HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources September 20 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
September 20, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:00
a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322
N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2005 -025)
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated a preliminary draft permit was issued
earlier this year. Comments in the packet are comments on that draft. There will
still be a formal comment period before the final permit
He introduced the new stormwater engineer manager, Kirk Christensen, who
was hired from the City of Bellingham.
The second agenda item is the north Lynden drainage issues. The County
has been acting with agencies to work on it. Throughout the county, there are
stormwater quantity issues in agricultural areas that are influenced by urban areas
and urban runoff, combined with areas that don't have a diking district, drainage
district, or subzone area.
Last, they will talk about the stormwater effort in Birch Bay.
1. STORMWATER
Phase II permit update
Fleetwood asked about the State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
description of phase two. He asked what it means by separate storm sewer
systems. Roll stated a system is defined for stormwater conveyance and
treatment, separate from sewage discharge or another type of system.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked what is the County's municipally owned separate
stormwater system. Roll stated that's what they will get into today. There are two
phases to the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System ( NPDES). Phase
one applied to the larger urban areas. This is phase two, which applies to urban
areas with a population of at least 10,000, a certain census size, and the urban
growth area.
Roy asked the census size.
Kirk Christensen, Stormwater Engineer Manager, stated it is a density of
1,000 people per square mile. He indicated a map of the permit coverage areas in
the county.
Brenner asked what MS4's are. Christensen stated MS4's are the individual
storm systems coming off the roads and residences. They are storm drains and
ditches.
Brenner asked if an MS4 is each person's storm drain. Roll stated an MS4 is
the area defined as the place that will be regulated.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated an MS4 is meant to specifically
identify Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham. The jurisdictions are the
MS4. Their systems are the systems that are regulated. The MS4 is meant to
identify the municipality, which has a storm sewer system that has to be identified
and managed.
Nelson stated he thought the MS4s are separate sewer systems that may be
outside, but under jurisdictions that may be controlled by many entities, such as
the area under both the water district and county jurisdiction. Roll stated the water
district doesn't have a storm sewer system. Their system collects sanitary sewer,
it's not storm system.
Nelson asked if the County has no storm system in reality. Roll stated they
do have one. It is the interconnection of ditches, culverts, and catch basins. The
system is how the water flows through a constructed, managed system. Define
where the system begins and ends, then manage that area. The first thing to do is
inventory, and then declare where the system is.
Brenner stated she thought that because the population is under 100,000 in
the unincorporated county, they don't fall into that. Monsen stated the County
doesn't fall into a phase one county, which had to get an NPDES permit a few years
ago. This is phase II of the same federal act for smaller entities with a population
over 10,000. The big difference between phases one and two is that phase one
included the entire jurisdiction. Phase two is only certain defined geographic areas
in Whatcom County, not the entire county.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked if the federal government, through the Clean Water Act, say
they must plan for this. The federal government has limited criteria. He asked if
they allow Ecology to define who is covered, and Ecology has limited criteria. He
asked if it's fair to say that local government gets to control just what the system
is. Monsen stated the initial boundary is based on population and density, created
through the US Census Bureau. Ecology takes that information and adds
discretionary boundaries. They have the ability to include jurisdictions that may not
meet the population threshold. Ecology can add them in for some reason. They
chose not to move into Ferndale or Lynden yet, but they have that discretion to do
SO.
Roll indicated the map of the phase two areas. Phase two rims Northshore
Drive, includes Sudden valley, down Chuckanut Drive, northeast of Bellingham and
east of Ferndale. The area is defined based on census blocks. The County is
responsible for the areas outside the City of Bellingham.
Crawford stated he assume this results in regulation to protect surface water.
He asked if the County could add areas, such as all the areas around Lake
Whatcom, and if there is an advantage to do that. Monsen stated operationally, it's
problematic to have different standards for different areas. They've posed the
question of including more than the minimal area in the permit. They can, but they
haven't figured out the pros and cons of doing that. From a development standards
standpoint, they don't want two different standards. Whether or not that is a legal
benefit, he's not sure.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are plans to coordinate with Bellingham, so
there are matching standards. Monsen stated there are.
