Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session January 24 20061 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 January 24, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2006 -025) 1. SURFACE WATER Surface Water Management Priorities Absent: None Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, handed out information (on file) on financial information. He is looking for clarity on the Council's priorities. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the range of issues regarding surface water management is from clear flood projects all the way to land use policies. The primary funding sources are the flood district, the road district, and the general fund. Identify the longer -term goals of surface water management in the county. Today, focus on the Flood control zone district element, but include all funding sources and programs. He recommends that the next step be identifying the long -term goals and the district's role in those goals. Roll read from the surface water draft management handout. It is an overview. There are different funding sources, including the flood control zone district and shellfish. One question is what are the programs and projects for surface water moving forward in the future. Staff will identify the funding source. He is looking for additional information the Council will need to work on surface water priorities. McShane asked if National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) comment period will not include a Council process. Roll stated it will not. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) has taken comments and will send out the formal, public review draft. There will be three months for a public process, then they will develop the permit. Monsen stated the public process for the DOE translates to a local process that responds to those comments. 15th. Brenner asked if the Council received the final draft. Kirk Christensen, Stormwater Engineer Manager, stated it comes out on February Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 1 Brenner asked if the County will see it when the public sees it. She hasn't seen those numbers. Roll stated they don't have a permit yet. Monsen stated the Council has seen 80 to 90 percent of the permit requirements two years ago. During the last couple of years, they refined the details of the conditions. They have seen the County's response three years ago of how the County intends to comply with the permit requirements. McShane stated the numbers have to do with total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is different from NPDES. Roll stated that is another piece of federal law that is about the 303(d) list waters. That is another process for another day. It is another overlay to which the Council will need to respond. Brenner stated the County hasn't come to grips with the City or Water District about setting up a district and deciding who pays what. It's overdue. Caskey- Schreiber stated they have to implement the Salmon Recovery Plan and WRIA Watershed Plan. She asked if those plans prioritized projects, and whether they should work out of those plans. Monsen stated there are specific and general outcomes in those plans. Staff needs to understand the role of the County in that implementation. Decide what they will accomplish and how fast. Today, the Council must think like the flood district's Board of Supervisors. Caskey - Schreiber asked if there is funding from State for WRIA or salmon recovery implementation. Roll stated the Planning and Development Services Department is filling out funding application for $100,000 dollars per year in the next two years, with the potential for another $100,000 in year three and $50,000 in the successive years. Those funds will help the Planning Unit understand what is happening with elements that move forward and also help guide the priorities across the entire plan. Crawford stated he's not sure the County Council has the insight on what the needs are. He's more accustomed to hearing what the needs are from staff and the advisory committee. A primary purpose of WRIA was to sort out water rights. He asked if modeling has been implemented. There were concerns that the State Department of Ecology was not issuing new water rights. There was public support and interest for resolving a lot of that issue. He asked what they are getting and how it affects their future direction. Roll stated the guidance of the Joint Board and Planning Unit was to revisit the appropriate instream flows in order to answer the question of who gets water rights and when. If the instream flows aren't appropriate, determine what is. The first part of defining rights is establishing appropriate instream flows. They will need to set flows across the basin, but can't do it all at the same time. They chose two pilot areas, Bertrand and Middle Fork, to pilot the exercise of going through all the model data to come up with an instream flow management regime for each of those geographic areas. To have that kind of agreement, there will need to be validation, ultimately in the form of a water right. Watching Bertrand and the Middle Fork unfold will help the other communities. Those are the two areas that will help them answer if they are going to be able to deal with the water rights issues and, if so, how they will do it. Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 2 Weimer stated it looks like the flood control money has leveled off at an amount of $2.75 million to $3 million per year. He asked the reason it's leveled off. Regarding WRIA, a number of things have been going on for years that have clear plans for implementation, such as Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay. They will go away if not funded. He understands that the Conservation District is in trouble with their farm plans. Keep that good work going. WRIA was an ongoing sampling plan to know when they are accomplishing something. Those three entities should have funding by 2007. Brenner stated they should have Health Department sources. They have come a long way with Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay, and a lot of resources for that has come from the Health Department. Roll stated that the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) and its program is funded from the general fund, supplemented by MRC grants. That is the current funding mechanism for marine resource activity. Nelson stated he has a problem with the way they are set up to deal with the many issues coming forward. Originally, the stormwater fee was to deal with a flooding issue. Over the years, the roles and