HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 18 20041
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 18, 2004
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
None
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY JIM DAWSON, PEOPLE FOR PUGET
SOUND, REGARDING PROPER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR
SHELLFISH AREAS (AB2004 -212)
Jim Dawson, People for Puget Sound, stated his nonprofit organization has
worked for 13 years in the Puget Sound area. Their focus and priority issue is
stormwater. He submitted (on file) and read from his Power Point presentation.
The thousand cuts referenced in the title of the presentation are all the different
developments happening in the watersheds in Puget Sound. Change the way they
manage stormwater from centralized facilities to more decentralized solutions.
Stormwater is runoff generated from things such as rooftops, roadways,
sidewalks, and parking lots, which is collected in gutters and ditches and piped into
streams and other bodies of water. Seventy -five percent of rain that falls here is
either evaporated back into the atmosphere or by the action of evapo- transpiration.
Trees are a vertical storage for the rain. There is literally almost no runoff.
Interflow is water below the surface of the ground that runs much more slowly than
surface runoff. As developments clear, compact, and cover the soil, the result can
be in half the groundwater recharge and 100 percent runoff. It power washes the
streams of salmon habitat, erodes stream banks, removes habitat, and it produces
low stream flows in the summer or completely dry creeks. The groundwater is
lower or completely dried up and can't feed the streams. A 1998 study correlates
the levels of development with impact to streams. At 8 to 12 percent impervious
surface cover, they begin to see declines in biological functions and diversity.
Streams are extremely sensitive to development and stormwater runoff. In
addition, increased runoff increases flooding and property damage.
The second aspect of stormwater runoff is the pollution picked up along the
way. Stormwater is the largest source of pollution in the Puget Sound. The poly
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
aromatic hydrocarbons is a byproduct of combustion engines. It's released as air
pollution, and falls on the land in the rain. Small levels have a huge impact. One
teaspoon to the average size swimming pool has been demonstrated to have
significant developmental impacts on herring egg development, which is a huge
food source for salmon. A 1998 study by the U.S. Geological Survey of streams in
the Puget Sound region, and found that a heavily urbanized creek in Seattle had
higher level of pesticides than agricultural streams because of over - application of
pesticides on commercial and residential properties. In Kitsap County, septic
system water is found in surface water and storm drains. Septic systems are a
huge source of bacteria pollution and dissolved oxygen. Twenty -five percent of
shellfish beds in the Puget Sound have been closed as a result. One -third of
polluted water bodies in Puget sound is caused by stormwater runoff problems.
The toxicity of stormwater can be so high that it quickly kills salmon. That is
something that can happen in Whatcom County.
Until the 1990's, stormwater management consisted of drains, pipes, and
outfalls into the nearest water body to quickly and efficiently deliver the stormwater
to the nearest water body. Thirteen years ago, the State Department of Ecology
adopted its first stormwater manual that required mitigation, which was focused on
inserting a pond between the pipe and outfall to slow the runoff. There are
problems with the ponds. They can't protect streams with ponds alone. Even
properly -sized ponds increase the flooding in a stream much more than natural
conditions.
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, asked (inaudible). Dawson stated that it's an increase in the
percentage of time that the flow of the stream is above what it would be during a
one -year storm in a forested watershed.
Dawson continued his presentation and stated that they realized ponds can't
protect watersheds. Conventional development generates too much water to be
managed effectively, and most detention and retention facilities offer minimal water
quality treatment. The trees are a very important part of stormwater control.
Ponds can't simulate evaporation, which is a unique function of plants. Vertical
storage of stormwater in the leaves is very important and a central theme of low
impact development, which strives to minimize runoff and mimic nature by
managing that runoff as close to the source as possible. It's important not to
overwhelm the soils in a small area. Spread out the runoff over a larger area. Low
impact development is the best way they know of to manage stormwater.
Low impact development is a piece of the Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Program. These elements are part of the Puget Sound Action Team's
recommendations for a stormwater management program. Elements include
making sure there are stormwater requirements for new and re- development, site
plan reviews, inspections, maintenance of facilities, watershed level planning,
source control, and public education. They can't just do a low- impact development
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
ordinance, and forget about stormwater. Whatcom County has a lot of the
stormwater management pieces already.
Regarding basic principles, there is no better stormwater management
system than native soils and vegetation. To develop a property, a developer would
set aside as many natural features of the site as possible. In a typical subdivision,
the entire site is cleared and scraped. After they set aside natural areas, minimize
development impacts as much as possible to reduce the amount of runoff created.