Roll stated they've always looked at the Lake Whatcom Management Plan
from a drainage scale. When they look at it, they are not looking at just areas from
a water quality perspective. Looking at the entire drainage. The NPDES is a
regulatory overlay of the drainages. They have to deal with strategies that go
across all the drainage areas.
Nelson stated they have put emphasis on Lake Samish for water quality
protection. Lummi Island has water quality and water quantity issues. However,
there is nothing going on either of those places. Roll stated they could also add
Birch Bay, North Lynden, and Drayton Harbor to that list.
Monsen stated there is more than this area from a local policy standpoint.
Birch Bay is a higher priority than East Ferndale. However, East Ferndale is legally
a higher priority than Birch Bay.
Brenner stated that area is called North Bellingham, not East Ferndale.
They're not talking about a one -size fits all solution. Roll stated there are different
issues in each area of the county. North Lynden has a water quantity issue that
they must address in a way that is fish friendly and does not create shellfish
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
problems. It wasn't a huge retrofit project. The strategies are different depending
on the location.
Roy stated the census numbers are inaccurate for Birch Bay at this time.
The population has tripled since the census was taken. Monsen stated Ferndale and
Lynden will clearly be included sometime in the next few years. He's not sure Birch
Bay will be added. Creating the areas has something to do with an existing city
that has a growth area around it. He doesn't know how they view the standalone
urban growth areas. He thinks they're not being looked at. Ecology has been
unable to create an administrative capacity to be proactive and provide assistance
to pull it together.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the problem is that the system looks at population
but not proximity to sensitive water bodies. Monsen stated it also does not
consider impaired water bodies. They influence the minimum requirements of an
identified regulated area rather than creating a regulated area.
Brenner stated Whatcom County is not a municipality. She asked how they
can have it both ways. If they don't include Birch Bay, how can the County add
other areas in the county. Monsen stated Whatcom County is a municipal
government in terms of this regulation. The reason areas around Bellingham are
regulated is because Bellingham became a phase two jurisdiction, and the
unincorporated areas were added to it. Because of the City of Bellingham,
Whatcom County areas are phase two areas. When Ferndale and Lynden are
added, Whatcom County will have a larger phase two area because of the inclusion
of those cities. They will never look at including the growth area around Lynden
until Lynden is looked at.
Roy stated the problem with the populated standalone urban growth areas in
the County is that there is no city they are hooked to. Monsen stated that if Blaine
were tagged as a phase two community, the population density is such it would
jump over and include Birch Bay. The reason North Bellingham is included is
because it jumped over low density because of nearby higher density. It jumped
about three miles to include that area as being regulated. There is a point on
Northwest Road that touches the area in the vicinity of the urban growth area.
There is a mile or two of low density that is not regulated. However, because the
boundary is close enough to a high density area, the high density area was
included.
Roll stated talk next about core services they will have to provide to the
regulated areas.
Christensen stated he would talk about timelines. There are eight
requirements of the phase two permit. They're listed in the Ecology handout in the
Council's packet. The eight requirements have to be carried out by certain
deadlines in the four years following the permit issuance. The permit will be issued
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
next spring or summer. The public education and outreach requirement will target
the specific phase two areas and neighborhoods.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they have already done that to some extent.
Christensen stated they have. They will have to figure out where the requirements
of the permit and the actions already in place overlap.
Roll stated not all of this is brand new. Some of the concepts don't have
defined programs in certain areas.
Brenner stated she went through the control measures. They are already
being done countywide, specifically the one about construction. Christensen stated
they are not, to the detail that Ecology is asking for. Ecology has more specifics
they want to see.
Brenner asked if the Bertrand water improvement district (WID) and Ten Mile
project do this. Roll stated those programs are not geared specifically toward
stormwater. They are geared toward fishery and water quality as they deal with
the land use. Those programs are not geared toward urbanized stormwater
planning. As they review stormwater in these areas, a key concept is that they will
have to consider if someone in the community is capable of acting as the
receivership. There is no receivership in Lynden, for example. The County will
have to do the work.
Christensen stated the timeline for public education and outreach is two
years. The permit includes specific details on what must be done.
