
42 McShane stated owners can have roof catchments.
43
44 Brenner stated that may require water rights.
45
46 Middleton stated the full study will be completed this fall. The subarea plan may be
47 before the Council in the spring.
48
49 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they have to see
50 where the Futurewise case goes, and fold in recommendations for Lummi Island there. See
51 how the two are entwined.
52
Committee of the Whole, 5/23/2006, Page 3
McShane asked who will make the policy decision on what goes to the SEPA official
that he will evaluate in terms of mitigation. Middleton stated he met with the SEPA official,
who agreed with the previous SEPA determination and methodology. The SEPA concerns
will be addressed. The County must implement the regulations beyond that.
Brenner asked the number of un- platted lots left on Lummi Island that have not been
vested. Hart stated he will have to calculate that amount. Owners have been consuming
those lots in the amount of 12 to 20 per year.
Middleton stated that information is available.
Brenner asked if they are talking about a lot, or not many.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they will know more in three months.
Crawford stated there are hundreds certainly, and possibly more than a thousand.
CLOSED DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH CHIEF CIVIL DEPUTY PROSECUTOR RANDALL WATTS
REGARDING A PENDING LITIGATION SETTLEMENT (AB2006 -018)
Crawford moved to go into executive session for approximately ten minutes to
discuss this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADIOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
s on July 11 , 2006.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
i- CZ,-4 '- 5atf -L�'--
curie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 5/23/2006, Page 4