responsibilities have expanded. The advisory committee brought forward issues. Before establishing priorities, look at the system they want to have in place to deal with the financial responsibilities for flood control, stormwater management, and fish habitat and protection. There is a good system on the ground now. The system only needs to be tweaked or expanded to allow for a comprehensive approach to water management. Establish a water management system or commission, similar to the Planning Commission, so the public is part of the process. Crawford asked how it would be different from the advisory board. Nelson stated it wouldn't be different, but the system now is confusing. Begin to readjust the process of the water management district. Crawford asked if Councilmember Nelson wants to expand their role. Nelson stated they need to expand their role. They need a response from the citizens in the communities. In some communities, serious surface water issues will come up. In some areas, the issue is agricultural practices. In other areas, the issue is fish habitat or flood control. They need the community to evaluate and make priorities for their areas. He is frustrated they are not involving the communities more. The issues need to be tied together. He doesn't like flood control projects spending millions of dollars and then finding out that there are fish habitat issues. Rearrange the use of the funds, identify how to involve the communities, identify appropriate zones, and involve the public and communities so cities, the County, State, and federal government are tied together. Weimer stated he totally agrees with Councilmember Nelson. There is some difference between the proposed board and the advisory board. However, don't spend a year and a half coming up with a new structure when things are already happening. Still keep the ball rolling. Brenner stated her number one priority is onsite septic systems (OSS). Also, another priority is working more cooperatively with other jurisdictions. McShane stated that the State legislature limited revenue for special districts to 10 percent of total revenue. He asked the limitation of the current flood fee. The concept is Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 3 good. He asked if they can convert it into something broader than a flood fee. Monsen stated the legislature dealt with all special districts. A flood control district can do more than any other special district. Whatcom County already has statutory authority to do what it does. The amendment to allow all special districts to participate in watershed planning, with a financial limit, created a specific limit for flood control zone districts. The County was already undoing the need for the flood district to finance general watershed planning, by the conversion of the flood fee to a flood tax. Legally, the flood district can do almost anything related to surface water management, other than very general planning. Because the County converted from a fee to a tax, there is flexibility of where the money can be spent. McShane stated that now they've completed the WRIA planning process, make a broader advisory committee to work on more than flood issues and to assist the County. He asked if they can do that. Monsen stated the reason the advisory committee exists is to advise the Board of Supervisors about the flood district exclusively. If OSS is not a purpose of the district, the advisory committee wouldn't advise about it. There are two options for organizational structures. One is consolidating all surface water programs under one governmental structure. The second is to have independent entities implementing elements of the joint plans. The only organizational structure is coordinating, not controlling. The watershed planning process created an organizational structure specifically to make decisions for that project. Everything else was coordinated by independent activities. Today, they're heading in the direction of coordination, with independent implementation. The flood district is an entity in the scheme, not the governing body. Nelson asked if there is a problem with having an entity made up of those elements. The question is how expansive the advisory committee should be, which should focus solely on what the flood district does. Priorities are set by various groups. The Council has trouble prioritizing issues that have different levels of importance to different communities. He asked why more layers would be necessary. McShane stated either create a broad committee or allow the separate groups to bring these things to the County Council at the same time. His concern is that the Council only hears from one advisory committee at a time, and it's hard to prioritize all the issues and concerns. Either have an oversight group or bring all those recommendations and each entity together. Nelson stated get around those types of problems by having people on the committee responsible for certain areas. The proposed commission, with members that have separate knowledge, can come together to help everyone understand the needs. Fleetwood asked if an oversight commission would not be made_ up of liaisons from the members of the other, specialty committees. Nelson stated they can decide what the makeup of the committee will be as needed. Caskey- Schreiber stated it sounds like a mini -water resource inventory area (WRIA) structure. Nelson stated that process was effective. That may be what this becomes. It's too much to expect one group of citizens to take this on. He'd rather see a related group work together to make a priority list for the Council. The Council can send projects and reports to the proposed commission for evaluation. Surface Water Work Session, 1124/2006, Page 4 Caskey- Schreiber asked if Councilmember Nelson envisions the flood subzones still being in place, but with a master commission above it that includes all the special interests. Nelson stated he suggests using the model all the way down. Flooding is not the only issue that subarea will have to deal with. It will also have to deal with fish habitat. Get expertise in those areas on the committee. Don't think just flood control. Think about water management. Weimer asked if the money would have to be spent on flood if the scope of the flood control district is flood. He asked if the Council could expand this group with different types of expertise if the County expanded the scope of the flood control district to include other issues. Monsen stated that is correct. (Clerk's Note: End of gape one, side A.) Monsen continued to state that the countywide flood control district