The second requirement for public involvement includes advisory councils
and watershed committees. That is supposed to be complete in one year.
The third requirement for illicit discharge detection and elimination includes
prohibiting sanitary sewers from dumping into storm drains. Prevent things from
dumping into the storm drains.
Roll stated they must have people going out and looking for illicit discharges
and enforcing against anything they find.
Roy asked if septics are included and if the Health Department will be
involved. Roll stated it will.
Monsen stated the County is already doing everything on this list in one form
or another, but not to this level of proactive effort everywhere.
McShane stated even though the County is already doing these things,
Ecology must sign off on the programs. It shouldn't be too big of a deal other than
the paperwork and tracking the programs.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, 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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Monsen stated once they package Lake Whatcom activities in the context of
permit requirements, the County will be close to complying already. Because of
overlay issues in the watershed, those same programs are not in place in the other
permit areas.
Christensen stated the third requirement must be complete within four years
of permit issuance.
The fourth requirement for construction site runoff control involves following
all the standards they are following regarding Ecology stormwater manual. The
County is using Ecology's manual as guidance now, but it will have to adopt the
manual, which changes the way the Planning and Development Services
Department operates.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what would happen if the County's regulations are
more restrictive than Ecology's manual. Christensen stated the County would meet
that requirement.
Roy stated they've heard several times that the County has not adopted what
it was supposed to adopt. The implication is that the County's standards are not as
strict. Within four years, adoption of the manual is required. She asked if the
County Council is going to have to adopt these regulations within four years, or if
the regulations have to be in place and enforced in four years. Christensen stated
that if the County adopts them, it must be ready for enforcement.
Roy asked when the timelines start. Roll stated the timeline starts when the
permit is issued, sometime in 2006.
Christensen stated deadline for the fourth requirement is two years, not four
years. Phase two starts when the permit is issued, sometime in the spring or
summer of 2006.
Crawford asked if Ecology provides any money. Monsen stated this
permitting program is not meant to mean that every entity will have to do exactly
the same thing. Those entities that have already done proactive programs are
supposed to do more than they are today. Those entities that are starting from the
beginning without any proactive actions in place are expected to make substantial
headway. Ecology has no intention to create a structure to tell anyone if they were
successful.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County can adopt Ecology standards instead of
making new plans. Roll stated they can.
Fleetwood stated it seems like illicit discharge is the big problem. He asked
how they define illicit discharge. Roll stated it is defined as those things that are
placed in a system that lead to a degradation of water quality. The County has to
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
have a proactive program to identify and respond to illicit discharges. It is a task
that will require inspectors and regulatory enforcement.
McShane stated determining what is illicit discharge depends on what the
system is designed to handle, also.
Brenner stated they are overwhelmed with the Lake Whatcom watershed.
There are areas north of Bellingham that are not similar to the Lake Whatcom
watershed at all. They have to be at a certain level for stormwater management,
at which they may already be. Roll stated that they are not there in all the
designated areas.
Christensen stated the deadline for requirement four is two years for new
development, redevelopment, and construction sites.
The fifth requirement for post- construction runoff control is about enforcing
to make sure that the existing sites are following all the Ecology rules and
regulations, manual regulations, and to make sure all the systems are functioning
as designed.
Monsen stated the County is now required to deal with whatever comes out
of the system, as a phase two entity.
Fleetwood asked if item five requires enforcement personnel. Christensen
stated it would.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would go after a homeowner's
association for stormwater retention ponds. Christensen stated the County would
go after whoever owns it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that could be ugly if the homeowner's associations
were disbanded or never formed. She asked if there is a legal definition of who is
responsible if the homeowner's association is disbanded. Monsen stated it's not a
question of who is responsible. The issue is how to make the responsible party act.
Nelson stated a consequence of expanding the permit area is the cost of
enforcement. He asked if they have looked at the fiscal impacts and the
mechanisms for funding inspections and enforcement.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
that through the urban growth area (UGA) planning effort with the City, the County
will demand annexation every time there is new development in the urban growth
areas. Don't leave populations for which the County must provide services. Then it
would become the City's problem. Every new development in the UGA should be
annexed.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated that is not possible. Hart stated that if they are approving
subdivisions and additional development, it will be under the same rules,
regulations, and obligations they're talking about in the city. Annex so the
development doesn't become an additional fiscal impact to the County.
