HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 21 20151
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
April 21, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Barry Buchanan, Ken Mann and Carl
Weimer
Absent: Pete Kremen and Rud Browne
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2015 -024)
1. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated work is proceeding on the update.
Working groups are addressing design standards, fire flow, and procedures for directing
permit applicants to a water source. The next Water Utility Coordinating Committee
(WUCC) meeting is May 20. They have done a lot of the groundwork, and a lot of text will
come out in June or July.
Brenner stated the fire marshal told a pot farm that it must have 80,000 gallons of
water. She asked if exceptions can be made to that. Stoyka stated there are options for
reaching that fire flow, such as proximity to a hydrant and building designs. The fire
marshal has the discretion to achieve those goals.
2. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING UNIT
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the next Planning Unit meeting is
April 29. They have selected a facilitator, and the contract is coming forward. The
consultant is a local firm called Veda Environmental. There were many good applicants.
The Joint Board is discussing the future of the Joint Board. The staff team has to
look at different options, and there will be a presentation at the work session in May.
Groundwater modeling is proceeding. There is no money beyond 2015. The next Joint
Board meeting will be in June or July.
Brenner stated that if the Joint Board continues, Joint Board contracts must go to the
County Council for approval first, as it is supposed to do now. She asked if that is back in
the program. Stoyka stated they haven't gotten to those details. It's his understanding
that the Joint Board issues contracts. Staff has been making an effort to inform the Council
of upcoming Joint Board agendas.
Brenner stated it's supposed to go to the Council for discussion and approval.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, 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
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Unit Port of Bellingham caucus member, submitted and
read from a presentation (on file). They have received re- engagement documentation from
the private well, environmental, agriculture, and non - government water caucuses. They
have not yet received documentation from the forestry or fisheries caucuses.
The Planning Unit has already achieved objective one of its work program. The
Planning Unit has had several discussions on objective two regarding instream flows, and
will continue working on it. Their goal is to create a position paper on instream flow. They
will begin working on or have already started working on objectives three through six.
The Planning Unit reviewed how each task in the detailed Planning Unit work
program relates to items in Resolution 2015 -004. The Planning Unit prioritized some of its
tasks so it can give the County Council the input it has requested. A lot of people are
involved in this right now, so they must all put together their collective knowledge as they
move through the work plan.
The Planning Unit members are working on the tasks related to the compliance
program. Skip Richards created an analysis of each section of the watershed master plan,
determining the status and what else needs to be done. The Planning Unit is going to work
on that document section -by- section. They have also talked about instream flow.
The Planning Unit has discussed low impact development and will coordinate with the
Planning Department, Public Works Department, each City, which all have regulations
regarding low impact development. The Planning Unit needs input from everyone, including
the Port of Bellingham, about what they are doing.
Brenner asked if the Planning Unit will get into the specifics of low impact
development ideas or just inventory what is being done. Goodwin stated that if each City
and County is handling low impact development, the Planning Unit may just need to compile
a list of what everyone else is doing. If they find things lacking, there may or may not be
discussion about low impact development processes.
Robin Dexter, Planning Unit member, stated the list of priorities came out of the
2005 work plan, right at a point when funding was diminishing for this kind of planning.
They became stuck on some very hard issues. No one wanted to talk about compliance,
because that meant shutting off water to farmers who were not permitted for it, for
example. To put the Planning Unit's lack of progress in perspective, keep in mind that there
are comprehensive plan reviews for the County, the City of Bellingham, and the hospital.
There is a lot of demand on the time of planners. The Planning Unit wants to create a
status report on all of these things, but that requires staff time that isn't available. In the
meantime, the caucuses are picking through a lot of the work that has gone on. They will
do their best to come up with a consensus report on all these issues as individual caucuses
push them forward. He will suggest to the Planning Unit that it get those updates jointly
with the Council when they can agree on what's really needed to report to the Council. None
of this has been funded adequately. The plan follow -up has been lost. It's taken a year to
orient all the new Planning Unit members on what came before. They're now at the point of
wanting to attack some of these intractable issues. It takes time for the Planning
Department to get feedback to the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit members are also
engaged in all these comprehensive plan updates. When going through updates from the
planners on the Comprehensive Plan, ask about things like natural resources policy
integration, and whether someone is bringing the water issue forward regarding land use.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 2
1 It's just as easy for the Council to ask about these things as it is for the Planning Unit to
2 ask.
3
4 Weimer asked if the Planning Unit is frustrated that it can't access information from
5 the planners sooner. Dexter stated it isn't. No one is refusing the Planning Unit.
6
7 Weimer stated they've been told that they need to be doing more low impact
8 development in rural areas that fall outside of the stormwater areas. He would like to know
9 if that's true. Dexter stated part of the frustration is that it is time consuming to go through
10 the information. He's looking for low impact development in the list of projects that will
11 eventually wind up in the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan, which is yet another
12 plan they're working on. That plan came with a list of projects. The whole need for a
13 Comprehensive Economic Development Plan is to qualify for transportation money. There
14 isn't enough information to know whether people are doing low impact development with
15 regard to these projects. That's the disconnect. There aren't a lot of models for this. The
16 original natural resources' policy coordination and integration item had a lot to do with
17 coordinating local, federal, and state agencies. Beyond that, it's a good idea to coordinate
18 water planning and land planning, and make sure the traffic planners aren't doing
19 something completely opposed to the water planners. That's the kind of thing that's difficult
20 to find out, and then to come up with a reporting mechanism. When budgeting, compliance
21 and long -term monitoring are key.