was reformed during the WRIA project to work on more than flood hazards, but the County didn't expand the Flood Advisory Committee, which stayed focused on flood hazards. The Planning Unit was created to deal with the extra project. Different advisory groups were created for each of the different purposes. McShane stated they are all looking at the same pot of money. They are not talking to each other. They all come to the County Council. Monsen stated the historical work of this work session has been to be that coordinating committee. Weimer asked if they are stepping on any toes, such as those of the WRIA initiating governments, when they talk about doing this. Roll stated he can't predict. It's about identifying the programs and projects the County wants to accomplish. Then they'll say if there is a problem. Weimer stated they are talking about the County rearranging things and creating a group under the County's control that would be in charge of that pot of money. In the past, they've had different jurisdictions be a part of that decision - making process. Monsen stated they have formed the Salmon Recovery Board to deal with elements of the Salmon Recovery Plan. Motivation to do that was pressure from federal and state government. Implementing the WRIA plan is not the same thing. The initiating governments and Joint Board were created to see this project to conclusion. There has never been a decision to continue to implementation. Technically, when the money runs out and the project is done, they will disappear unless the County decides they have a role. Caskey- Schreiber asked who initiates this kind of committee. Monsen asked if the purpose of this proposed committee is to improve the coordination of the big picture of water resource management. If that's true, he would have to ponder that question. Brenner stated it sounds interesting to have a person from each committee that should be involved in the process. Then, have the committees decide to work together with other committees and understand there is one pot of money. The committees would work Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 5 together to form priorities that everyone can live with. She's not comfortable making decisions without their recommendation. Nelson stated don't think of them as committees that duplicate efforts in different areas. Instead, think of something like the WRIA planning process. Get the expertise from the different interests. The subareas are more important. Those are the districts that involve small groups with ideas for their areas, but may not be working on flood control issues. Brenner stated she is more comfortable with the County asking each advisory group to have a representative on a larger group. Nelson stated the system in place, under the flood control funding mechanism, is areas dealing with flood control issues. Some areas and interests haven't been established. They are stuck in the mindset of flood. However, a sub -water management area could be an area like the Drayton Harbor area. People in those communities can be working on plans and things of importance to those communities. In areas that are already established and have districts, they may simply need to realign their roles and responsibilities. Weimer asked if Councilmember Nelson is suggesting a change from the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District to the Drayton Harbor sub -zone. Nelson stated he is. Expand their roles and responsibilities. Some of the issues with shellfish also deal with stormwater or farm plans, for example. Caskey- Schreiber stated they need a cross section of representatives, not just people from the Flood zones. There are other entities out there. McShane stated these work sessions have been playing that role to a degree. The Council has gone over the finances many times. There are technical issues that the councilmembers have gotten their minds around. Ultimately, the Council will have to make the decisions. He is leery of tweaking the committee structure. It adds one more responsibility of the volunteers. Another downside is adding another layer of process for the staff to work through, when it still ultimately comes to the Council. One idea is to make the Council this committee they're talking about. Create a formalized process for reviewing what all the committees are doing. Nelson stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane that the Council has been the group to make a lot of the decisions. It doesn't need to do that all on its own. Sometimes the decisions create more consternation in the community. He appreciates having the WRIA process for the community to work through before it comes to the Council. Get people to work together to understand all the aspects of water. What works now isn't necessarily the best way to operate. Bring together the various teams and efforts to create order and understanding for everyone. It's important for staff to be able to deal with the community and special interests. Get them more involved. He is frustrated with the current obstacles. Have a better mechanism in place. Caskey - Schreiber stated she doesn't want the County to end up like the City of Bellingham, which put together a budget committee that it doesn't listen to. Once these people do this extra work, the Council must buy into it. Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 6 Brenner stated she's not sure all the sources are funded from the same pot of money. Monsen stated the money has been dominated by the flood district in the past, but it doesn't have to be. There are three primary sources for dealing with surface water management, the flood district, the road fund, and the general fund. He asked what information the Council wants in order to develop policy direction. Also, focus on elements of the flood district's role right now. Weimer stated it sounds like they don't need to worry about this much more if the County can meet its needs with those three things now. If there are things that go beyond those funding sources, they will need to talk about multiple districts or one big district. Put funding numbers on different projects so they can see the realm of different funding costs. Get a sense of how much money they are talking about in terms of current programs versus expansion. Nelson stated the County has a system set up for the three different funds. The impacts are from the smaller districts that may or may not have funding sources. He would like to have time to hash this out. Caskey - Schreiber stated each councilmember who wants can put forward a proposal at the next meeting. Crawford stated the Council could have an evening meeting with all these committees. 