HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 21 20091 Whatcom County Council
2 Special Surface Water Work Session
3
4 April 21, 2009
5
6 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. in the
7 Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
8 Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11 Present: Absent:
12 Barbara Brenner None
13 Bob Kelly
14 Carl Weimer
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16 L. Ward Nelson
17 Sam Crawford
18
19
20 SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2009 -024)
21
22 1. REVIEW AND STATUS OF THE LAKE WHATCOM TMDL
23
24 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated a supplemental budget request
25 regarding the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study is coming forward. He introduced the
26 items to discuss during this meeting.
27
28 Nelson asked how they came up with the reduction numbers for phosphorus loading.
29
30 Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, explained the method used to
31 calibrate the amount, based on the land cover of a runoff model. It created three
32 scenarios: the natural land cover, the land cover in 2001, and land cover based on future
33 buildout according to current zoning. From those three scenarios, they generated water
34 quantity and phosphorus concentrations that would come off the land.
35
36 Nelson stated he lives in a rural area that hasn't changed in 10 to 20 years. The
37 recommendation is to reduce phosphorus in the amount of 300 pounds per year. All the
38 creeks in his area come out of forest lands. He asked how they arrived at that
39 recommendation. Hood explained the calculation process. The model is very complicated.
40 It isn't based on one formula.
41
42 Hutchings stated the County must do its due diligence to make sure the Department
43 of Ecology recommended reductions are valid, which includes evaluating the efficacy of the
44 model. The County contracted with experts in the field to do that analysis. The County
45 must do a better job describing what this means and where this comes from to the public,
46 in terms of one individual's contribution. Talking in terms of developed acres is one idea
47 that doesn't work. Phosphorus cycling is complicated and not easy to understand.
48
49 Hood stated a third party conducted a peer review of the model. It determined that
50 the model was adequate for the purpose. In a natural environment, much of the rainfall
51 never hits the ground. Almost all the rainfall is filtered through the ground.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 1
1 Nelson stated he wants to solve the problems, but don't use this as a mechanism to
2 stop or prevent what happens with development, which is there. Hood stated they won't
3 ask that homes be removed. They will recommend that people reduce the higher logic
4 impact of those homes.
5
6 Brenner stated this seems to be a comparison of virgin land with land that has been
7 built out. Somehow, insert what low impact development and stormwater retrofits could do.
8 They will never have virgin land there again. She asked if 85.5 percent of the development
9 has happened since 2003, as the summary says. Hood stated that's not what they're
10 saying.
11
12 Crawford asked if the formulas used for rural areas like Agate Bay are calculated the
13 same as other areas. Hood stated they agreed to use 22 subdivisions of the watershed for
14 the lake model. Those are the basins set up as part of the watershed planning. However,
15 when they used the Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) model, they used
16 different basins to aggregate similar runoff characteristics.
17
18 Crawford stated that Councilmember Nelson's area is sparsely populated. He asked
19 how that area contributes phosphorus to Lake Whatcom relative to an area such as Silver
20 Beach. Make sure the weight of solving the phosphorus loading problem is fairly distributed
21 to the areas that are truly causing problems. The most significant problems are in basin
22 one. Concentrate efforts there. Basin three may be the last place to put their efforts.
23 Hood stated a residential acre is a residential acre, regardless of where it is. They can't
24 have a model that is as complex as reality. With modifications, a house can be considered a
25 non - developed acre.
26
27 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, asked if a developed acre of a rural, five -
28 acre plot treated the same as an acre of Silver Beach. Hood stated there is one category of
29 residential. It is all low- intensity residential. They are treating an acre of Silver Beach the
30 same as an acre of Councilmember Nelson's five -acre lot.
31
32 Craven asked how they figure out how much work on the loading needs to come
33 from Whatcom County and how much needs to come from the City of Bellingham, if 60
34 percent of a Silver Beach acre is impervious and a rural area has one house per five acres.
35 She asked how they account for that discrepancy when they dis- aggregate the information
36 for permit purposes. Hood stated it is based on the number of developed acres that are
37 there. It will be much easier to meet the obligation in rural areas.
