HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session September 22 2015Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
September 22, 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, Rud Browne, Barry Buchanan, Pete Kremen and Carl
Weimer
Absent: Ken Mann and Satpal Sidhu
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION {AB2015 -024)
1. FLOODPLAINS BY DESIGN VISIONING PROCESS
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated create a regional vision of all the
different local visions for watersheds on the Puget Sound. The Floodplains by Design group
asked the County to compile a narrative of its vision, where the County is at, and where the
County is headed. It will be context for future grant applications to help with bigger
projects. The information is due at the end of September. They propose to use the existing
system -wide improvement framework (SWIF) interagency coordination teams. They will
use information from the comprehensive flood plan and salmon recovery plan to develop the
text. They met with the interagency coordination committee and several other boards and
committees. The feedback from committees is that this doesn't get into the details of a
flood plan and it needs to better - reflect the business needs of agriculture. They will add a
more detailed analysis in the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan update.
Cooper and John Thompson, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a
presentation on the reach strategies and designations, improving the Ferndale levee and
fish habitat for each reach.
Kremen asked if there are costs associated with each action item. They need an idea
of the cost - benefit ratio to make smart, informed decisions. These look like ideas they've
talked about for a long time. Cooper stated that as they developed the SWIF plan, the cost
information will be included. They have already done some updated cost estimates, but not
gotten that detailed information to the Council. They will bring the consultants to the
Council, so the Council gets the benefit of what they've been working on.
Thompson stated this is a visioning. It will take more work to come up with
reasonable numbers.
Vincent Buys, Washington State House of Representatives, 42nd District, stated the
Army Corps of Engineers has been opposed to vegetation on levees. He asked if they've
commented, and if they have authority over these levees. Cooper stated the Corps national
standards are historically opposed to vegetation on the levees, but have changed their
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 1
1 position. A tree has to be causing a problem, not just exist. The Corps has been involved in
2 and supports the SWIF process.
3
4 Larry Helm asked if this is integrated with the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
5 Restoration Project ( PSNRP), which is funded in many counties, but not Whatcom County.
6 Cooper stated the PSNRP plan, which was developed in Olympia without consultation with
7 Whatcom County, looks like the 1999 plan from which the County has moved away. She
8 invited the PSNRP people to a SWIF team meeting, and they spoke to the farmer who owns
9 the land. There is a lot of forward movement. The County would love to take advantage of
10 the funding, but the PSNRP people have to approve the County's plan.
11
12 Cooper and Thompson continued the presentation on reaches two through four.
13
14 Browne asked why they would move the Sandy Williams levee back where the 1933
15 channel was if the land there now is forested. Cooper stated this is what the Diking District
16 came up with. This is where they want that line to be.
17
18 Browne stated that if they don't have infrastructure to protect, there is forest land or
19 pasture land that can tolerate being flooded, and the original channel is further away from
20 the river, they could build it where the river wants to go. Cooper stated that is alternative
21 two, to put the levee on the back side of the forest instead of in the middle of the forest. It
22 provides more area to convey the water, more roughness to dissipate energy, and makes it
23 easier to access the levee.
24
25 Buys asked who is the property owner and what is his or her intended purpose. He
26 asked what becomes of the property if they choose alternative three. Cooper stated they've
27 been talking to the landowners, who are involved with the Diking District.
28
29 Buys asked what happens to those property rights. Cooper stated that if a property
30 is protected, the County would acquire that land based on fair market value, if they can
31 come to terms with the landowners.
32
33 Buys asked where the taxable value of the land goes. Cooper stated they wouldn't
34 collect property tax, but they also wouldn't need to continually repair the levee. It is one of
35 the most repaired levees. It currently has damage that will cost about $400,000 to repair.
36 That economic analysis is part of the SWIF.
37
38 Browne stated he is the Council representative on the Flood Control Zone District
39 Advisory Committee, which looked at a project that protects about 20 acres of good land
40 worth about $25,000 per acre. However, the cost of doing the project would have been
41 over $100,000 per acre. From a community perspective, the choice was whether or not to
42 spend $2 million to protect land that was worth about one - quarter of that.
