Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session February 21 2006Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session February 21, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer Sam Crawford SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2006 -025) 1. SURFACE WATER Surface Water Management Priorities Absent: Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated this is a continuation from the last work session. Staff and councilmembers looked at existing districts such as, flood, diking, drainage, and flood subzones to determine the current governments in the basin. They also looked at whether there are other issues they need to address that are unique to the geographic basins. 30 Nelson stated the County gets many financial requests for water resource 31 management. The requests may or may not be related. He hoped to have a more 32 comprehensive method for water resource management that coordinates with all entities 33 and makes sense geographically. He hopes to provide the Council with a list of priorities to 34 see and fund in an appropriate fashion. Also, he hopes to get a handle on various funding 35 sources. 36 37 There are serious concerns and issues that are different in the geographical areas. 38 The urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale would be dealt with differently from a 39 countywide comprehensive approach since they have their own financial capacity to 40 contribute. Each of the areas are unique and will have different issues. He is outlining the 41 geographic regions based on the issues they deal with. They have to consider how to put 42 them together to create a comprehensive approach. Identify existing plans for each 43 geographic area. Review the existing plans to see if they make sense for the individual 44 geographic approach and also countywide. Once those areas are identified, identify the 45 gaps that relate to other geographic areas. Then set up short-term, mid -term, and long - 46 term financial plans and priorities. The final problem is how to compile the information and 47 formulate them into a set of recommendations that make sense and that the community 48 accepts. 49 50 The County will not supplant current efforts. They may need a task force in each 51 geographic area to work on those issues that are already identified, then prioritize their 52 objectives and necessary funding. The hardest step is to incorporate each geographic area 53 into a countywide approach. An advantage is that the County will have a comprehensive 54 approach in place when it requests grant funds. Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 1 Brenner asked if the County can comprehensively set up unique districts for each geographic area. Nelson stated flood control district funding has the broadest number of things it can fund, but the public perceives that it is strictly for flood control. Instead, call the districts water management districts. Roll stated many plans have popped up over the last several years. This effort attempts to pull together the guiding principals for each area as projects and requests come forward. For the County to enable others to act, there is a need for geographic -based management areas. This plan moves in that direction. It uses the policies and procedures that have already been set up to define the community's priorities. Brenner asked if the existing fee structure or the water management district fee structure would take over. Nelson stated the water management district is for planning, and is not so much a financial authority. Brenner stated some districts don't have any funding. She asked if the water management district could collect funds for them. Nelson stated they could in those areas. Areas with flood subzones, for example, would become a player in the water management area where the subzones exist. It wouldn't be the only interest. There may be other issues besides flood issues. Brenner asked if a County water management district fee would be additional to or combined with existing fee structures. 30 31 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated surface water management was 32 dominated by political boundaries in the past. In the past few years, however, they have 33 refocused on drainage basins and the common issues in each basin. Political boundaries 34 generate money and create governance. This exercise is to marry the two. This exercise is 35 to aid in what they undo, versus what they create. 36 37 Brenner asked how to get other districts involved if they may not want to. 38 39 Nelson stated some districts may want to remain autonomous. If the districts 40 depend on County funds, then they need to participate. If not, the County can't control 41 their participation. 42 43 Brenner asked if this can fall under the umbrella of the water resource inventory 44 area (WRIA). Roll stated WRIA is a geographic area. 45 46 Brenner asked if the water management districts can be sub- districts of WRIA. Roll 47 stated they could be. 48 49 Monsen stated the idea is to get to the point of creating the draft implementation 50 plan, including financing. Deciding who receives that information is a challenge. It may 51 include the WRIA stakeholders. Discuss where this compilation of the plans will go ,so they 52 create a product to be delivered to someone. