HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session November 17 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
November 17, 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, Satpal Sidhu, Barry Buchanan, Ken Mann, Pete
Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: Rud Browne
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION AB2015 -024
1. NOOKSACK RIVER REACH 4 SYSTEMWIDE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
(SWIF) PLANNING
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, introduced contractors Karin Boyd, Applied
Geomorphology, Inc., and Dave Cline, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. in Seattle, and described the
planning process to address all the deficiencies identified by the Army Corps of Engineers in
a way that reduces risk and integrates environmental concerns and tribal treaty rights. This
is a more detailed analysis of reach 4.
Karin Boyd, Applied Geomorphology, Inc., described her background. She submitted
and read from a presentation (on file) on reach 4 of the Nooksack River from Deming to
Nugent's Corner. She described the current levee configuration, the processes they see
happening and how the river behaves, risks associated with the current layout, and
opportunities they've developed to look at ways of addressing those risks. The river
corridor used to be wider. There were historically more active side channels. Erosion rates
have risen.
Dave Cline stated the graph regarding the increased rate of riparian forest erosion
represents energy and change. They are starting to see a lot more energy, turnover, and
change in the river and floodplain riparian corridor.
Boyd continued the presentation on the geomorphic - related risks to the Nooksack
River levee system. She described how the Deming hook has been created and its rapid
erosion of the Deming levee, the avulsion risk of water migrating behind the Sande - Williams
levee over time, the threat of water overtopping the Lee levee as a result of clay bank
failures, alternatives to reduce the river confinement and widen the corridor to dissipate
energy and to reduce the time the river is up against any levee' to reduce maintenance
costs. They mapped and worked from the historic footprint of the river.
Mann asked what sort of timeframe they are talking about with the different channel
migration zones (CMZs). Boyd stated they are talking about a timeframe of about 100
years, based on their mappable history of the footprint.
Surface Water Work Session, 11/17/2015, Page 1
1 Boyd continued the presentation on alternative one. The first alternative is based on
2 the belt widths, with some adjustments for land use concerns and trying to find the optimal
3 situation. She described the alternatives.
4
5 Cline stated alternative one is the big, grand plan. It would provide as much flood
6 protection as possible. It would be built to a 100 -year level of protection and would limit
7 overflow and overtopping toward the highway, Nugent's Corner, and the railroad. If the
8 river begins to move into the railroad embankment, the railroad company will take their
9 own steps to protect the embankment.
10
11 Boyd continued the presentation on the benefits of alternative one, which include
12 fewer maintenance requirements and increased habitat. She described the phased
13 approaches and benefits of alternatives two and three.
14
15 Cooper stated the SWIF team came up with alternatives one and two. The Diking
16 District came up with alternative three.
17
18 Boyd concluded the presentation on the geomorphic benefits of alternative one.
19
20 Brenner asked how much discussion has occurred with the diking districts. Cooper
21 stated they've been in 12 to 16 hours of meetings, and have one more meeting scheduled.
22 They're not done. This is just a presentation on the technical information so the
23 councilmembers have more context as they make decisions.
24
25 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department Director, stated this reach has the highest
26 repair and maintenance costs of all reaches, by a substantial order of magnitude.
27
28 John Thompson, Public Works Department, described impacts to salmon habitat.
29 The geomorphology will provide the baseline information to assess the habitat, which they
30 haven't done yet. All the information will be synthesized to determine several factors
31 affecting fish and what actions would be necessary to know how to recover habitat. A likely
32 fish habitat limitation is more energy in the channel.
33
34 Brenner stated the information on each alternative should show the data on the
35 amount of reduced agricultural land. Cooper stated they can provide that information.
36
37 Thompson stated another factor that impacts fish habitat is when fish are stranded in
38 side channels. The alternatives are still being developed. Alternative one is an example of
39 bigger gains without going all the way back to historic conditions. Right now, the riparian
40 zone in this reach isn't fully functioning. Additional forested acres and side channels would
41 boost ecological functions and available habitat. Reduced evulsion risk is less of a habitat
42 issue, but there could be a potential for stranding. With alternative one, they are getting
43 some increment of the historic habitat function back. Alternative two would provide similar
44 benefits, but it would happen more incrementally. Alternative three would provide some
45 benefits in certain locations.
46
47 Brenner asked for a timeline for when the County stopped dredging. She would like
48 to see if there is a correlation. Thompson stated that's not part of the contractor's scope.
49 It's been almost 20 years since they last dredged.
50
51 Cline submitted and read from a presentation (on file) on all the costs for the
52 project, including long -term maintenance costs. They will see how the alternatives influence
Surface Water Work Session, 11/17/2015, Page 2
1 the long -term maintenance costs, which is a big issue for the local diking districts.
2 Reducing those long -term maintenance costs will reduce their cost share for repair.
3
4 Cooper stated the designs are very conceptual at this point, so the costs are based
5 on certain assumptions. It's not a detailed cost estimate.
6
7 Cline continued the presentation on the concept design plan for alternative one.
8 Look for cost share sponsors, such as the railroad and pipeline companies.
9
10 Cooper stated a design similar to alternative one isn't something the County can pay
11 for by itself. Hopefully, the County can provide a 20 percent match to a Floodplains By
12 Design grant or similar funding source. Consider the amount of money that the County is
13 paying now for existing maintenance when looking at the cost estimates for the
14 alternatives.
15
16 Cline continued the presentation on the concept designs for alternatives two and
17 three and the planning level cost estimates for alternatives one, two, and three.