43
44 Buys stated that's what the Flood District money is for.
45
46 Browne stated there is a limited amount of money, so they have to spend it wisely.
47 He'd much rather spend $2 million protecting land that is worth $5 million than protecting
48 land worth a couple hundred thousand dollars.
49
50 Buys stated they need to be blind to the value of the land and recognize that it is
51 private property. Regardless of the value of the property, it's the duty of the County flood
52 district to protect the land.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 2
1 Browne stated they have a limited amount of money. They have to spend it where it
2 will do the most good.
3
4 Cooper and Thompson continued the presentation on reach four, flood planning on
5 the north and middle forks of the river, Washington State's preferred alternative for bridges
6 in Glacier, Jones Creek deflection berms and a potential new bridge, the Acme repetitive
7 flood loss area and alternatives for protecting existing development, and habitat strategies.
8
9 Brenner asked about dredging and when they will get to discuss the topic. Cooper
10 stated the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is doing a two and a half year study, which will
11 provide the scientific basis to know what sediment is doing, in terms of affecting flood
12 levels.
13
14 Brenner stated fine sediment is very destructive for fish eggs. They need to create
15 cooler water zones. It seems like they talk about everything but dredging. Thompson
16 stated the cool water zones in the south fork include fine sediment issues, but it's more
17 related to source control. The strategy has been to identify where cooler groundwater is
18 coming in from the hillside or from an alluvial fan, and locate log jams in the lower South
19 Fork to have those pools spaced out to provide that thermal refuge.
20
21 Brenner stated dredging should be a top proposal, and they shouldn't take two and a
22 half years. Cooper stated they developed a proposal for a pilot project. The feedback they
23 received was that they need a lot more science to justify the project and an environmental
24 impact statement. Pierce County is leading that work now. They are spending close to $2
25 million on the environmental impact statement (EIS).
26
27 Brenner stated Whatcom County stopped dredging because Canada stopped.
28 Canada started dredging again, and Whatcom County is still testing. A lot of that science
29 work could come from what Canada has already done.
30
31 Cooper stated she would like the Council's support to move this forward to Olympia.
32 This is a fuzzy vision of where they are and where they think they are headed, without
33 committing the County to anything. As the County develops specific grant proposals, this
34 will provide a context for how it fits into the overall vision. This was a good exercise to start
35 with the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) update, identify a list of
36 components that need to be included, and indicate where the different represented groups
37 are at.
38
39 Weimer asked if this plan is the wish list that talks about the County's vision and
40 keeps the County in the running for funding from Olympia. Cooper stated that's correct.
41
42 Helm stated he would like the Agricultural Advisory Committee to get a presentation
43 from Cooper and review the plan. There is a concern about a loss of infrastructure. They're
44 talking about taking the land with the best soil and a large amount of the farmer's profit.
45 The total farm community is worried about where this is going. They would like to know
46 where this is going.
47
48 Weimer stated the timeline is tight, and they need to move this vision forward. It's
49 just a vision plan, and they aren't planning any projects.
50
51 Buys stated he finds the structured draft in the interlocal agreement troubling. A
52 group not included is the water improvement districts (WIDs), which are government
53 agencies. He asked if they are involved in the process and if they have been notified.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 3
1 Cooper stated WIDs are new. Many advisory committee members are also WID board
2 members. WIDs may not have existed when they set up the interagency coordination
3 team. They can certainly broaden the interagency coordination team to include the WIDs.
4
5 Buys asked about drainage ditch cleaning. The County has done a terrible job of
6 maintaining drainage ditches. There's nothing in this plan. Cooper stated drainage has
7 become a bigger issue. One of the proposals on Fishtrap Creek was to enable some riparian
8 restoration that includes plumbing the ditches and creates a pump station. The drainage
9 districts do most of the ditch work. The County works with them, but a separate entity is
10 most involved with ditches. The County is replacing culverts that improve drainage.
11
12 Buys asked when the County's culverts will be replaced. Cooper stated she can only
13 speak to the culverts in the flood plain and in the context of the SWIF. The Corps wants the
14 County to inspect culverts every five years. The County will hopefully propose to replace
15 many of those as funding becomes available. The County really needs outside funding,
16 because flood control is very expensive.