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 2 Weimer stated the WRIA process brought different stakeholders together for six years. There is some real forward momentum in that process. There is similar momentum in the shellfish protection districts and Marine Resources Committee (MRC). He asked if this plan is about coming up with a system to decide where the money is spent or whether they do more projects. Brenner stated it is both. Weimer stated get the districts involved to help prioritize what they do. WRIA may not be right for that. Nelson stated WRIA dealt with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Now, they are expanding the roles and identifying the unique geographic areas for water management. Broaden the scope of how they problem - solve. The issue is total water management. Caskey - Schreiber stated this structure in place can get everyone to look at the entire picture. The scope of work needs to be more specific. Nelson stated the next step is identifying the plans and systems in each geographic area. The hardest thing to wrestle with is to go to the communities and geographic areas to help them review and compile their priorities. Caskey - Schreiber stated defining the scope of work and defining the deliverables is key. Nelson stated once they have all the information, they must still identify the decision- makers to put together a final process. The tribes' roles play an integral role in water resources. So do the cities. He needs to know from the Council how to proceed. There have been initial meetings with administration regarding the first steps he discussed. 30 31 Monsen stated the next two major steps are contracting with someone to identify the 32 plans and create the geographical task forces. 33 34 Crawford asked the cost and funding source for those steps. Monsen stated it 35 depends on whether the consultant facilitates or leads the process. It is a general fund 36 issue. 37 38 Brenner stated she agrees with hiring someone to compile the plans. Also, she 39 would like to see a list of every jurisdiction this will include. 40 41 Crawford asked how much money they are talking about. Roll stated they need 42 more time to determine that. 43 44 Monsen stated he's not sure of the cost. They can't spend more than $100,000 from 45 now to the end of the year. They are not hiring someone to restudy the issues, just to 46 compile and summarize the information. 47 48 Brenner asked how much the County has spent on the consultant who is working on 49 the Parks and Open Space Plan. 50 51 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County may have spent about 52 $125,000, but he would have to check. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 3 Weimer stated he's not convinced the geographic areas make sense. It doesn't work if they divide the areas by zones. For instance, agricultural uses affect the entire county. Nelson stated determining the geographical areas that make sense is part of the scope. Weimer stated he agrees with most of the outline. There shouldn't be much scope to the work. Crawford asked if the County is already analyzing river work based on how it affects areas downriver. Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated they are working comprehensively on the lower river. That's the one area they can look at. The South Fork model is just now going into place. Weimer stated that model is just for flood. It does not include fecal collform contribution or anything like that. Cooper stated that model is just on hydraulics. Caskey- Schreiber asked the next step. Monsen stated the Council is going to have to jump in soon if it wants to accomplish something this year. Caskey - Schreiber stated she would like to see a scope of work. Crawford stated he would like to see an estimate of cost and what the flood fee can cover, also. Monsen stated one document meant to cover everything is the Comprehensive Plan. Discuss soon how this will influence other areas. 30 31 Nelson stated he doesn't think the Council can approve the final step of reviewing 32 and compiling task force recommendations any time soon. 33 34 Monsen stated they could begin to design that step. 35 36 Caskey - Schreiber asked if this would be addressed at the Joint Lake Management 37 Committee meeting. Roll stated getting clarity on priorities can help feed this process. 38 39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 40 41 Nelson stated a water resource management joint project may be funded from other 42 management areas. To do that, they need to clearly identify priorities of other areas and 43 how they affect goals the County is required to accomplish through federal regulations. The 44 Joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee is a valuable resource for proposals, policies, 45 and goals. 46 47 John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated he recommends that staff bring 48 forward a proposal for Council consideration. Come up with a scope, schedule, estimated 49 costs, and an idea of who will do it. Then they will have something tangible to discuss. 