22
23 Goodwin continued the presentation. The Planning Unit members need to read all
24 the documents regarding local policies, plans, programs, projects, and ordinances to verify
25 how they relate to each other. She hopes the County planners are also reading and aware
26 of the watershed information and thinking about how land use and population distribution
27 relate to the availability of water supply. There is a tight timeframe to get all these plans
28 done. Collectively, they need to read each other's documents to make sure they're
29 consistent. Most big projects have agencies looking at water quality, habitat, and wetlands
30 altogether. It's the small, incremental projects that may not be adequately reviewed. A
31 high priority of the Planning Unit is to review all of those documents.
32
33 The Planning Unit provides a little time for public involvement. Once they have
34 something to involve people in and educate people about, they will consider the best way to
35 involve the public more.
36
37 Weimer stated the education component is also about determining what the County
38 and the Cities are doing to let people know about these issues. Goodwin stated the
39 Planning Unit could broaden its outreach to the Cities and the County to find out what it's
40 doing about public education in addition to low impact development. Water districts also
41 put out public education about water. They need to find out who is doing what.
42
43 Brenner asked if the County can require the jurisdictions to provide all this
44 information on things such as public involvement and education regarding water issues and
45 low impact development through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update process.
46
47 Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they can
48 coordinate that through the City /County planners group, which meets monthly as part of
49 the update process.
50
51 Goodwin stated she could attend one of those meetings, and they can just have a
52 conversation about it, rather than trying to send everyone a survey and get the information
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 3
1 back. The Planning Unit invites Mr. Personius to attend a Planning Unit meeting to talk
2 about these things.
3
4 Skip Richards, Planning Unit member, stated water use efficiency in the 2005
5 watershed management plan arose from a 2003 action by the legislature and was delegated
6 to the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). That's where the focus should be.
7
8 Goodwin concluded the presentation regarding the Lower Nooksack Strategy.
9
10 Mann stated he appreciates the Planning Unit members for their presentation, and
11 invited them to attend future work sessions.
12
13 Weimer asked if the Planning Unit members were asking to transition the Planning
14 Unit to an advisory committee. Dexter stated they have gotten a legal opinion about their
15 ability to plan under Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514. They are trying to
16 permanently rebuild the institutional memory on what has been done regarding water. He
17 anticipates they will ask for funding to do that. Half the people who are working on the
18 governance and funding subcommittee are content to retain their ability to operate under
19 ESHB 2514. Other members of the subcommittee believe that the Council will feel more
20 compelled to pay attention to their budget requests if they were an actual advisory
21 committee.
22
23 Goodwin stated the strategy now is to let it go and get on with it. To the extent the
24 Planning Unit provides the Council with good information, it is an advisory committee.
25
26 Richards stated the Planning Unit and Joint Board should work together on issues
27 within their scope, and the staff team should support both of them.
28
29 3. POLLUTION IDENTIFICATION & CORRECTION (PIC) PROGRAM UPDATE
30
31 Erika Douglas, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
32 (on file). This program primarily focuses on bacterial issues, but water quality is also
33 important for recreational uses, drinking water, agricultural uses, and shellfish. When they
34 invest in the PIC program, they can reopen closed shellfish beds. They are going to use a
35 local data - driven process to identify potential sources of bacteria, and work with landowners
36 in a cooperative and voluntary process to try to correct those sources.
37
38 Brenner asked if people are responding to the surveys. Douglas stated they received
39 a decent response to the landowners survey last year. It helped them get an idea of what
40 people are interested in and what their concerns and observations are.
41
42 Brenner stated she attended a Ten Mile watershed group meeting, at which there
43 were some long -term farmers who attended. Those farmers said they know who the
44 problem farmers are. There are few, but they are bad offenders. She was surprised to hear
45 that they know. Douglas stated it depends on the drainage they're working in. That's why
46 they take a close look at each drainage.
47
48 Brenner stated the farmers get blamed a lot. There are a few who aren't engaging in
49 good pollution control, and they give all farmers a bad name. It's time to change that
50 attitude. Douglas stated they are working collaboratively with community groups. In some
51 areas, it works fine to have a government agency make contacts with landowners. In other
52 areas, that isn't as acceptable. They are working to build a networking system to reach out
53 to landowners.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 4
1
2 Douglas continued the presentation on the non -dairy livestock component with the
3 Conservation District.
4
5 Brenner stated the Conservation District did great working with people in a particular
6 area, but the Department of Ecology was sending out threatening letters at the same time.