17
18 Brenner moved to forward this to the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
19
20 Helm stated the advisory committee can have a meeting within a week.
21
22 Kremen stated move forward, and modify the motion to incorporate the points
23 brought up by Mr. Helm, Representative Buys, and others today. Cooper stated include
24 language that indicates they will continue to involve the farmers. It can be in the cover
25 memo.
26
27 Brenner amended her motion and moved to write a cover memo that
28 incorporates today's comments, send this to Olympia by the deadline of September 30, and
29 also send it to the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The memo should say that they don't
30 consider this a final plan. She asked what they are committing to. Cooper stated they are
31 committing to nothing.
32
33 Kremen seconded the motion.
34
35 The motion carried by the following vote:
36 Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5)
37 Nays: None (0)
38 Absent: Mann and Sidhu (2)
39
40 2. CWSP /JOINT BOARD /PLANNING UNIT UPDATE
41
42 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, gave an update on the Planning Unit
43 meeting schedule. Committees are meeting regularly. The Planning Unit is doing an annual
44 review of the work plan and preparing a 2016 budget. They have received an application
45 for caucus support. That application will go to the full Planning Unit and then to the Council
46 for final approval.
47
48 Browne stated he would like an update of the Planning Unit progress if the caucuses
49 are going to start asking for money. Stoyka stated they are looking at the status of all the
50 items in the work plan as part of the annual review. They will present that information at
51 the next surface water work session.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 4
1 Browne stated that as they look at funding, he needs to know something productive
2 has come out of the Planning Unit, including accomplishments, the work product, and what
3 the community is getting in exchange for the investment. He fully supports the intent of
4 the group and the time members have donated to the effort. However, they need to get
5 something out of it.
6
7 Brenner stated the Nooksack vision plan didn't go to the Planning Unit. Stoyka
8 stated it's gone through the flood committee, which reviews flood issues. They don't
9 normally schedule flood issues before the Planning Unit. Flood control is different from
10 water resource control and water quality.
11
12 Brenner stated the document also talks about how flooding is disturbing water
13 quality. It's not just about water quantity. Anything related to water in Whatcom county
14 would have something to do with the water resource inventory area (WRIA).
15
16 Weimer stated the Planning Unit is looking for direction from the Council about what
17 it should be working on. There are a lot of water things that don't go to the Planning Unit.
18 Some things come up that the Planning Unit would like to see. The Council can discuss their
19 direction at the next surface water work session. The Planning Unit also voted to become a
20 more official advisory committee, so the Council needs to look at that.
21
22 Linda Twitchell stated Mr. Stoyka told the Planning Unit that they weren't being
23 asked to report to the Council today. They were told that comes later. Stoyka stated the
24 Planning Unit is scheduled to be at the next meeting in October.
25
26 Stoyka continued with the Joint Board update. They amended their budget to accept
27 $170,000 from the Puget Sound Partnership to develop a two -year and five -year WRIA
28 recovery plan, which goes into the overall Puget Sound recovery plan. The work will mostly
29 be done by outside entities. The first deliverable is due September 30. He also reported on
30 phase one of the groundwater modeling project. There is only funding through the end of
31 this year. Phases two and three aren't funded. The Joint Board will prepare its 2016
32 budget for approval in December.
33
34 He continued with the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) update and the Water
35 Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). The plan will help quantify the long -term needs
36 and existing needs of the public water systems. They will be done preparing the plan by the
37 end of this year, when they will send it out to all the stakeholders to look at. The WUCC
38 subcommittees are on design standards and fire flow and on utility service procedure
39 review.
40
41 Karen Brown, Planning Unit -Well Owners Caucus, stated the well owners were told
42 they didn't need to be involved in this. However, they're talking a lot about well owners.
43
44 Weimer asked when is the next phase for the out of stream study supposed to start,
45 which was supposed to involve well owners. Stoyka stated it won't happen this year. They
46 need to finish the CWSP process first. They may be able to use some of the $170,000 from
47 the Puget Sound Partnership for the next phase because it's considered part of the overall
48 plan.