(Clerk's Note End of tape one, side A.)
Fleetwood asked if the County is bound to provide those services per the
interlocal agreement. Hart stated they are, under the current interlocal agreement.
However, they are negotiating a new agreement. There are areas the City will
never annex. The City only wants to go to the north. He's trying to use policy
changes and force every new development into annexation. That would relieve the
County from future stormwater obligations.
McShane asked if that meshes with what the Public Works Department plans
for. He asked if the Public Works staff agrees. Hart stated there are annexation
problems in the State. It's not easy for the cities to annex residential areas. That's
why they're doing it up front.
McShane asked if the Planning Department would have to give a projection of
the population that the County would have to serve, to make financial estimates.
Hart stated that's correct.
Brenner stated it really means there will not be any other development going
on outside the cities without annexation. The City has no control over annexation.
The people in those areas are the ones who control whether or not they are
annexed. Hart stated the Cities of Bellingham and Ferndale are looking at green
built developments, over which they do have control. There are 30,000 people who
will go to the north end of the city limits, before December. The new game is to tell
developments that there will be no more subdivisions within the existing UGA and
five year review areas without annexation first. Hold that line. That holds the fiscal
implications to the City.
Fleetwood asked when the interlocal agreement expires. Hart stated they
renegotiate every seven years
Nelson stated each party can renegotiation whenever they want.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, asked if item five is newly
constructed items, or items that have been constructed at any time. Monsen stated
that item is meant to focus on items newly constructed. However, it creates an
expectation that they programmatically are looking at retrofit opportunities as well.
The requirement compared to what the County will do is not clear. The County is
not putting together a financing plan to hire 25 new police officers to look at a
downspout. However, the County will also not do the absolute minimum. They are
approaching this like Lake Whatcom watershed planning and water resource
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
inventory area (WRIA) planning. They are looking at sub - basins to get the biggest
benefit, without going a lot further than they want to do.
Beddill asked if it would apply to construction finished four or five years ago.
Monsen stated it can if it is the right approach to deal with system management,
even though the law may not require it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if new systems must have an association to deal
with stormwater system maintenance. Monsen stated there are no legal
obligations. Most urbanized entities have created a fee structure and utilities
specifically for this purpose.
Nelson stated a lot of the new large developments are putting together set
asides for facility and capital needs that are ongoing. Because of financial needs to
get the best benefit system -by- system, monitor to get a background assessment,
do evaluation, and emphasize education. They may patrol problem areas. After
that, make decisions. Don't try to clean up everything at once.
Christensen stated the deadline for the fifth requirement is two years.
Brenner asked if that means they have two years to go to property owners to
make them clean up. Christensen stated it does not. They have two years to
develop a program.
Monsen stated the requirements are not to make property owners make big
changes within the timeline. The deadlines are meant for the jurisdiction to look at
the system as a whole, and begin to make improvements overall.
Hart stated the local government can shape new growth through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). If the County sets a standard for compliance, use
SEPA as a means of enforcing systemic improvements over the long term. They
can force subdivisions to have bonds, establish long -term maintenance procedures,
and indicate how the system will link into the larger system.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there are so many existing systems in the
designated area that have to be repaired. It's much easier to get them on the right
track from the beginning.
Crawford asked if the County has to go through measures and guidelines in
areas that don't have any problems, even though it may be in the permit
designated area. He asked if the County will still have to address these potential
concerns when there is no manifestation of the real problem. Roll stated it depends
on the 303(d) list. If no pollutants exist, and they have met the criteria for
beneficial use, then don't create a hard enforcement arm.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Christensen stated requirement six must be implemented in three years. It
includes all County facilities for things such as annual inspections, spot checks, and
street sweeping.
Brenner stated the County would do street sweeping in certain areas, not
necessarily in all County permit areas. Monsen stated the County is currently
sweeping the Lake Whatcom watershed. As a condition of the permit, they may
have to start sweeping North Bellingham and other regulated areas.