38
39 Craven stated they must comply with the permit and also take actual actions that
40 will improve water quality. One may help with the other, they don't have any guarantee
41 that complying with the permit will actually result in fixing the water quality problem. The
42 Department of Ecology isn't telling the County that it must fix the water quality problem.
43 The Department of Ecology is saying they must reduce the effect of developed acres. Hood
44 stated the Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff are
45 sufficiently convinced that there is a connection between the developed acres and
46 phosphorus loading. By setting a target for developed acres, they actually have something
47 to measure. In the course of implementing the TMDL study, they may find that things
48 counting toward the total of developed acres are already fixed or need little work to be
49 fixed.
50
51 Crawford asked how the mass wasting and landslide events, which created huge
52 brown plumes, from the January floods affect phosphorus loading and the studies. Hood
53 stated they don't have enough information about how that differs from a natural level. They
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 2
know that naturally, huge loads of sediment have come down during historic times. The
lake responds and takes awhile to recover. They can expect that the next year will be
different, because of what happened. They can't confidently talk about the separation
between those natural causes and human causes. The TMDL study goal is to control
chronic, every -day things. They assume that those rare catastrophic events are natural. If
they can control the every -day things, they can absorb the occasional, large events.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, asked if the study compared impacts from the
Nooksack diversion versus residential impacts on the lake. He asked what Ecology
mandates the County to do to comply with the permit over the next two to four years.
Hood stated Ecology is not trying to coerce the County into not allowing any more
development. Do anything that will get them to their goal of reducing that phosphorus.
Their recommendation is to focus on the hydrology and replace storage and infiltration in
the natural environment. That would be most efficient.
Desler asked how the County can properly share the responsibilities with the City of
Bellingham, which has. heavily intense residential development compared to the County's
less intense rural development. Hood stated they explored the opportunity for water quality
trades. However, there doesn't seem to be an opportunity that is dramatically less
expensive.
Nelson asked how they partner with the City to get the most benefit. Hood stated
the County's most urgent problem it could invest in would be the public infrastructure, such
as roads with ditches that have runoff.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County already changed its development standards in
2004. The new homes aren't necessarily adding to the burden. They'll have to figure that
out. She asked the timeline for all the changes and consequences if they don't meet the
deadline. Hood stated he is more flexible than the law allows, but the law is changing.
They need to figure out what is feasible. A timeline greater than ten years will clearly be
required. They will figure out a way to be more reasonable. Much of that information will
come from the County.
The County has a stormwater permit. When Ecology issues a TMDL permit, they
divide the allocation between the part covered by the permit and the part that covered by
runoff that doesn't enter a storm drainage system that the County manages under the
permit. The division depends upon a reasonable assurance that the part not covered under
the permit will go down. If there is no reasonable assurance, then the bite falls on the
permit, which could allow zero discharge if they have no assurance that the non -point
sources will go down. That's the way the federal law is written. The worst consequence of
not meeting the permit is that the County could be subject to third -party lawsuits.
Brenner stated Ferndale planners are doing some in -fill in areas with low- quality
wetlands and want to do some enhancements in another area, but the County won't allow
that. The cities may be a source for enhancing Lake Whatcom.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, submitted and read. from a presentation
(on file).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Christensen continued his presentation on the history of the Lake Whatcom TMDL
process.
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 3
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
Brenner stated include wildlife in general as a potential source of phosphorus and
bacteria. Also, an expert at Washington State University (WSU) can talk to them about
water circulators, but the Council and others weren't interested. They could work in the two
basins with the worst levels. Christensen stated they talked about those a little bit. They fit
better in highly - polluted lakes.
Hutchings stated there are two messages regarding the TMDL. First, it has two
components. One component is for the government to negotiate the regulatory landscape,
and make sure they do things to adequately reduce phosphorus loading. Don't spend
money on things that won't accomplish that goal. The other component is implementation.
There are plans being developed for implementation within a six -year capital budget. The
second message is that this is a legacy activity. It isn't something they have to resolve in
five or ten years. It will develop over time. Stay focused on implementation and be aware
of regulatory commitments the County makes. Ultimately they will have a positive influence
on the lake.
2. PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE STORMWATER FUNDING ANALYSIS
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department handed out information (on file) and stated
they can either cut programs or find additional revenues as a deficit solution. The Council
asked staff to look for additional revenue sources. He read from the handout about fund
expenditures. They must identify what happens to the core revenue for the flood control
zone district fund, aside from all grant monies and cost share monies. There are increasing
mandates for stormwater management. The Council decided to increase tax revenue and
use real estate excise tax (REET) money for infrastructure. The next conversation is about
additional needs, recognizing that REET monies won't last forever and there will be
increasing demand for stormwater services.