2. RIVER AND FLOOD / SALMON RECOVERY Canvon Creek and East Acme Farm Communitv Restoration Proiect Updates and Next Steps Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated there are two projects for funding through the salmon recovery plan. They are the Canyon Creek and a joint project with the community in conjunction with a Lummi project. The Canyon Creek grant proposal was funded. In the future, they will talk about that project. The second project was a good case study of getting at core elements of the Salmon Recovery Plan that integrated flood and salmon recovery in a way that makes sense. The County put forward an application to the Salmon Recovery funding (SRF) Board. Unfortunately, that project wasn't funded. As they get into implementation of the Puget Sound -wide plan, they are seeing more complex issues in terms of where they want to do work and who will be involved. Acme is a good example of that. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board wasn't ready to deal with that issue as a matter of policy. Projects need to be 100 percent about salmon. That doesn't work well in integrated areas. He will continue to pursue the issue with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Today, there is an existing project with the Lummi Nation that was put on hold by the funding agency. The County is a landowner in that project area. The question is what the County does next. Understand the role of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee and Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee. The Council, as the Board of Supervisors, should have a discussion about what happens next in this process. Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 7 Brenner stated an overriding issue is a problem with staff getting the minutes from the meetings. She asked for an explanation of the problem. Paula Cooper, Flood Division Manager, stated that historically, staff has had problems getting minutes from meetings. Every once in a while, staff sends a reminder to the advisory committee to send in the minutes. Chris Hatch, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone Advisory Committee Chair, stated the subzone chairs received memos from staff asking each subzone to be more diligent in submitting the minutes from their meetings. Following a conversation, it turns out the problem was with the Lynden subzone, not the Acme /Van Zandt subzone. Regarding unfiled minutes from the Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone, they are forthcoming. The record will show that his subzone is one of the most diligent in terms of filing those minutes. Cooper stated staff has had problems with all the subzones. This is approximately the third reminder to all the subzones that has been sent out since she has worked for the County. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated the issue isn't focused on the Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone. When there is a recommendation to the Council, there must be a public record to back up that recommendation. Without that public record, staff can't make that recommendation. Without that record from the Acme /Vandt Flood Subzone, he can't call today's discussion a recommendation. Today's agenda is the only reason the Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone is highlighted today. Cooper stated this issue didn't necessarily have anything to do with today's discussion. Brenner stated she was told that staff was clear with Mr. Bronsema that there is an ongoing problem with the Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone. Mr. Bronsema removed Chris Hatch from some committee because of it. Cooper stated there have been a lot of outside discussions, but she is not privy to them. She talked to Mr. Bronsema last week while she was working on a memo to Mr. Hatch about a recommendation for which she had no minutes. That may have been from where this stemmed. Art Anderson, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Member, stated the Management and Oversight Committee is here at this meeting. He introduced the members. Their desired outcome for this morning is a skillful discussion and mindful thinking. The topic of expanding to a larger committee could go to the advisory committee. If the County is going to do something with the funding, be very public about the change. Many people in the community still think they are paying for a flood fee for the Nooksack River. If the County is going to do something different, make it very public. Hatch stated he is a little bit disturbed by what Councilmember Brenner brought up. He received a call from Mr. Bronsema Sunday evening, and he wasn't very forthright about his reasons for removing him from the management and oversight subcommittee of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. It didn't seem very fair that Mr. Bronsema contact Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber to discuss Mr. Bronsema's authority and whether Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber's was okay with removing him from the subcommittee, based on allegations that someone made to Mr. Bronsema. He doesn't know what the allegations were. It's very unfair to have these sidebar conversations without first asking him. He thinks one of the allegations was about private meetings the subzone has been Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 8 1 having. The subzone has had no private meetings. Committee members can attest to that. 2 He's very displeased with the way this went down. 3 4 McShane asked the number of Acme /Van Zandt Subzone members are here today. 5 Hatch stated four out of five members are present. 6 7 Nelson asked if the Chair is responsible for okaying the removal of committee 8 members. Before moving on, they must be involved in processes that affect the district for 9 which he's responsible. 10 11 Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. Bronsema mentioned to her that the Acme Flood 12 Subzone was holding meetings without notification to all its members, it was not having 13 meeting minutes, and it was holding secret meetings. She doesn't know how Mr. Hatch got 14 on the flood management oversight subcommittee. She asked how he got on the 15 subcommittee and if he was voted onto the subcommittee. Hatch stated he was voted onto 16 the subcommittee. 