Sensitive soils are preserved by conserving natural areas and by minimizing the
amount of clearing and grading that happens on a site. Reduce building footprints
by building up instead of out. Create narrower roads and sidewalks for smaller
streets. Have smaller scale stormwater controls throughout the site. Direct
downspouts into natural or planted areas instead of into the street. They could also
harvest rainwater and use it for water conservation purposes. With a filtration
system, it can even be used as drinking water. Use green garden roofs instead of
regular roofs, which has many benefits that reduce the volume of runoff, provide
habitat, and provide insulation for sound, heat, and cold. They last almost twice as
long as a regular roof because the waterproof membrane is protected much better
than on a regular shingle or metal roof. Use pervious pavers in areas that are
necessary for pavement. Evergreen State College recently added 350 new parking
spots while reducing the total impervious surface area by five percent and the
surface water runoff by 20 percent by using pervious paving systems and rain
gardens. Porous concrete and porous asphalt has pores that water can go through.
It percolates so well that the limiting factor is the soil beneath the concrete, not the
concrete itself. This type of concrete requires periodic maintenance sweeping.
Rain gardens is another technique for reducing runoff. Rain gardens are
soils that try to mimic the forest soils in the Pacific Northwest, with native plants.
They filter and infiltrate runoff. It's a very promising strategy for dealing with
runoff. The City of Seattle created demonstration streets called Sea Streets using
rain gardens. They narrowed the road by five feet and put in a sidewalk. There is
no curb or gutter on the street. The runoff runs in sheet flows into the rain gardens
on both sides of the street. It's an absolutely beautiful street that added significant
values to their properties. The rain garden design reduced runoff by 97 percent.
The other option for runoff control on this street was to have a stormwater vault
that would have cost $100,000 more than the rain gardens.
Menzies asked if a piping system is built into the rain garden to treat the soil.
Dawson stated pipes go in between the parking spaces and under the street so all
rain gardens are connected. At the end, an outfall that will go into the stormwater
system. They monitor the outfall, which is how they realized there is a 97 percent
reduction.
Roy asked if a conclusion could be made that they don't need the pipes if
this system is 97 percent more effective. Dawson stated the only reason for the
pipes was because the designed is for a 25 -year storm, not a 200 -year storm.
They can create rain gardens without pipes, especially with new development. The
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
ideal is to not have pipes, and to manage all the stormwater onsite. Rain gardens
are a tool for doing that.
Roy asked about emergency vehicles access with the narrow streets.
Dawson stated the grass on both sides of the street is planted in structural soil that
can handle temporary loads. If access by emergency vehicles is necessary, the
drive area is actually about 20 feet. To make them structural soils, they heavily
compact the native soils.
Fleetwood asked if the contaminants are going to the soil instead of away
from the soil. He asked what will happen to that soil. Dawson stated rain gardens
have been used for about 20 years. No one knows when they will clog up, and
they'll have to replace the soils. The rain gardens there were expected to work five
to ten years, and they are still working 20 years later. That answer is specific to
the amount of pollutants on the street. There are not many pollutants on a
residential street. What is often water pollution isn't a problem in the soils, which
will bind up or uptake the pollutants. Hydrocarbons, a huge problem in the water,
can be used as fertilizers by the plants. The capacity of soils to hold heavy metals
is almost unlimited. The ability to process hydrocarbons is also unlimited. Fine
sediments might clog the percolation system, but they aren't proven to be a
problem so far. No one really knows how long a rain garden will last, but they are
lasting much longer than anticipated. Eventually, they have to replace the soils,
but they don't know when. For residential streets, the pollutant loads are so low
that the natural systems take care of it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if rain gardens require maintenance. Dawson stated
they do, as stormwater ponds do. Residents of the neighborhood are removed
from stormwater ponds and often don't maintain them, but rain garden
maintenance requires weeding, that maintenance be pesticide -free, and to replace
the mulch every once in awhile, just like a regular garden. One solution is to have
a stream team organize neighbors to maintain the rain garden, or build
maintenance into the covenants. There are a lot of different approaches people are
experimenting with now. In Seattle, the agreement is that the property owners
have to maintain the gardens.
Menzies asked if there is a water quality monitoring component. Dawson
stated there is not on this project, which is just to control water runoff flow.
However, a new Seattle project will monitor water quality. It does not monitor
fecal coliform.