7 She asked if that's been fixed. Douglas stated the County and Conservation District are
8 taking the lead in these focus areas. People will only hear from the Department of Ecology
9 if they have not chosen to participate in a voluntary program, and there is a clear discharge.
10 There are areas in the Drayton Harbor watershed that are outside the current focus areas,
11 and Ecology would respond to complaints in those areas. Ecology will send any complaints
12 within the focus areas to the County.
13
14 Douglas continued and concluded the presentation and submitted information (on
15 file) on the water quality status for Drayton Harbor and the Nooksack River watersheds.
16
17 George Boggs, Conservation District, submitted handouts (on file) and stated they
18 are trying to work with landowners in a respectful manner. He appreciates the contract with
19 the County. They are bringing other grant funds to the project. They must respond to
20 other agencies, also. People have to step forward to volunteer to do farm plans. The
21 community is interested. (Inaudible.) There is an additional $4 million in cost share being
22 made available to folks in these circumstances.
23
24 4. FLOOD SYSTEMWIDE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK (SWIF) UPDATE
25
26 Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, described the levee rehabilitation program.
27 When a flood happens, if there is more than $15,000 in damage, the U.S. Army Corps of
28 Engineers will assess the damage, develop a design, and pay 80 percent of the cost of
29 repairs. When she began, there were eight levees in the program. There are 33 levees in
30 the program now. Since Hurricane Katrina, the Corps has been more rigorous about doing
31 inspections every two years. In 2010, they identified about 80 deficiencies on the 33 levees
32 and gave the County two years to resolve the deficiencies. The Corps offered this system -
33 wide improvement framework process. She submitted and read from a presentation (on file)
34 on the SWIF program. They set up technical teams for each reach of the river, one team for
35 vegetation and habitat, and one team for funding. The Corps used to require that any levee
36 with trees on it would be kicked out of the program. However, they've changed that
37 requirement. Having a tree is not considered a deficiency unless it's leaning, or there is
38 scour around it, or it is actually threatening the levee. The SWIF will contribute to the
39 broader Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) update. The diking
40 districts wanted to get their work done without having to do a lot of permitting, so a
41 subcommittee of the team created the permit streamlining plan for Nooksack River levees
42 (on file).
43
44 She described the SWIF Reach Team progress for the Reach 4 team working on the
45 Deming to Everson reach.
46
47 Mann asked the assessed value of all the property in that area they're trying to
48 protect. Cooper stated the CFHMP will have that information when it's updated.
49
50 Mann stated they sometimes spend more to protect property than the property is
51 worth. He would like to know how much those properties would cost to buy them.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 5
I Cooper concluded the presentation on the reach team action plans, potential funding
2 sources, and next steps.
3
4 Weimer asked if other counties in the region are having the same deficiencies and
5 going through the same process. Cooper stated they are. Whatcom County was one of two
6 pilot basins and received $300,000 from the Puget Sound Partnership that has funded a lot
7 of the consultant work.
8
9 Brenner asked if they will be eligible for State assistance. Cooper stated the
10 Floodplains by Design program funding may be available.
11
12 Brenner asked about the mole control program. Cooper stated they hired an animal
13 control service to put percussion gas in the mole hole, which worked better than poison.
14
15 Buchanan asked if there are estimated completion dates for the items listed as next
16 steps. Cooper stated they are trying to complete the entire SWIF plan by June 2016. She's
17 trying to finish up with the teams that are doing the comprehensive work. They will work
18 with the districts this summer and get a lot done. The vegetation work will probably take
19 several years. They will prioritize the maintenance work based on risk.
20
21 Brenner stated it sounds like there still plans to be a lot of tree removal on the
22 levees. Cooper stated it is only on the upper five to 15 feet of the levee. It was a
23 negotiated design. Trees will remain below that level.
24
25 Mann asked if there is science that they can all agree on. Cooper stated there is not
26 a whole lot of science to suggest that trees are bad, but the Corps doesn't take that
27 approach.
28
29 Mann stated that if it was self- evident that trees are good on a levee, there would be
30 some buy -in from the scientific experts.
31
32 Brenner stated the Corps deals mostly with levees in other areas of the country that
33 have nothing to do with the kind of vegetation that exists locally.
34
35 Cooper stated there's not as much science as one would expect.
36
37 Brenner stated it's a one - size - fits -all decision.
38
39 Karen Brown, Planning Unit Member, stated the Floodplain by Design fund may be
40 cut next year.
41
42 Cooper stated the County doesn't have an active application. If the program can get
43 funded again, they may have a stable program for integrated flood projects. This is the first
44 time they are considering integrating fish, farm, and flood components. She hopes the
45 funding will be restored.
46
47 George Boggs, Conservation District, stated a local contingent spoke to Senator
48 Erickson about the Floodplain by Design program. He was invited to provide input to make
49 sure there is adequate criteria that includes farms, fish, and floods. The Council must ask
50 the Senator to reconsider his position on that program. There is significant U.S.
51 Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding to help with some of these projects.
52
53
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 21, 2015.
,ATTEST: C 0 l�.''rr
s
Dana Brown -C S, "tou, 61LCler,-1
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2015, Page 7