17 18 Caskey - Schreiber stated Mr. Bronsema told her he wanted to remove Mr. Hatch from 19 the subcommittee. She told Mr. Bronsema that she would support whatever the Chair 20 decides. She didn't know it would be done immediately. This is new to her, too. She just 21 supports whatever the Chair wants to do. 22 23 Brenner stated she spoke to Mr. Bronsema last night. She had heard that Mr. 24 Bronsema had Council clearance, which is why she called him. Mr. Bronsema told her that 25 he had clearance from Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber. She's confused. 26 27 Caskey - Schreiber stated she told Mr. Bronsema that she would support him, but 28 didn't say anything about it being a Council decision. 29 30 Nelson asked if Mr. Bronsema took action based on the support from an individual 31 Councilmember. He has problems with that kind of decision - making process. 32 33 Caskey - Schreiber stated she can't speak for Mr. Bronsema. Schedule this in Natural 34 Resources Committee when all parties are present. They need to know what the Acme /Van 35 Zandt Flood Subzone Committee recommends for this agenda item. 36 37 Monsen stated have discussion (inaudible). Staff worked as best it could with the 38 community, Lummi Nation, and Salmon Recovery Funding Board to come up with joint 39 projects to benefit all involved. Without the Salmon Recovery Funding Board money, the 40 Council must have this discussion. Staff believes that the Lummi project has associated 41 flood hazards and risks. There is no way to say whether or not the risks are acceptable. 42 The staff asked the Subzone Advisory Committee to deliberate different scenarios and 43 recommend how the Countywide Flood District could invest money in flood hazard work, 44 knowing this information. 45 46 McShane asked if the decision whether or not to go forward with the project is the 47 Executive's decision. Monsen stated it is. The Executive should know whether or not the 48 flood district intends to spend money on it. The Executive's decision is based on whether 49 money will be spent on mitigation. 50 51 McShane asked if the administration has taken a position that the project will not go 52 forward without the grant money. He asked if the question is whether or not the Council 53 funds the part of the project that the SRF Board didn't fund. He asked if the administration Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 9 I has taken a position on that yet. Monsen stated that's hard to answer. If the Council is 2 going to say that $1 million or $2 million is available for work in the community, staff 3 believes that work near Acme on the side with the Betty Lou Close property is more 4 important than anything on the other side of the river. If the Council can invest $3 million, 5 the administration can probably do both. 6 7 McShane stated this is an administrative decision. The Council is being asked about 8 the finance part alone. He's not comfortable with the Council taking that responsibility. 9 This is a controversial issue that the Council doesn't need to take it on. The only question 10 for the Council is whether or not it is willing to fund the project. It's not a question of 11 whether or not the project should go forward. 12 13 Caskey - Schreiber asked how big of a priority this project is for the Tribe. 14 15 Jim Hanson, Lummi Indian Nation Restoration Coordinator, stated this is a joint 16 project with both tribes and the County Parks Department, as an adjoining landowner. They 17 are very supportive of the County's SRF Board proposal. It was a community compromise. 18 It may not have been the most pristine project for salmon, but helped to build community 19 support for integrated salmon and flood projects. It's up to the Council to decide if it will 20 fund the project. For salmon recovery, this is the Lummi's number one priority for this area 21 in the South Fork. It is critical. On the other hand, they are interested in cooperating with 22 the Betty Lou Close property project. It would be highly significant for salmon recovery as 23 well. He hopes to do both of the projects. Based on the Herrera risk assessment, the lower 24 Hutchison creek project has net flood protection benefit rather than adds to the baseline risk 25 of flooding and evulsion in the area of Hutchison Creek. That's not what he hears from the 26 County's technical staff. He heard that the plug on the old channel would provide more 27 flood protection than they have now. 28 29 Brenner asked who are the partners with the Lummi Tribe on the project. Hanson 30 stated the project partners include the Nooksack Tribe, Parks Department, and Whatcom 31 Land Trust, which has an easement, and numerous funding agencies. The life of the 32 funding agreements is restricted. 33 34' Brenner stated the Parks Department said it was not a partner and didn't play a role 35 in shaping the project. Hanson stated the Parks Department was involved in the meeting in 36 which the Tribe chose its priorities and talked about the initial design. The Tribe improved 37 that design at significant expense upon the feedback of the Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone 38 Advisory Committee and River and Flood Division. It is in Parks Department property. The 39 Parks Department is part of a landowner agreement. It's all contingent upon approval of 40 the County Executive, who feels he must be sensitive to the residents in the area. 41 42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) 43 44 Hanson continued to state that if additional flood protections for the community 45 should be in place, it's not up to the Lummi Nation to create it. For salmon, anytime they 46 stop the river from migrating, they limit the river's ability to create habitat. Everything is a 47 compromise. They are looking for a win -win project with the community. 48 49 Brenner asked if Mr. Hanson believed from the start that the County was part of the 50 process and helped shape the process. Hanson stated he did. The County River and Flood 51 Division helped them select the consultant that did the design. The County put in a lot of 52 money to expedite the hydraulic model project for the south fork. That model was 53 instrumental in making the design and proofing it for flood risk. Surface Water Work Session, 1/2412006, Page 10 Monsen stated the County staff recommendation is that the County invest one or two million dollars overall for the entire area, but not more than that. Staff hasn't discussed it with the Advisory Committee. The staff believes work closer to the town of Acme is more important, but they haven't had that discussion with the Advisory Committee, Hatch stated the subzone hasn't heard that dollar figure from Mr. Monsen. That's fresh news. There are issues in the South Fork that people want addressed. He read from the subzone's