HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 17 20071
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 17, 2007
Council Vice -Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Carl Weimer
Dan McShane
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION AB2007 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, handed out information (on file) and
presented the results of the repair and maintenance program prioritization. The Project
Review Subcommittee and full Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee have gone
through a prioritization process. She explained the handouts on project prioritization
criteria, summary of 2006 project applications and carry-over projects for flood control
maintenance program, and map of repair and maintenance projects.
Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated these requests are for flood - related
requests. In the coming years, there will be stormwater requests. It's something to talk
about in the future.
Cooper stated this list is particular to the Flood Control Maintenance Program, which
is a State requirement with specific evaluation criteria. She showed slides of the projects on
the list and explained the history and plans for those projects.
Nelson asked if they can cut through the opposite gravel bar on the Dozer Hole
project if they can show it will improve fish habitat, rather than protect the levee. Cooper
stated the issue is the gravel removing restrictions.
John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated that cutting through the opposite
gravel bar would more likely result in a loss of fish habitat instead.
Brenner asked if the County can better coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers
so the County won't have to fix problems when their projects fail. Cooper stated staff has
been talking about how to do that.
Cooper continued to present and show slides on the repair and maintenance
projects.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if they consider the whole region when they consider these
fixes. Cooper stated that is the difference between the Repair and Maintenance Program, to
Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2007, Page 1
1 which the purpose is to keep something from getting worse, and the overall flood planning
2 process.
3
4 Roll stated the policy question is the location of the line where and how the County is
5 going to manage into the future, and how the County will fund it.
6
7 Crawford stated everything they do on one side of the river affects the other side.
8 He asked about diking districts existing on both sides or one side of the river. Cooper
9 stated that all diking districts are on one side of the river. In one case, diking district 3 is
10 across the river from diking district 4. The sub -flood zone districts tend to encompass both
11 sides of the river.
12
13 McShane stated the projects are ranked reasonably, but funding isn't there. The
14 County doesn't have enough money to do these projects. Only a few projects will be done
15 every year. At the same time, the staff has to consider the overall flood issues. Another
16 issue is the match percentage.
17
18 Cooper continued to present and show slides on the repair and maintenance
19 projects.
20
21 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
22
23 Cooper completed her explanation of the repair and maintenance projects. The staff
24 will prioritize this list with the rest of the work plan and present a final list next month.
25
26 2. STORMWATER
27
28 Sue Blake, Public Works Department, gave a history of this project. The goal is to
29 present a draft on June 18. She handed out maps of the problem areas (on file).
30
31 Bill Derry, CH2M Hill, stated they have reviewed the information and are in plan
32 development stage. This discussion is just an update on where they're at. There was a
33 recent public meeting, and another is scheduled tonight.
34
35 Brenner stated they need to do better outreach to people who live in the watershed.
36 Blake explained their efforts regarding public outreach.
37
38 Nelson stated stormwater will affect smaller lots more than larger lots. They should
39 have notified Sudden Valley, Geneva, Academy Road, and Hillsdale residents.
40
41 Derry stated that they are clarifying and refining problems and presenting
42 conclusions of previous studies. They have been working on prioritization process for
43 identifying solutions. There are key driving factors that include phosphorus sources, water
44 quality in general, habitat, and flood erosion. That is how they are organizing their
45 information. From the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), there are
46 several expensive requirements of the County.
47
48 Takeaway issues today include the multiple sources of phosphorus. There are no
49 simple solutions. Source control, flow control, and treatment are included in the solutions.
50 There is no way to remove dissolved phosphorus. There must be multiple solutions to
51 address all the issues.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2007, Page 2
1 Nelson asked what happens to the dissolved phosphorus if it can't be removed.
2 Derry stated solid phosphorus can become dissolved, so it's all a problem.
3
4 Blake stated the internal phosphorus loading is another challenge they must
5 consider. They won't know the estimates for a few months.
6
7 Nelson stated the results of the total maximum daily load (TMDQ study will show
8 that the levels of phosphorus must be fixed, but it sounds like there is no fix. Roll stated
9 the Department of Ecology (DOE) is looking at what they're doing now. They will accept
10 most of what the County is doing.
11
12 Brenner asked if the County will show property owners the low impact development
13 techniques that are available. Derry stated all of these components are important.
14
15 Crawford stated that at some point, he would like a refresher presentation on the
16 science of phosphorus and how it moves through the system.