Brenner asked why they would do that if there is not any of those kinds of
pollutants. Monsen stated it is considered a good housekeeping activity that is
preventative.
Roy stated these requirements aren't associated with proximity to sensitive
watersheds. They are based on population. She asked what water body the
stormwater from North Bellingham runs into. Roll stated it runs into Silver Creek
and Ten Mile Creek.
Monsen stated the standard isn't any connection to any sensitive water body.
It's connection to any receiving water. They must be concerned with what comes
off the roads and into the roadside ditch.
Roy asked if they will monitor those water bodies. Roll stated that's coming
up. The County will be obligated to do some form of monitoring. One objection of
most cities and counties is the type of monitoring that should be done by Ecology.
Crawford stated don't divert resources from known problems to things that
they're doing just because a regulation says they have to, even if there is no
problem.
Brenner asked if the solutions are one -size fits all solutions. Monsen stated
the levels of effort would not be the same in each area, but there would be an effort
made.
Nelson asked how ones develop testing standards that are equal across the
state. If Ecology did the testing, the standard would be equal. Roll stated there
are two functions of monitoring. One function is a global monitoring at the nodes of
each drainage, which would be a baseline. That would be to see what is happening
long -term. They would understand that their actions make a difference. The
second function is the specific actions implemented and monitored in a drainage. If
they are going to monitor, they need standardized protocol and benchmarks. His
worst fear is there will not be any guidance. Look at what the County needs to
base land use and practices on good science. Not everything has to go through a
standard screen. Collect monitoring data throughout the entire basin to monitor
progress. Also monitor specific actions for effectiveness. A lot of the best
management practices (BMP's) don't have a long history of use to prove their
effectiveness.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Christensen stated a seventh standard to develop a long -term water quality
monitoring program must be done in four years.
Roll stated that if a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is established, they
have to bring it into the permitting process. At this point, Whatcom Creek will have
an established total maximum daily load (TMDL) before the permit is in place. The
TMDL study for Lake Whatcom will not be in place before the permit is issued.
Either Ecology will try to amend the existing permit or it would be a condition
Ecology addresses after the first five years, when Ecology reissues the permit.
Monsen stated that once a TMDL is on the table, it may create a requirement
for some level of retrofit, because of the science put into the TMDL process, that
there is much more information to suggest the value of moving aggressively in that
direction. Generally, retrofit will not be a requirement short of the TMDL.
Christensen stated the eighth requirement for reporting includes an annual
report to Ecology on how they're doing with all the steps and other seven items.
There would be a detailed storm sewer system map of all the phase two areas.
Monsen stated the reporting requirements aren't clear about the level of
sophistication required. That makes a big difference in the administrative time and
cost that will go into this effort.
McShane stated there seems to be a lack of logic in determining the areas.
That is the nature of the federal rule. He asked if Ecology is ready for this.
Christensen stated that question has been brought up in the meetings.
Monsen stated Ecology staff over the last three years have been very open,
honest, and cooperative in dealing with these issues. That said, Ecology has been
unsuccessful with the legislature to do much more than receive paperwork that the
counties submit. Therefore, there won't be much dialog on performance.
McShane asked if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has to sign off
on the plans and if they have provided much help to Ecology. Monsen stated he
doesn't think there is much dialog there. He believes the relationship between
Ecology and EPA is accusation and complaint driven, rather than the EPA being
proactive to go check things.
Nelson asked if the EPA would get involved when there is litigation or
complaints after the fact or if it will simply take the States' reports and file them
away. Locally, they are getting a process to manage stormwater in the community.
The opportunity they're given is to do what they've talked about for years.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated establish all the sub - basins in the county, outside the cities,
and tailor the effective mechanism for each sub -basin rather than just the permit
areas. Set up districts for the sub - basins, and that would help the cost also.
Nelson stated the problem is that they don't have a handle on best
management practices yet. Also, this is an opportunity to see what works and
doesn't work. In the end, they will end up with standards and funding mechanisms
throughout the county.