recommendation (on file). The reason for condition one is that the portion of the City's pipeline that is up stream, on the same side of the river, is failing. The community would really like that fixed. If not, it will create additional problems, including the problem of the river not traversing from the east side of the valley to the west side of the valley. The reason for condition two is because the extensions were deemed necessary due to the risk of removing the existing dike. It affords protection that doesn't exist without the dike. Also, the County would not have to import more rock. The reason for condition three is that there is an erosion site at that location. The community wants a fix there. If they are doing work in the area, it's a great time to do the project. Not doing the project will create additional problems. The reason for condition four is that if the subzone cost- shares on this project, it will have to cost -share on other projects that it can't afford. The subzone lacks the .funding base. The reason for the fifth condition was to have a placeholder to continue to shape the final design. Brenner asked if the conditions can be done with one to two million dollars. Monsen stated they haven't talked about that yet. Brenner stated she thought the County was just a landowner and not part of the decision - making process. She asked if that is true. Cooper stated this project started in 2000. There were broad discussions and meetings about project goals and fish- oriented stuff. The staff was present and provided input. The Lummi Tribe facilitated a sporadic work group about this project. The group met when the Lummi Tribe wanted input from the rest of the group. The design came at the end of that process. She and the community were surprised when the Lummi started the project, because they hadn't seen the design. The community and County were involved somewhat, but were not privy to all the details at the same time as the Tribe. McShane asked the subzone's overall priorities. The Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board project is $900,000. Cooper stated it is closer to $1 million, including pipeline protection at site one. McShane asked the top three priority projects of each subzone Advisory Committee member. Batch stated a list of projects was generated recently. There are many factors that determine a project's priority. If they had to pick one site, it would be the Airstrip /RV Park emergency repairs. However, as other projects are proposed by other entities over which Surface Water Work Session, 1/2412006, Page 11 I the subzone has no control, the subzone may have to mitigate for risks associated with 2 proposed projects. Someone else's solution may become their problem. In this case, the 3 advisory committee found risks with the lower Hutchison Creek project. In terms of 4 developing a problem to mitigate for risks, there are limitations. There is only so much 5 money available. If the County is willing to allow the project to occur, it must probably do 6 some work to mitigate for those risks. The biggest project need is dealing with the 7 emergency situation. 8 9 Robert Strachila, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Committee Member, stated the 10 number one priority is the airstrip /RV park area. Priority number two is the City of 11 Bellingham pipeline. Priority three is the Dozer hole, and priority four is the East Acme 12 farm. Another priority that is important, but out of their hands, is the McKay Environmental 13 Protection Agency (EPA) dump project. 14 15 Jeff Rainey, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Committee Member, stated he took 16 pictures of the area. A concern is that the river channel will change. They want the 17 protection that the wall affords them now. The subzone money shouldn't be used to replace 18 that protection, because they don't want to take it out. The protection of Acme is top 19 priority. However, they are being asked to spend money on the protection they already 20 have now. The subzone should not have to pay for protection it already has. 21 22 McShane asked where the gas pipeline crosses through. Strachila said it crosses the 23 river almost at the RV Park. 24 25 McShane stated it is in that area already. That is one reason to do the airstrip 26 project. Strachila stated Williams Pipeline lowered the pipeline two years ago. It's at least 27 75 feet under the river. 28 29 Brenner stated it's important that staff look over this information and tell the Council 30 whether or not it is doable. 31 32 Jim Strachila, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Committee Member, stated the first 33 priority is the air strip. The pipeline and east acme farm are priority number two. Priority 34 number three is the dozer hole. Without a doubt, the Betty Lou Close property is in need of 35 emergency repair. 36 37 Hatch stated they are not talking today about whether or not to set back the dike. 38 Money is a constraint. The committee has to decide who is going to do the work and find 39 the money. It's not that the committee is opposed to a setback of the dike. 40 41 Rainey stated they are definitely worried about the cost of the East Acme farm 42 project. They looked at the cost in terms of flood protection, not fish. They can do it for 43 quite a bit less than what was proposed to enhance the chance of getting the SRF Board 44 money. 45 46 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council makes the decision on going forward with the 47 mitigation. Monsen stated the Council makes that decision. Any project of the district 48 without a local sponsor requires action from the Board of Supervisors. 49 50 Brenner stated that action would be in response to the County Executive. Monsen 51 stated they agree on the priority areas. They need to first reserve money for those 52 purposes. Next, the flood district was prepared to put money into this project to see this to Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 12 1 conclusion. That commitment has not been withdrawn. However, the County is not writing 2 a blank check. 3 4 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a way to work with the Tribe to design a different 5 project that is more effective. Monsen stated that is the crux of the discussion. The 6 question is the amount of money that needs to be spent to provide flood hazard protection. 7 Flood hazard protection is not done at the minimum cost possible. If there are both flood 8 and salmon opportunities, the scale of the project changes. They can afford just flood 9 hazard management. 