18
19 Brenner asked if the County can use these areas for offsite mitigation banking. Cline
20 stated they could do that. The mitigation ratio can be even higher than 3 -to -1. The
21 mitigation acres are held in perpetuity.
22
23 Kremen asked the life expectancy of the alternatives. Cline stated there is at least a
24 50 -year design life expectancy. Maintenance will be required. The levees will perform
25 much better for several reasons, including reduced energy in the river, less time the river
26 will be against the levee, and advanced levee design technology.
27
28 Mann stated it's necessary to get the State and railroad company to act and
29 contribute, because it protects their infrastructure and they have more money. He asked
30 how much it would cost to buy all properties between the river and the railroad, and then let
31 the railroad company and State worry about it. Cooper stated that's essentially what
32 they're doing for one section of alternative two.
33
34 Cline stated he will provide that information, but he believes the assessed value of
35 the land between the levees and the railroad is approximately between $10 million and $20
36 million.
37
38 Mann stated he wants to think about whether it's wise to spend $100 million to
39 protect $20 million worth of real estate. He doesn't want to do that.
40
41 Cline stated they also need to think about the value of the crops those properties
42 produce, the value of the railroad, the road, and other areas. It's a broad floodplain
43 downstream. If this were to move forward and they get a handle on the economics, they
44 could get information on the flood damage benefits of these alternatives.
45
46 Cooper stated a more formal cost analysis needs to be part of the decision.
47
48 Brenner asked if dredged material can help build the levee, which would lower the
49 cost of the project. Cline stated they are using some material, which brought costs down.
50 Costs of the supply go up or down based on production and procurement issues. There are
51 mechanisms to reduce those costs, giving the contractor certainty and allowing them to bid
52 the project better.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 11/17/2015, Page 3
1 Cline concluded the presentation on the projected maintenance costs for 50 years
2 and a summary of the alternatives.
3
4 Brenner asked about the increasing costs for alternative three. Cline stated
5 alternative two is the lowest maintenance costs is because it is the shortest of the three
6 alternatives. Alternative three is longer because Sande Williams goes out farther.
7
8 Brenner stated she would like to have a hard copy of all presentations in advance.
9
10 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated they don't give out presentations in
11 advance because they are only half of the presentation.
12
13 Mann stated he disagrees. Hard copies of presentations should be submitted in
14 advanced, or during the meeting, at the very least. The presentation itself was very good.
15 He looks forward of getting a copy of it.
16
17 Weimer stated he agrees that the presentation was very good.
18
19 2. UPDATES ON THE COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN (CWSP) / JOINT
20 BOARD / PLANNING UNIT
21
22 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, presented an update on the Planning Unit
23 schedule, work plan, and budget. The Planning Unit is asking for $40,000 for public
24 involvement and education, plus staff support. He also presented an update on the Joint
25 Board schedule, activities, and budget. They plan to wind down the Joint Board budget by
26 September 2016.
27
28 Weimer asked if the Joint Board money is existing or new. Stoyka stated it is not
29 new money. The fund includes grant money received.
30
31 Weimer asked the timeline for a settlement. Stoyka stated Lummi Nation staff don't
32 know yet if it will go forward.
33
34 Brenner asked when the Lummi Tribe will hear from the federal government. Stoyka
35 stated he doesn't know. The request for federal quantification is not going anywhere.
36
37 Brenner asked why the County would consider it before the federal government
38 makes a decision.
39
40 Stoyka presented an update on the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) Water
41 Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) schedule and activities.
42
43 3. FLOOD FUND BALANCE PROJECTIONS
44
45 ]on Hutchings, Public Works Director, submitted a handout (on file) and gave a staff
46 report on the district's purpose and the 2016 -2018 flood control zone district fund
47 projection. The flood fund balance is declining. They had built up the balance, and then
48 used funds on several large capital projects, which include ongoing operational costs. By
49 2018, the fund balance will be at the $5 million reserve limit. Staff will look at how to
50 increase revenues and decrease expenditures.
51
Surface Water Work Session, 11/17/2015, Page 4
1 Brenner asked if there are alternatives if the County doesn't receive grants to
2 supplement the budget. Hutchings stated there are not. The Council would have to discuss
3 cutting back.
4
5 Brenner asked if some of the projects are discretionary. Hutchings stated they are.
6
7 Kremen stated the reserve amount should be increased to $6 million.
8
9 Sidhu asked what water quality and quantity projects are being funded from the
10 flood fund. Hutchings stated the fund transitioned to a tax in 1998, which broadened the
11 types of expenditures allowed from the fund.
12
13 Weimer stated they will need a new funding source for National Pollution Discharge
14 Elimination System ( NPDES) and stormwater costs. Hutchings stated they can discuss the
15 alternatives.
16
17 Weimer stated develop something before the County's budget season, so it can be
18 implemented in 2017. Schedule a work session in January to discuss a new stormwater
19 utility or flood subzone to finance NPDES and stormwater.
20
21 Sidhu stated consider if there are opportunities to reduce existing costs, such as the
22 expenditures for the non - salary and stormwater line items. Hutchings stated there needs to
23 be a discussion about the scope of the programs and level of service they will deliver over
24 the next several years.
25
26
27 ADJOURN
28
29 The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
30
31 ,�Tb*1C6Uhc l approved these minutes on March 8, 2016.
32 ,. , cc"
33 AT T is • °" #,.'
' • •,.''f WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
34 A aT••� �� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
35 • a COUNTY v : r
36 _
38
39 Dana B ow F is,ICouoil Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
40 .. ,•°
42;l��i��:iai
43
44 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Surface Water Work Session, 11/17/2015, Page 5