Brenner stated start off with a countywide approach from the beginning,
rather than splitting up the basins. Get moving countywide from the beginning.
Monsen stated the approach is to come up with program activities that make
sense in the individual basins. They are going to start with compliance in a small
area and focus on basins that are heavily influenced by the phase two
requirements.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that the Council's preference is to not divide the
watersheds just because the permit divides them. Customize activities to the
drainages when they have to, and do things holistically.
Roll stated all the drainages have been delineated. That information is there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that when bringing forward plans, staff could make
recommendations on whether it should apply to all the basin area or just the permit
area. Roll stated there are 162 basins. Staff can't do all of them. The Council
should be clear about its priority areas where it wants to do more intensive
stormwater and surface water management.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the commonsense approach would be to look at
population density and sensitive areas of the drainages. Roll agreed.
Monsen stated the County's message to Ecology has been that they've put in
a lot of time and money into salmon recovery and watershed planning. Put that to
use in some of these priority issues and basins. The phase two designated area will
influence where they prioritize early actions, whether or not locally they believe the
permit areas are priority.
OTHER BUSINESS
Birch Bay Drainage Issues
Roland Middleton, Special Projects Manager, stated the CH2M Hill contract
will be in the Council's packet for next week. They are doing the Birch Bay
Stormwater Management Plan. He did not plan on a phase two discussion today.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
However, if Blaine becomes a phase two area and Birch Bay is included, he will
cover as many of these basins as possible with CH2M Hill.
They will cover funding mechanisms, what they need to do, and identify
problems and solutions. One solution may be a County water tax or a new district.
They are not going into this with any assumptions, other than the Birch Bay
watershed is very important to the life of Birch Bay citizens.
The contract will come to the Council. On October 1, from 9 a.m. to noon,
there will be a public workshop. He asked anyone with information on stormwater
issues to speak to the staff at that workshop. It will be staffed by the
subcommittee for stormwater and shellfish protection, which is a subcommittee of
the Birch Bay Steering Committee.
One of the first things they are going to do is establish the boundary for the
study. The questions of funding and who pays what will have to be answered.
They won't be prepared to identify and clean up all the problems in Birch Bay. They
will establish protocols and priorities for areas to work on. It will produce a plan for
how stormwater in Birch Bay is managed.
Roy thanked Mr. Middleton and Mr. Hart for their support of the community
input.
Hart stated they are trying to incorporate other planning values into
stormwater management, including preservation of salmonids, habitat issues, and
critical areas issues, which are all impacted by 22 subdivisions and multiple condo
projects occurring out there. They are trying to integrate all the regulations into a
single point. They are using this as their test site to do that. Use the new critical
areas ordinance (CAO) to protect the sites in the long -term. Determine how to
protect the drainages as new development occurs. From site plan to the larger
plan, they will have their bases covered better here than in other locations, perhaps
even the City of Bellingham.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County didn't charge traffic impact fees for all
those developments.
2. NORTH LYNDEN DRAINAGE ISSUES
County Drainage Work in North Lynden
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, indicated maps of the North Lynden drainage
work. Last winter, there was widespread agricultural flooding. The community
reenergized to ask what the County is going to do about it. In many areas, there
are roadside ditches to move water off the land so people can farm. Over the last
ten years or so, there have been changes. One change is addressing water quality
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 13
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
that can affect fish populations. It became difficult for County staff to get permits
to do roadside maintenance.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roll continued to state that working with a specialist from the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish and Wildlife) was sent to the County to fix it.
The specialist will come into the community to help resolve the issues so there is a
win -win for all agencies.
He worked well with Fish and Wildlife on this work. This work was to make
sure the existing drainage system functioned properly, including fishery and
shellfish. All the parties involved worked to agree. This summer, the Public Works
Department worked on many areas. It has been a successful partnership with
farmers, tribes, and others to get the work done. With Fish and Wildlife, staff
worked out a programmatic five -year permit for this area, rather than a per - project
permit process.
There is fish habitat in Double Ditch, which is taking longer. It is under a
separate permit. It is a more complex system. A long -term vision needs to be
created for systems like this. They need to do a certain level of maintenance, and
enhance, not destroy, ecological functions.