17
18 McShane stated they could have a 144 percent fix in the lake, but it will be a length
19 of time before they see improvement because of the lake system cycle. Every year, the
20 Council needs a refresher on phosphorus.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber stated they must slow the flow of the lake and filter as naturally as
23 possible. Slowing velocity the best thing to do for the lake.
24
25 Derry stated the stream flows will still have major increased loading from the stream
26 channels because of the increased impervious surfaces causing increased flow rates that
27 scour the channels, even if they removed all phosphorus from stormwater. Filters won't
28 solve it by themselves.
29
30 Marian Beddill, 3604 Seeley Street, Bellingham, asked for clarification on
31 stormwater. Derry stated stormwater is what comes off roads and driveways. Distinguish
32 surface runoff from developed surfaces from stream flow.
33
34 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
35
36 Amy Engstrom, CH2M Hill, stated they heard about many problems from citizens,
37 including local problems and watershed -wide problems.
38
39 Derry stated they are now trying to figure out how to prioritize watershed -wide
40 problems against problems in specific location.
41
42 Brenner stated the more local a problem is, the easier it is to correct. Include that
43 as part of the evaluation. A bunch of smaller solutions may have a larger cumulative effect
44 than the bigger solutions. People will be able to understand and approve the smaller,
45 easier -to- understand projects.
46
47 Derry stated some communities score and fund the smaller projects independent of
48 the larger projects. Additional revenue, in the form of a package of funding alternatives, is
49 necessary. If they just bill the residents in the watershed, it won't generate enough
50 funding. They must have a partnership in the City, a countywide source of funding, which is
51 defensible from the standpoint that half the county residents drink the water from the lake,
52 and they must also have the Water District as a partner. Sudden Valley provides a fair
53 amount of drainage service, for which their residents pay. If the County creates a sub -flood
Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2007, Page 3
zone district, those residents will pay for the service twice. If they offer reduced revenue
for Sudden Valley residents, it will further reduce the amount of revenue received in the
watershed.
Brenner stated this has to be done as a comprehensive, countywide thing. She's not
going to ask Birch Bay residents to fund this. Even though the Lake Whatcom watershed
serves as a drinking water source for half the population, they can no longer separate out
the stormwater issues in the county. It must all be done comprehensively. Set up a
countywide stormwater district, separate from the flood control zone district.
McShane asked for a summary of what the consultants saw in Sudden Valley. Derry
stated Sudden Valley is aware of and working on the issues. There is a lot of low impact
development in Sudden Valley, including narrower roads, many trees, no ditches, and
infiltration. He discussed Sudden Valley's practices to protect the lake and enhance
streams.
McShane asked about areas that will be challenging and hard to fix. Engstrom stated
the Silver Creek system is challenging because of the cumulative needs in that system.
McShane asked about the effectiveness of the street sweeping program. Engstrom
stated the effectiveness of street sweeping on phosphorus is hard to quantify.
Derry stated traditional street sweeping has little effect on water quality. To really
get after phosphorus, go after the smallest particles, which is the stuff that is smeared into
the pavement after the sweeper leaves. A vacuum system is more effective on that
material.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they've been told often that they can't develop the narrower
roads because emergency vehicles can't get around on them.
Brenner stated there are methods for developing lower impact, more pervious roads
that emergency vehicles can use.
Nelson stated he would like to know whether the residents have suggested possible
solutions. Also, talk about funding as people raise concerns. People must understand the
costs of solutions. They must decide to help foresters in the watershed, or else forestland
will convert to residential land. Derry stated they will only briefly acknowledge the forestry
and recreation uses because of time and budget constraints, and because there are already
plans on the books for those issues. He is focusing on the more urban stormwater issues.
McShane stated create a compensation program on private forestlands to protect
seasonal streams. Now, there are no controls for protecting streams in private forestlands.
Derry stated he agrees. The biggest change to hydrology and increase in stream flow is
when the trees are cut down and roads and ditches are built in their place. Forestlands will
always be more low impact than low impact development.
Brenner stated there are forest practices that don't change the amount of
stormwater runoff.
effect.
Derry discussed the upcoming tasks in which they'll be engaged.
Caskey - Schreiber stated that cutting a tree releases phosphorus. Any action has an
Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2007, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Fleetwood presented Dr. Roll with a plaque of appreciation for his work in Whatcom
County.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Lill Nixon, Minutes Trans ription
The Council approved these minutes on. May 22 1 2007.
���� WNATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
JHATO� ' WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
_. •L•.�- _
na.� YL `a'A16�9rou 'al Clerk
•:4sH1NG.•'
s
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2007, Page 5