Brenner stated she won't support this without reviewing the entire County budget.
Hutchings stated this will set the stage for the discussion they will have about the
potential for additional revenues from a stormwater utility. The reality is that level of
service (LOS) is under - funded by about $1 million. Because of the increased revenues from
the tax increase and the interest income, totaling about $1 million, they've made up that
deficit. They are now providing a real level of service two with no detriment to the fund
balance. They are making progress toward a level of service three by opening up the REET
money for capital expenditures and other additions. However, they didn't expect the, flood
that will cost the County approximately $600,000 or more. In the long term, the ending
fund balance will decline to about $3 million by the end of 2012. That affects the County's
ability to respond to a substantial flooding event. In the next several years, they will need
to take any necessary action to resolve that problem.
Brenner stated she never agreed to level of service three. She would like the budget
minutia next week. Hutchings stated the Council will see the line item breakdown proposed
by the Board of Supervisors. Staff worked on the original proposal to verify that it included
the highest public benefit activities ready for action.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated a lot of the work is done by contractors.
All the contacts will be listed.
Weimer stated he thought that by approving the flood fund increase, they were
shoring up level of service two and moving toward level of service three. Now it looks like
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 4
1 they're overspending. He asked if that's due to the flood. Hutchings stated it is due to the
2 flood and to increased costs of doing business.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought contractor business costs are going down.
5
6 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the difference between level of
7 service two and three according to the level of service chart from last year had to do solely
8 with an increase in stormwater funding. There were no changes in the natural resources
9 aspect of expenditures. There weren't additional natural resources programs until level of
10 service four.
11
12 Hutchings stated that is correct, recognizing that some natural resource activities are
13 related, such as low- impact development.
14
15 Craven stated that even as they move toward level of service three, it will show up in
16 natural resources even though it's for stormwater.
17
18 Nelson asked if staff looked into the option of a flood sub -zone. Hutchings stated
19 they have. The sub -zone model being used in Birch Bay is equal in terms of revenues.
20 However, the governance structure is the principal difference. There is little difference in
21 terms of implementation.
22
23 Nelson stated there is a big difference administratively. Hutchings stated the staff is
24 making no recommendation at this time. They are bringing forward information that will
25 facilitate discussion in the future. There has to be a fair amount of public involvement.
26
27 Nelson stated he is concerned about the adopted stormwater plan with expenditures
28 based on some unknown form of funding mechanism. Hutchings stated they have access to
29 REET money and additional tax revenues as an interim. There isn't a long -term solution.
30
31 Desler stated all the fund sources are hard to predict. They are only looking at
32 trends.
33
34 Chip Anderson, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
35 (on file).
36
37 Nelson asked if County roads would pay into a potential revenue source. Anderson
38 stated they did not include County roads in the assumption. The people who live in the
39 areas are essentially the people who use the roads.
40
41 Nelson asked for an estimate of revenue from County roads.
42
43 Craven asked for information on how changes in the urban growth areas (UGA's)
44 may affect these financial calculations. Anderson stated they have that information.
45
46 Weimer stated they've also talked about charging a fee to all the people who drink
47 water that comes from Lake Whatcom. He asked if they are included. Anderson stated it
48 was difficult to be that specific. They tried to stay away from having too many categories.
49 The administrative costs will get much more onerous. Any revenue generated would not be
50 enough to pay for that detail. They try to keep revenues lower for everyone, rather than
51 spending more administrative money to figure out who is actually drinking the water.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 5
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
Brenner stated they know who drinks Lake Whatcom water. Hutchings stated they
must consider that folks in the UGA already pay a surcharge for City water.
Hutchings stated they will have a formal presentation on the stormwater funding
mechanism analysis at the next work session. At that point, the staff will ask how the
Council wants to move forward.
Brenner stated they need to see what's going on in the context of the entire County
budget.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
;Zlf 0=�
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The � ncil approved these minutes on June 9 2009.
ATZE� -• C 0 v�;�i�i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
�NATC'•. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NT'r •
* _
laana l3 n- Davi4k%JCsoungR Clerk
SHING.••
i•• Council
Surface Water Work Session, 4/21/2009, Page 6