There is not a defined receivership responsible for overseeing needed
drainage activities. County staff had to work with farmers in those areas. It was
an enormous amount of work. In the long term, they need to establish a
receivership, such as another watershed improvement district (WID), diking district,
or drainage district.
In this watershed, there is a huge amount of urbanization north of the
Canadian border. Drainage problems relate to that urbanization.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if there is no overflow area in the future, that
stormwater runoff from urbanization will be horrible. Roll stated there is a capacity
bottleneck in the underground drainage that runs from Badger Creek to Fishtrap
Creek. Water will continue to flow down and urbanization continues, and Lynden
will have to deal with it. The City of Lynden is aware of the issue. It's been a good
partnership to do the whole system.
Brenner asked if the City of Lynden is aware it may be subject to phase two
in the future. She asked what they would do because they don't have control over
what happens above the border. Roll stated Lynden is aware. Lynden won't be
included in the permit this round.
He has not heard from Ecology about the result of this work. All the
necessary permits are in place, which covers them from a regulatory standpoint.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 14
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy asked if the City of Lynden has tried to work with Abbottsford. Roll
stated discussions have been spotty. Discussions have been about flooding issues
from flood response. There is a cross - border flooding task force. Also, there has
been a discussion of the groundwater relationship across the border.
Roy stated that the tribes were very active and effective with shellfish
protection in British Columbia. She asked if they can get tribal pressure to work on
the jurisdiction in terms of fish run protection. Monsen stated they have different
listed stocks.
McShane asked about Ecology guidelines. He asked the pros and cons of
adopting the Ecology stormwater manual.
Christensen stated adopting the Ecology stormwater manual would require a
lot of extra work. The regulations are stringent and strong. For the Planning
Department, following the guidelines would take additional effort and staffing from
the county. It's a big step. Adopting it versus using it as a guideline is a big step.
In addition, some of the elements of the manual aren't the best management
practices. There are still questions of whether some of the requirements are the
best way to go.
McShane stated he likes that it allows options, especially in rural areas. It's
stupid not to do the avoidance part. It has been implemented thoroughly in other
counties. Christensen stated it costs the developers more money and effort.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it saves taxpayer money down the road.
Roll stated the Executive indicated he wanted to adopt it, but start with a
place like the watershed and evaluate the success.
McShane stated move beyond the watershed.
Roll stated go cautiously. See if there are things to have available for certain
situations, depending on their goals. He doesn't recommend adopting the manual
countywide.
McShane stated they should have a discussion on it. Part of the issue is
political. There is a lot of pressure on a number of them regarding it. He does
some stormwater work, but always sees the easy stuff. He always advises to avoid
the engineering costs. If someone goes beyond that, he has to pass a project on to
engineers to develop a site. It doesn't take much effort to do review. If they think
someone is triggering something, an engineer should calculate the impacts.
Christiansen stated there is a big issue about the development condition one has to
mitigate to. The forested condition is a big discussion within cities and counties.
That is a huge step, and they discuss how practical that is. That's what the manual
requires.
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 15
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated they would discuss it in the next month or two.
Roy stated minimum BMP's can be adopted countywide. Tree retention, tax
breaks for pervious surfaces, and other such measures have been done by other
counties. Take this opportunity to talk about the big picture.
Brenner stated she got the impression that is what they are doing. Roll
stated the regulations are an overlay on what they want to do and what they think
they should do. He agrees that they have to look at the big picture and decide
what is the appropriate thing to do from a drainage standpoint.
Brenner stated do these complete basins if they can. It's what they'll have
to do anyway. She asked why standards monitoring is not reasonable. Christensen
stated that is regarding the water quality. The City and County are both
contributing. It's hard to figure out whose responsibility it is to bring the numbers
down to what they are supposed to be.
Brenner asked if the County is working with the City of Bellingham, which
has an equal vested interest. If the City and County work together, they may not
have to duplicate efforts. Roll stated he doesn't intend to duplicate anything.
They've had those discussions about the same road standards throughout the
watershed, for example.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on October 25, 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 9/20/2005, Page 16