49
50 Weimer asked about when the contract for Planning Unit facilitation comes up.
51 Stoyka stated the contract runs through January.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 5
1 Weimer stated the Planning Unit passed a motion to ask the Council to make the
2 Planning Unit a formal advisory committee, recognizing their statutory authority for
3 instream flow and approving plans. The Council would start to think about what it wants
4 that committee to focus on and have a discussion with the Planning Unit about facilitation.
5 He asked if he can start a process with the administration to formalize what an advisory
6 committee would like.
7
8 Brenner stated she's hearing different feedback from the Planning Unit.
9
10 Weimer stated the Planning Unit wants the Council's help to make sure they are in
11 the loop on a variety of issues. Some of the Planning Unit members also want the Council
12 to help give focus.
13
14 Twitchell stated there hasn't been a motion to make the Planning Unit an advisory
15 committee. The Planning Unit would like a liaison with Council. In addition to its WRIA
16 responsibilities, the County Council has asked the Planning Unit to act as an advisory board.
17 They are looking for a direct liaison for more information. They aren't reorganizing or
18 forming an advisory committee.
19
20 Weimer stated they should get clarity. The Planning Unit sidestepped the Path
21 Forward by saying they want to move on as an advisory committee for things other than
22 what their statutory authority covers.
23
24 Twitchell stated that the motion was to act as an advisory body to the Council in
25 addition to its statutory requirements.
26
27 Weimer stated he can start to work on that.
28
29 Brown asked about funding from the State for WRIA activities.
30
31 Vincent Buys, Washington State House of Representatives, 42nd District, stated there
32 was about $75,000 in the State operating budget, but it's not there anymore. He will
33 continue to try to get that funding in the State budget. He wants to make sure it's used
34 properly.
35
36 Browne stated that the Council has a mandate from the State that is effectively
37 unfunded.
38
39 Buys stated the Planning Unit was a contributing factor in creating the salmon
40 recovery plan. Stoyka stated it was not.
41
42 Weimer stated the salmon recovery plan was separate from the watershed plan.
43
44 3. COLLABORATIVE NATURAL RESOURCES STRUCTURE — STAFF PROPOSAL FOR
45 TRANSITION OF WRIA STRUCTURE
46
47 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, read from a presentation and gave a staff
48 report on a brief history of the local process, background and description of the proposal,
49 and a list of the recommended next steps.
50
51 Greg Brown stated the chronology should include the period the Planning Unit was
52 not funded and was inactive, from June 2009 to September 2013.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 6
1 Brenner stated the Joint Board has been making decisions that have not come to the
2 Council for approval first. The Council passed a resolution that said these things need to
3 come to the Council. She is concerned that items aren't going to the Council for approval
4 before going to the Joint Board for approval. Stoyka stated that isn't true in the last year.
5
6 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department Director, stated the way this Joint Board
7 has functioned is in the role of implementing what has been legislated. The Planning Unit
8 developed a watershed management plan that was then approved by the County Council
9 and other legislative bodies. It followed up with a detailed implementation plan, which was
10 also approved by legislative bodies. The Joint Board, the executive level organization for
11 implementation, carried the work forward as prescribed by the detailed implementation
12 plan.
13
14 The legislative bodies address that implementation work at the budget level. There
15 was a lot of State money and Flood Control Zone District money went into a Joint Board
16 budget with prescriptions about how the money was allocated and to finance the
17 implementation of the work. Along the way, there were updates on specific lines of work
18 being accomplished. That's how this has carried forward.
19
20 The lower Nooksack strategy has nothing in it that hasn't been approved. The
21 questions are the level of detail that the legislative bodies want to engage in during every
22 step of the process and when they want to receive the information on the decision - making
23 process. For the administration, it's difficult to know where to take various aspects of this
24 water resource work. There are several entities that represent agricultural interests and
25 there is the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee to advise the Council on flood
26 control.
27
28 Brenner stated the Council is supposed to oversee the budget, including the
29 contracts. Hutchings stated all the purchasing and contracting rules still apply to that
30 program.
31
32 Brenner stated there were agreements by the Joint Board instead of the Council to
33 spend money in certain ways. Hutchings stated the Executive clarified those expectations.