50 Find a way to divvy up the load and prioritize things. The four cogs of the WRIA process, 51 quantity, quality, habitat, and fish, may provide the underpinnings of the proposal. Find 52 pilot projects and provide enough funding and resources to make a difference. Start 53 somewhere and learn from the process. 54 Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 4 Brenner stated every place in Whatcom County is included in a drainage area. Set up drainage districts everywhere that would be funding sources. Nelson stated some drainage areas already exist in some areas. They are legal entities. Monsen stated there is some form of district in nearly every place in the county. Brenner asked if they can do this under an existing structure of drainage districts, and if they can be set up under the County Council. Nelson stated the Council must step away from that notion. They are water resource management areas that can use different funding sources from different districts. Weimer stated this isn't as complicated as they think. There are already plans and experts. They just need someone to put the information down on a piece of paper to tie it all together. There are many funding needs. His inclination is to do something to get money to start projects. Nelson stated there are already funding mechanisms in place. It's called the flood control tax. He would like to change it to a water resource management tax. There are also road funds for stormwater and current expense funds for other issues. They may be able to do interlocal agreements and get grants. Caskey- Schreiber stated they just need a plan. Put together a scope of work, deliverables, and find consultants. The Council concurred. 30 Watts stated the key is what Councilmember Nelson said. Don't solve problems for 31 everyone, just create a more collaborative approach and a little funding boost so what they 32 already have works better. 33 34 (Clerk's Note: Took a fifteen - minute break at 11:00 a.m.) 35 36 2. RIVER AND FLOOD 37 38 Swift Creek Sediment Management 39 40 Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, submitted a handout of her 41 presentation (on file) and stated this is an update. Swift Creek has competing interests for 42 funding from the general fund, a health perspective, the road fund, the flood fund, the 43 Sumas /Everson /Nooksack flood subzone, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Army Corps 44 of Engineers. The Council did not adopt a sediment management plan for Swift Creek. The 45 Council approved a contract for development of a plan a few years ago. In the past year, 46 issues arose regarding asbestos and sediment quality that complicated their ability to 47 finalize the plan. 48 49 Paul Pittman, geologist, showed aerial photos of the area. 50 51 Cooper read the presentation slide on a multifaceted problem. The biggest problem 52 is the bed load sediment. It comes down every year and elevates the channel bed higher 53 than the land surrounding it. The dikes erode highly. For decades, they've been trying to 54 do bed load management. The sediment quality is the issue they thought they resolved ten years ago. It is a complicating factor that is delaying plan completion. Pittman read the slide on the associated hazards. Now, a landslide comes down a few feet per year. A catastrophic event is unlikely. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the analysis. The volume of the landslide is 68 million cubic yards. The landslide in Oso recently was one million cubic yards. This is substantially larger. There is enough sediment to come down at its present rate for 400 to 600 years. The landslide is moving hundreds of feet per year. He read the management history slide. Cooper stated the money and work spent last year was undone by the deposition this year. Caskey - Schreiber asked the reason for the landslide was reactivated in 1940. Pittman stated it was reactivated from a hydrologic event or series of events from the 1930's, which had several years of high intensity rainfall. The area is free from logging activity. He read from the management plan alternatives. Some alternatives are complicated by health risks from asbestos. Roll stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed a concern about naturally occurring asbestos, so an Army Corps of Engineers permit requirement is that the sediment not leave the site. That requirement is a problem. The area is not County property. The County is working on it as a service. The Corps has permit parameters that eliminates the ability to move the sediment offsite. In the future, they can expand the area there where it can be deposited, or use other methods to transport it. 30 Pittman stated material would have to be removed by a private individual. 31 32 Caskey - Schreiber asked who owns the area. Pittman stated group of landowners 33 owns the area. 34 35 Cooper stated the material left historically when people picked it up as free fill. The 36 material was also used in 1998 for the approach to the Nugent's Corner bridge. 37 38 Pittman read the slide on sediment quality. 39 40 Cooper stated Western Washington University did a study of the asbestos with 41 different technology. 42 43 Roll stated the low levels of natural asbestos all gather in one area due to sediment 44 settling. 