Menzies stated (inaudible). Dawson stated there is a particular benefit for
shellfish. When filtering stormwater through soils and living systems, they're able
to filter out the bacteria. All other centralized stormwater management facilities,
only really expensive ones might be able to do it. Preventing bacteria from flowing
into the water bodies is almost the only way to deal with bacteria in stormwater.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
When clearing a site, developers generally scrape off topsoil and leave
heavily compacted subsoil. Lawns in these developments generally have runoff
characteristics similar to pavement, which is why people have to fertilize and use
pesticides on their lawns. Landscaped areas have to use soil amendments to
improve health of the soil. That will reduce the need for water, fertilizers,
pesticides, and the volume of runoff.
He submitted further information (on file) on a compact disc.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the broad based definition of low impact
development. Dawson stated one of the problems is that getting a standard
definition is difficult. There are standards to meet with low impact development,
which is to retain or restore 55 to 65 percent of forest cover in residential
developments and to have zero to five percent effective impervious surface area.
They don't want any impervious surfaces to be tied into the stormwater system.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roy asked if they can have an impervious system next to a rain garden, and
if it doesn't count as an effective impervious surface area that goes into the runoff
system. Dawson stated that's correct. Also, impervious pavers don't count as
effective impervious surfaces.
Roy stated the current retention ponds do not filter out bacteria. Dawson
stated that's correct. They can be sources of bacteria.
Fleetwood asked if there are any numbers on who is availing themselves of
the regulations in Pierce County. Dawson stated one development is in process,
one is complete, and about three more are proposed.
Fleetwood asked if the projects tend to cost more or less. Dawson stated it
depends on the development. The reason the analyses show it costs more was
because there were a lot of redundancies built into the system because they
weren't confident of the design. Other studies that have been done show that low
impact development can be the same cost or up to 40 to 50 percent cheaper. The
cheapest is to have one way roads that are narrow, retain 65 percent of forest
cover, and allow runoff to go into that forest. It does limit the development
options. The more complicated it is, the more expensive it is. Generally, the cost
is about the same.
Fleetwood asked for examples of local governments that imposed low impact
development standards, and if it was challenged. Dawson stated the City of
Olympia imposed low impact development, and it was not challenged.
Roy asked if the City of Olympia did a hybrid that integrated regular
stormwater methods and low impact development. Dawson stated that's correct.
It was done several years ago when they weren't as confident of the methods.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
Now, there is much more confidence. The next iteration of these ordinances will
include the newer knowledge.
Fleetwood asked if there is an effort at the State level to create incentives or
force local governments toward low impact development. Dawson stated the State
is creating low impact development credits, which count toward mitigation. Also,
the State Department of Ecology included in its manual a basic low impact
development discussion that says if someone has less than 10 percent impervious
cover total and 65 percent forest cover, then the developer is exempt from
mitigation. There is no effort at the State level to pass legislation to require all
municipalities to use low impact development standards. They are trying to get
into the Clean Water Act phase II municipal permits from the State Department of
ecology, which requires the adoption of a voluntary ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if bioswales and rain gardens are the same thing.
Dawson stated they are pretty much the same thing, however a bioswale is an
older word that sometimes just means a grass swale.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if impervious surface limitations on house size is
important in relation to the lot size. Dawson stated it is. They have to limit the
amount of impervious surface area per lot. The standards could allow expansion of
impervious surface areas if the developer increases mitigation.
Fleetwood asked how much personnel would be required for the
comprehensive management plan, which refers to monitoring and enforcement.
Dawson stated it's all relative. If they don't have the personnel now, and are still
allowing conventional developments, then adopting low impact development
standards is an improvement. If it's not enforced, it has no teeth and people won't
follow it. It's all relative. They should do as much as they can. He hoped there is
the personnel to management the program.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated standards
have to have inspection, enforcement, monitoring, and management components
and a larger integrated approach to what they're doing with natural resources in
general. When they get to tree canopy issues, it's a larger issue that needs to be
managed. The County needs other expertise on staff or available to staff. That's
the approach other local governments are doing. He submitted a handout (on file)
covering Title 20 watershed development requirements currently. There are three
very confusing overlays right now. It may be better to coordinate the three into a
single document, and then apply that overlay to where it is needed in the county.
That's where the staff recommendation is headed. There are low impact
development components already in the code, but there is a lot of stuff not there
they need to add. Staff is looking for time to address low impact development.