34
35 Stoyka continued the presentation on the staff proposal, the Lower Nooksack
36 Strategy goals, and a staff work plan for 2016 -2020. They reviewed objectives for the next
37 five years, including funding for an instream flow negotiation, groundwater model
38 development, water availability and supply, and annual flow and water quality monitoring.
39 In total, they need about $2 million for the next five years. By the third quarter of 2016,
40 the Joint Board will have no funds. The Joint Board fund has been funded in the past by the
41 Flood Control Zone District and grant funds. No money has been put in the fund since 2005
42 or 2006.
43
44 Stoyka stated the discussion about funding lead to a discussion of whether the Joint
45 Board is necessary anymore. Options are to disband the Joint Board, keep the status quo,
46 or to restructure. They are in a modified phase two of the detailed implementation plan.
47 He described the recommended restructure of the Salmon Recovery Board and Joint Board,
48 the Planning Unit, and all the related caucuses, including new interlocal agreements. The
49 Joint Board approves the concept. The next steps are to make sure the restructure is legal
50 and to provide opportunity for public input in the transition process. There is a lot of
51 jurisdictional overlap among the entities. Each jurisdiction would have to approve this
52 interlocal agreement.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Browne asked who will fund the $2 million budget. Stoyka stated that hasn't been
decided.
Browne asked how it's been funded in prior years. Stoyka stated money has
generally come from the State or County. Other entities outside the Joint Board have done
projects that benefit the effort.
Brenner stated the Council has approved Flood Control Zone District money for water
quality issues. They use flood money for issues that don't have to do with flooding. It's
confusing when WRIA can't deal with both. Sediment is coming down the rivers with floods,
which is destroying salmon habitat and water quality. Hutchings stated the WRIA 1 process
carries out projects in the detailed implementation plan. The County has other water
resource management work to do. The question is what scope of that other work should be
under the Planning Unit auspices. Today the processes are disparate. The Flood Control
Zone District Advisory Committee works on flood. The Planning Unit is focused on
implementation of the watershed management plan. Agricultural Advisory folks work on
land use interests. There is no clarity on where that information should go.
Brenner stated the purpose of the Planning Unit is water resource management. She
asked how that could not include flooding issues. Hutchings stated it could include it. There
is a balance between being too complex and having too many advisory committees and
having too few advisory committees.
Brenner stated she envisioned that all the committees would be funneled through the
Planning Unit and then go to the Council, similar to the Planning Commission. That's not
happening.
Weimer stated it's the Council's job to clarify what issues the Planning Unit will work
on. When he was on the Planning Unit, it was never interested in water quality issues. It
was interested in water quantity. The Council has never asked the Planning Unit to talk
about Lake Whatcom or stormwater issues in Birch Bay, which are also water issues.
Browne stated the Planning Unit role should be to do things that aren't being done by
other groups. Don't funnel all the water issues through the WRIA 1 Planning Unit, which is
a volunteer group with limited resources.
Brenner stated that changes all the time. The Planning Unit members want to be
involved in a broad spectrum of water issues.
Browne stated they may want to be involved, but the community has a limited
amount of resources. They need to focus those resources.
Brenner stated they have many committees to deal with many separate issues. The
Planning Unit puts them all together for the Council.
Browne stated it is the job of the Council to put all the issues together.
Twitchell asked if State funding would be available if the County dissolved the
Planning Unit and Joint Board and replaced them with a water management board, per
State law.
Stoyka stated that is only available for fully adjudicated basins. Whatcom County
wouldn't be eligible.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 8
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
Hutchings stated the next step is adjudication of water rights, which is about water
quantity. They are stuck in a state of uncertainty about what they want the various boards
to do to inform decisions. The statute focuses on water quantity, even though it allowed for
the community to engage in other interests as well.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmembers Kremen and Buchanan left the meeting.)
ADJOURN
The Council lost its quorum at 12:20 p.m.
1 T'he � 11ipql abiproved these minutes on February 9, 2016.
ATW� •'I Go
Da �a�l3r6ta ziVj , •CpuAq$ Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 9/22/2015, Page 9