45 46 Nelson asked if the concern with trying to relocate this material is asbestos in the air. 47 Cooper stated the concern is that and also what ultimately happens to the asbestos. 48 49 Nelson asked the ramifications of doing nothing. Cooper stated it will be spread in 50 some indeterminate area. 51 52 Brenner stated roads will be damaged. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 6 Nelson asked where the money will come from if the EPA doesn't want it moved. Roll stated they haven't discovered that yet. The position of the Public Works Department is that the issues need to be resolved by the health agencies. Now, the discussion is innuendo about potential risks. Today, the Public Works Department staff is engaging the health agencies to respond to the situation. Brenner asked to see the letter from the EPA. Pittman showed photos of piled material. Brenner asked if there are fish in the creek. Cooper stated there are not. Weimer stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife still want the projects in the creek to be fish- friendly. Brenner asked how other jurisdictions handle similar problems. Nelson stated the EPA required a community to dig up buried asbestos, and homes were lost. Pittman stated there is an example in California that is a little bit ahead of Swift Creek. Officials in California are paving it. Desler asked about the ultimate impacts to the road, if no future excavation work is done. Cooper stated the river would eventually run over it at some point, until they do some containment work. 30 Desler asked if Goodwin road was built before the hydrologic activity. 31 32 Pittman stated it was. 33 34 Nelson asked if the material can be used in any other project and, if so, would it be a 35 health risk. Pittman stated they explored using it as a road surface or concrete, but the 36 rock type is poor. It has good compaction ability. There is application potential underneath 37 a road. 38 39 Roll stated they don't know the risk. That's the question before the health agencies. 40 41 Weimer asked if there is a management strategy to consider letting the area go. 42 Cooper stated it is an option now. There will be some cost even with that option, to contain 43 it. 44 45 Brenner stated the County is being required to do stuff that the property owners 46 should do, including locking and securing the site and stockpiling material. Cooper stated 47 that since the letter came, the County developed agreements with landowners to do things 48 that allow the County to have its permit. 49 50 Brenner asked if the County wants to be liable for this. Cooper stated it does not. 51 The letter first said the County must ensure no material goes off the site. The County can't 52 do that because it doesn't own the site. The County is working with the property owners. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 7 Jeff Hegedus, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the Health Department position is that no risk assessment has been done on the end -use of the material. The State Department, EPA, and federal government are involved because of the scope of the project. They all have a meeting in March about this. The State was taken aback when they found out how large the issue might be. The EPA may be premature in saying that no materials can leave the site. He will take Public Works Department concerns to that meeting. Desler stated they should also discuss the obligation that EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have, not just the County. Weimer asked if there are plans to do a health assessment. Hegedus stated the County Health Department determined it as a need. The State Department of Health provided a preliminary draft health consultation. A meeting outcome may be funding for a good risk assessment. That doesn't solve the Public Works Department problem. It may make things more difficult. Weimer stated at some point, the neighbors will find out that asbestos is blowing in the wind. The County must have that conversation with the neighbors. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is leery of doing anything with the property because she doesn't want the liability. A question is whether they can do anything to contain the slide. Cooper stated it would cost about $65 million to contain the slide. That's not feasible. Weimer stated the main natural gas pipeline is in this location and is exposed. Caskey - Schreiber asked what would happen if there were a significant earthquake. Cooper stated this location and Canyon Creek are two locations that would be of concern. 30 Desler stated naturally occurring asbestos is the fundamental problem. 31 32 Monsen stated asbestos creates a barrier to use. The EPA may say the County can 33 use the material, but must monitor it forever. 34 35 36 AD30URN 37 38 The meeting adjourned at 11:42 a.m. 39 40 41 42 Jill Nixon, nscr ption 43 ���01 44 .�xrrrcil.�jl�r��4 d these minutes on March 14 2006. 46 ATE t� U '�� = WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 47 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 48 ; 49 g A'fE F 2 • ' 50 do q 51 A- -*— ' , L 52 Dana Ax�wn -Davi* GbRo�il Clerk Laurie Caskey - Schreiber, C uncil Chair 11114f11i111t100V Surface Water Work Session, 2/21/2006, Page 8