10 11 Caskey - Schreiber asked if there would be another project in this area if the funding 12 for the County project doesn't go forward. Hanson stated that, whether or not the County 13 project goes forward, there is still opportunity for cooperation on a project in the area of the 14 Betty Lou Close property. The County and tribes tarnish their reputations by spending a lot 15 of money but not finishing projects. It would be advantageous to do the Hutchison Project, 16 and then look forward to the additional project. 17 18 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the South Fork budget of $1 million is per year. Monsen 19 stated he is prepared to put up to $1 million toward the Hutchison Creek project. He is also 20 prepared to put together a project at the airstrip /RV park. That project includes a salmon 21 component also. If everything they've talked about is the minimum cost to provide flood 22 hazard protection, they are within that dollar amount. If they add salmon recovery 23 'elements at any level, the cost may become out of range. 24 25 Brenner asked if the Lummi's would work with the County on the Betty Lou Close 26 project. Hanson stated that when the Tribe did the Acme South Fork Project Alternatives 27 Development Study, that area was always a higher priority project area. They could do 28 something that would restore fish habitat and alleviate river constriction through that point. 29 30 Brenner stated the SRF Board said they weren't interested in the Betty Lou Close 31 priority. She asked for other ideas for funding. Hanson stated he has a list of funding 32 opportunities. 33 34 Robert Strachila asked if Mr. Monsen suggested two projects, one at RV park and one 35 at East Acme farm. 36 37 Monsen stated that with any salmon recovery mitigation, the work done in the 38 vicinity of the Betty Lou Close property will cost close to one million dollars. Without any 39 salmon recovery mitigation, the cost of the list will be about $1 million. 40 41 Hanson asked if mitigation means bringing the flood control design up to the level 42 where it would be acceptable to permitting agencies, and the next level of mitigation is 43 additional salmon enhancement. Monsen stated he doesn't know what they would be 44 required to do to get a permit, nor what he would want to do. 45 46 Caskey - Schreiber stated the County needs to be at the table from the beginning. 47 That said, she still wants to support the Tribe's effort and still mitigate to alleviate the 48 concerns of the community. 49 50 McShane stated he can't support spending that much money downstream of the 51 Hutchison Project. The farthest he would go for funding is the plug extensions. He cannot 52 make the connection between the Hutchison Creek project and the East Acme farm project Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 13 being related enough. They are separate issues. Asking the entire County flood district to fund an erosion control project isn't appropriate. He is concerned that this decision is being pushed onto the County Council, and the administration hasn't formally made recommendations or asked the Council to make a decision. He's very concerned about Acme. He can't support spending that much money within one flood area by supporting everything that is being asked. In fact, if the two gas lines start knocking together, he suspects they'll be in there to fix it quickly. The number one priority for him and from what he heard is the significant infrastructure, development, and the community at Acme. Jones Creek is not on the list. It is a huge threat to the Acme area. If the administration decides to proceed with this project and give the Lummi's permission to use the parkland for implementing the project, any additional expenditure from the flood zone district, beyond what the Lummi's propose, he would be willing to fund if the County experts view as necessary to assure there isn't a problem right at the Hutchison Creek area. He's not willing to fund anything downstream of the plug extensions around the Hutchison Creek. The plug extensions cost about $200,000. Brenner stated the Council needs direction from the administration. The Betty Lou Close property was such a high priority that the County bought the property. It's a high safety priority. The administration needs to tell them whether they are going to spend all this money. She's hearing that the County administration was partners in the project. The Council has been out of the loop. Now she hears that the County was not making decisions. Fleetwood stated he supports the idea of getting a letter of recommendation from the administration. McShane moved to approve the flood control district funding no more than the plug extensions. He asked if time was an issue. Monsen stated they are looking at June for the project. Hanson stated that to do the project this summer, they need to get the permit application revisions in by early March. Before putting money into doing that, they need to have project approval from Executive Kremen to the funding agencies so they unlock the money. This would just take care of permits for the plug, taking out a little bit of dike, and putting in the log jams. It would not include any additional elements. That would be the County's responsibility on its own timeline. Brenner asked if the motion ends the County's potential funding of the RV Park and the Betty Lou Close place. Caskey - Schreiber stated they are unrelated projects. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Nelson moved to amend the motion to exclude the subzone from being responsible for the flood extensions. McShane accepted the amendment into the motion. The administration must say whether or not the County can go forward with the project, since it's on County property. Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 14 Monsen stated the administration supports the Lummi project. There is a financial cost to the countywide district to deal with community concerns about the Lummi project. To deal with community concerns, the County cost is at least $1 million. He asked if the motion is to not approve $1 million for this project. He asked if there is a financial limit to this expense now. McShane stated that is the motion. It is up to the administration to approve or not approve the project, based on that financial limit. Monsen stated the Executive needs a financial limit to formulate a recommendation. Brenner stated she supports the motion, but if the administration wants to fund the project to a higher degree, she's willing to consider it. It needs to come from the administration. Monsen stated that if there is a preferred financial limit, the administration can still come back and ask for more. An established financial limit will allow the project to move ahead. Brenner stated she doesn't want to dump the Betty Lou Close property. Hatch stated that if they get too restrictive financially and they don't do the work that needs to take place there, it could cause the County far more money later. Rainey stated that if they are restricted to just plug extensions, do something on the river end to protect the County. With the ownership of land, there is responsibility. The County needs to be responsible and not lose the property. Nelson stated the plug extensions are at the lower end. They are not addressing salmon issues or flood issues collaboratively. Don't spend money on this type of project without better understanding from and collaboration with all the groups involved. He supports the motion. Crawford stated the Lummi motivation for doing the project was salmon enhancement and protection. There are $8.6 million in the fund balance reserved for large projects and emergency response. This is a worthy project. Going to $1 million on this project may or may not be appropriate relative to all the other needs for these funds, but he's not convinced that a financial limitation is appropriate either. Enable this project. McShane stated he won't support any amount over $200,000 because it's financially irresponsible given the other priorities of the district both locally and downstream along the entire Nooksack River. There are many other areas and projects that cost a lot of money. This is an isolated setting, and they need to get away from projects in isolated settings. It's a huge amount of money for that area, given all the other demands on that fund. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is comfortable with this project in the amount of $900,000. Council voted for Ritter Road, in which only the design was $1.5 million. If the Tribe says it's a high priority, than it must be important for salmon enhancement. Monsen stated the motion is to limit the funding to $200,000. McShane stated limit the project to the plug area. He is not comfortable putting $200,000 on the East Acme park area. Cooper stated staff would work with the subzones to make sure they are comfortable with the final project. Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 15 Monsen stated the motion is to place a financial limit on staff and the Executive to decide on a recommendation, and they are at risk for going higher. James Strachila says that if they leave the funding at the original amount, they can come in under budget, which looks better than extending the project cost. If they need extra funding, they will have to spend time getting permission for it. It pushes everything back. Brenner stated she's comfortable at $200,000. If staff wants more, she will listen. Nelson stated the habitat protection proposal was brought to the administration to decide whether or not to participate. The administration worked with the tribes and decided on being a part of the process. The confusion shows that the Council doesn't have a very good process. These are large amounts of money. Nature is taking its course in the area. The process now is for the Council to act as the Flood Control Zone District Board. Now, he agrees with Councilmember McShane. Leave it up to the administration to come up with funding for fish habitat. Don't spend $200,000. McShane stated anyone can make an additional motion to spend more. The idea of his motion was for plug extensions, but there may be different approaches. Cooper stated the original proposal was to unassemble the upper part of the rock wall, create rock islands, and reinforce and extend the extensions. Those costs were about $350,000. Thompson stated the cost was $350,000 to $400,000 and included the rock islands to bridge the upper part of the lower Hutchison levee, set that back about 600 feet to the east and extending from the Lummi's wooden wing wall, and then to extend the wooden wing fall about 200 feet downstream. Cooper stated they can revisit that design with the subzone. McShane amended the motion to spend $200,000 on any design to provide protection 175 feet downstream of engineered long jam seven at Hutchison Creek. Fleetwood stated he supports the motion as long as the administration understands it's not a top end limit. Monsen stated he understands that, but he also understands he may not get any increase over that amount. Motion carried 5 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber and Crawford opposed. Caskey- Schreiber stated she opposed the motion because she wanted the amount to be higher. Hanson stated the Land Trust must formally approve any work with rock, if within the Land Trust easement area. Also, upstream dike repair hasn't been discussed here. Nelson stated he commends the subzone members for their hard work. OTHER BUSINESS Surface Water Work Session, 1/24/2006, Page 16 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 Roll stated the State Department of Fish and Wildlife formally placed the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan out for comment. They created a supplemental piece, which is their interpretation of the plan, available for public comment. He has that supplemental. He doesn't think it will formally change the County's position. Nelson asked the significant points brought up in the supplemental. Roll stated he hasn't read it yet. Brenner stated reporters have told her that County staff told them that Jerry Boyd is the person who represents the Marietta area. He isn't. If staff is going to give a name, give them Paul and Karen Ridley. Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated she's given reporters both of those names. Brenner stated Ms. Cooper shouldn't be. Cooper stated those are the most vocal people who call staff. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council can't tell staff what to do. Brenner stated the staff could say nothing. Caskey - Schreiber stated the Council can't tell staff what to do. Brenner stated it's not right. The County is going to end up getting rid of Marietta altogether because of a certain person. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. �2f- cc z - ]ill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on February 28 2006. ATTEIZE?' � �ti�(ij AAA WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL �3 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON . . D6�5 Brpw,ngSv_i K 03unca Clerk STATE 0" ', •' gsNING�•'� 110 '����1 ►i�t iii* �'•- Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 1/24 /2006, Page 17