What the Council puts in the Birch Bay plan or for Lake Whatcom will drive a lot of
that discussion. It's a broader issue than in those specific areas.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, Page 6
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.
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated it will be difficult to enforce tree retention in the
2 long term. She asked how they get the message that tree retention is more
3 important than the view of a property. Dawson stated they need to put up signage
4 to get the word out. Another element that is important is public education. It must
5 be a part of comprehensive stormwater management, ideally when people buy the
6 house.
7
8 Hart stated there is a difference between public outreach on a case -by -case
9 basis and a broader outreach. The difference is the watershed employee that
10 explains the different pieces of regulation and the issues one -on -one. Broad public
11 education has been done and continues to be done. The Planning and Development
12 Services Department is talking about public education one developer at a time in
13 the watershed. They're not talking about broad dissemination, just education when
14 a permit or inspection is done. Those are at least two components of the public
15 outreach and education. During the development phase, they have to provide
16 education also. The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) has also
17 worked to do public education.
18
19 Caskey- Schreiber stated they should work with the realtors on education.
20 Hart stated it's a good point. He will continue to work on that and with the BIAW.
21
22 Roy stated one developer of large developments said that a frustration is
23 that they have a great deal of interest in implementing low impact development
24 standards, and understand it well, but they get stopped because a Public Works
25 Department person won't allow it. Eliminate the hurdles when developers have a
26 sincere desire to do this. Hart stated they are looking at new standards, getting
27 engineers and geologists together to look at the technical standards from the
28 Department of Ecology, and looking at other site -by -site issues. The question is
29 how to mesh the two standards. They don't have a lot of experience morphing the
30 traditional engineering standards into something more flexible. When they go
31 through the process updating to low impact development standards, everyone will
32 learn from each other.
33
34 Roy stated don't do something like Olympia did, which tried to do both at the
35 same time, which drives up the cost. Work through the process step -by -step. She
36 hoped any low impact development standards can be approved by everyone,
37 without requiring two systems.
38
39 Fleetwood asked if there is formal policy direction from the Council to assist
40 in these discussions. Hart stated that how they read current plans, in terms of how
41 sensitive they are to the natural environment, sends an important message that
42 staff has to look at a broader set of solutions to mitigate for stormwater runoff. He
43 supports simplifying the process so people have some certainty. That's what
44 they're striving for. Also, they're moving toward integrated natural resource
45 management approach, including stormwater, parks, open space, and shorelines,
46 into one philosophy for Whatcom County, which is closely tied to these outcomes.
47 The discussion is happening, but there isn't a designated hitter for the County to
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
work with all affected departments on this approach. He hoped they will solve that
problem.
Menzies stated the community of Birch Bay has identified a clamming
resource that shellfish harvesting is something to protect in the long -term. The
presentation is a great one. There's no question that through best available science
they impact those areas in different ways as they urbanize in coastal areas. Birch
Bay is one of three prime shellfish growing areas in Whatcom County. People have
been working a long time to restore those harvests. Prevention is more important.
It's different than in Lake Whatcom. There's no requirement now to monitor fecal
coliform bacteria in stormwater. Low impact development in a fast growing area
like Birch Bay is one of the most important things a community can do to protect
that resource.
He referenced the environmental chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, in the
shellfish policies section, goal 11L and its related policies. Attempt to discourage
development in those areas with less than 10 percent of impervious surfaces. That
is difficult to do. Within existing land use plans, have direction to develop low
impact development ordinances.
Lincoln Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated he would speak to the
Council's role. If they believe in these scientific principles, then the Council cannot
believe in the geologic report that accompanied the recent application to convert
hundreds of acres of forestland to pasture land. The logic contained in that
document contradicts this presentation. The County Planning Department believes
the logic of the document. It struck down the State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) review and the reforestation mitigation that the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) established to protect a known hazardous slope area. The
County intervened to strike it down and eliminate the protection required by the
DNR. The laws are on the books. The Planning Department blatantly ignores SEPA
and the Growth Management Act. The role of the Council should be to cause
enforcement of the existing laws on the books. The hazardous slope area is a
critical area according to the Comprehensive Plan. There was no reason why the
conversion option harvest plans were executed. The DNR got involved to
supercede and cause a different set of regulations to be used, rather than use the
County's own laws.
Roy thanked Mr. Dawson for his presentation. His depth of knowledge is
impressive.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/18/2004, Page 9