Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 29 20021 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 January 29, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Member Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Set Fleetwood None Sharon Roy Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2002 -023) Fleetwood nominated McShane. Nomination carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK (AB2002 -085) McShane stated the committee does not have the scope of work, so they will not have this discussion. 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM PRIORITY ACTIONS (AB2002 -067) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated they would talk about the non - structural best management practices (BMP's) that are important when dealing with pollutant loading. At the previous water resources work session, they talked about the structural BMP's, and what pollutant removals they can anticipate with structural BMP's. Today, they would discuss the non - structural elements. His approach to this issue is to look at the drainage level or the sub - watershed level as they deal with strategies for pollutant loading. The Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 process developed the drainage map. They would develop strategies on a drainage -by- drainage basis. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. They need to make sure that, at the drainage level, they identify the major sources of pollutants. From land use information, they can estimate pollution contribution. In the strategy he presented, they need to have a more clearly defined understanding of the amount of pollutants coming into the lake from various tributaries. This is geared toward identifying the tools to have for a good drainage strategy. Nonstructural BMP's include land preservation, regulations, compliance and enforcement, and community outreach. They've developed a set of tools in cooperation with Washington State University (WSU) Cooperative Extension and the Planning and Development Services Department, that have given them a good set of educational tools that include home lawn care programs and phosphorous -free fertilizers. This strategy begins to look at the big picture, what to hope for structurally, and what remains in terms of non - structural activity. This information will be tied to developing strategies. It gets into the issue of how the load would change over time with respect to current and future development. They will look at what will happen with pollutants as they develop those areas, in terms of pollutant load increases and decreases. Options for pollutant reduction are based on structural and nonstructural strategies, which are based on calculations of where pollutants are coming from, given the percentage of impervious surfaces in a particular drainage. It is also based on density to some extent. In each of these strategies, there is a cost and a resulting benefit. Any one of them can be enormously expensive to implement. As they move forward, they will revisit the financial implications. Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated she would talk about land preservation. Over the last year, they worked on developing criteria for land preservation, which the Council recently adopted. They identified areas of the highest priority in terms of water quality benefits. As they discussed the criteria, they continually reminded folks that this isn't just a land acquisition process. It could also involve other preservation tools. Other communities have used land preservation to protect water and critical habitat. There are many community models to look at. The first step for land preservation is to develop the land preservation toolbox. The second step is to develop the implementation strategy. The map provides an overview of the high priority areas, but doesn't identify parcels of the highest interest. They will develop an implementation strategy for that. The end goal is to implement the land preservation program and to begin protecting some of these critical areas. Two of the key preservation tools are land acquisition and conservation easement. These tools have been used by different communities and have been successful. Other tools to consider down the road include development right programs, first right of refusal, and life estate. Options will provide protection. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns a large percentage of the Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. watershed now. The DNR landscape plan includes strategies that will protect water quality. There are certain places that already have some restrictions or programs in place to provide protection. Creating an implementation strategy is identifying how they want to look at land preservation in the Lake Whatcom watershed. They've talked a lot about the sub - watershed approach. There are areas in the watershed that are better suited for land preservation than other areas. One factor is impervious surface. At a 10 percent level of impervious surfaces, there is a rapid decline in stream integrity. They could use that as a benchmark for targeting protected lands. They will create a selection process to identify the high priority parcels and the most appropriate tools for those parcels. They also need to create a management process for managing and maintaining the lands. Roy asked the percentage of the watershed owned by the DNR. Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the DNR owns 15,000 acres out of 35,000 acres. McShane stated DNR owns about 45 percent of the land in the watershed. Stroebel stated 80 percent of the watershed is zoned forestry or has an open space designation. Roy asked if the County interfaces with DNR on these issues. McShane stated there is an advisory committee to the DNR to create a landscape plan specifically for Lake Whatcom, bearing in mind water quality protection at a level that might be more stringent than other DNR lands and private lands. It is in the works. The environmental impact statement (EIS) coming out soon. The committee will meet again at the end of February. There are impacts because people make money off those harvests. He will bring this discussion to the Natural Resources Committee in the future. The County will want to comment on the EIS as well. Nelson stated there is also the Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum, a subcommittee of the Lake Whatcom Management Committee. McShane stated that every timber harvest proposal in the area is discussed. Nelson stated it is discussed on a voluntary basis. Land preservation as a tool, would be more of the nonstructural BMP's. Roll stated it would be, pretty much. As they begin getting into structural things such as retrofitting, they need to acquire land for structural purposes. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. Nelson stated they need to look at the high impact ones that cause the most problems. They are going to be difficult. He asked if transfers of development rights (TDR's) would be in the toolbox. Stroebel stated it is. They are still working to develop a successful program. Nelson questioned the hold up for developing the TDR process. Amy Pedersen, Planning I, stated a major hold up is the receiving areas. They originally designated the Urban Residential, mixed use (UR -MX) zone in the Bellingham urban growth area. However, they are not very big and they've already been developed substantially. There aren't a lot of large parcels left to be developed, and that can take those TDR's out of the watershed. Because they designated the entire Lake Whatcom watershed as a sending area, they need substantially more receiving areas. Through the last round of updates to the TDR program, they allowed the designation of other areas in the City of Bellingham's urban growth area (UGA), whether through a rezone request and inclusion in the UGA. They are looking at other ways to get this program to work. In other jurisdictions, mandatory programs are the most successful. Whatcom County's program is a voluntary program. Fleetwood asked how the programs are mandatory. Stroebel stated one jurisdiction requires sale of TDR's because the area can't be developed. The only way to get a return on the land is to sell the TDR off the land. Other programs are geared toward floor area ratios that would be good for the City of Bellingham. Historic preservation is a mandatory program. Nelson asked for a brief written report of the different options from the different jurisdictions. This is something they've been working on for some time. He would like an overview of the problems and a list of possible solutions to implement at the County level. See if they can't get this thing moving. They will need it as a functional tool to avoid political fallout of the nonstructural BMP's. McShane stated the TDR program had the most political buy -off. Just because it hasn't been successful doesn't mean it should be dropped. Nelson asked if there is a reason to not do a TDR program for programs similar to the programs that require sewer and water to take advantage of the full zoning density. For someone to take advantage of their full zoning density, he or she would have to have a certain percentage in TDR. He asked if that could be done. Pedersen stated originally, the program was designed to transfer the densities out of the watershed. Right now, they have the Rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) zone in the watershed. It could be a direction to go. Nelson stated it would be to transfer completely out of the watershed. Pedersen stated they want to focus the TDR's into urbanized areas, not in the rural Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. areas. The R2A zone would be possible if it's likely that the area will be developed at a higher density in the future. Fleetwood asked where the County is at regarding the implementation strategy. Stroebel stated it is opportunistic at this time. If opportunities come up, they can work with the Conservation Futures or the Parks Department on a couple of potential parcels in the watershed. There is the potential for proposals to come forward through that process. Also, through the Planning and Development Services Department, they have used conservation easements as a part of the permitting process. They are trying to develop a tracking mechanism to see where they are doing land preservation right now, which tools are effective now, and what they can continue to do. Roll stated the financial situation has a bearing on how far the County wants to go from being opportunistic to becoming more proactive in soliciting activities. There is a spectrum of involvement. This is an item that has been on the agenda for some time at the Lake Whatcom Management Team. Members of the group have been able to come to some consensus on the criteria used to select lands for preservation. That strategy will help to develop the toolbox. There hasn't been an active engagement of the group to come to consensus jointly. They are working on the tools that the County can use for the strategy. The strategies don't necessarily mesh with the way the tools are being applied. A discussion that the joint group has not had yet is how they manage the tools against the criteria and go forward. Here, they are proposing solely a way to manage tools for preservation, from a County perspective. Stroebel stated they are now in the process of developing that preservation toolbox. Fleetwood asked if there is a timeframe for completing the toolbox, and if it will be completed in the six -month timeframe. Stroebel stated portions of it would be. Roll stated some of the pieces could be done in that short period of time. Others will take longer. Nelson stated the intention of the six months was to have a timeline for developing the criteria necessary to reduce the overall pollutant load in Lake Whatcom. There are things in this program that will take longer than six months. Land preservation is not a reason to maintain the moratorium when the objective is to reduce the overall pollutant load. There are other mechanisms to use to do that. Stroebel stated this is one of the nonstructural BMP's to help reduce pollutants coming into the lake. The higher priority areas are along the tributaries. The riparian areas are a priority for protecting. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she would talk about zoning, land clearing, and stormwater regulations in Title 20. The main thing they have for the watershed is the water resource protection overlay zone. There are a menu of options that the County will look at. They won't necessarily do all of the things on the list that they will look at. There are a few things that need to be done with the water resource protection overlay zone district to make it easier to read and implement. The most important would be to consolidate that district with the stormwater special district and the water resource special management area. They are all in separate sections of the code. It would be nice to have them in all one section. They still have problems with impervious surfaces. There are discrepancies between the development standards and the stormwater special district in how they treat gravel. Gravel is considered impervious in the development standards. However, the County considers it an alternative surface in the overlay. It was suggested that they add to the overlay vegetative buffers along stream corridors. Where the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) covers it, there are setbacks, but there are not requirements for vegetation in some of those stream corridors and creeks. That might be a better way to protect the watershed. They are talking about taking another look at how they treat impervious surface to get not just an overall 10 percent improvement, but also to make sure the impervious surfaces are not concentrated in one watershed or closer to the lake. Look at higher density areas. For Silver Beach, the City of Bellingham has gone to a 2,000 square foot of impervious surfaces. The County has a 3,000 square foot limit. The next item is the stormwater, which is in Whatcom County Code (WCC) Title 20.80.630. They also have stormwater development regulations in Chapter Two of the development regulations. They are not consistent right now. Make stormwater regulations in the zoning code more general. Have the detailed technical information in the development regulations. The land clearing regulations are in the zoning code and in the development regulations. One idea for land clearing is a tree retention program. The overlay district specifies the amount of land that can be paved and /or have buildings. However, the rest of it could be stripped of vegetation and become lawn, which is better than pavement but not as good as a forest. They need to see how they can keep trees on the parcels. Sudden Valley has a good program that requires trees over a certain size to remain or be replaced, if cut down. The County had a similar program for Point Roberts, but the Planning Commission is recommending that it be repealed. It is difficult to do a tree retention policy. They need to look at that carefully to keep the good trees, and allow the dangerous trees to come down. Sudden Valley has a good recommendation for how to do that. They also talked about seasonal restrictions to land clearing. That would be the one thing they could do that would have the most impact. Most sediment in the watershed is from land clearing and site disturbance happening at this time of year, Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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 it's raining heavily. Most areas with good water quality regulations have a seasonal restriction. One could not do the construction, clear raw land, site work, and grading between November and sometime in the spring when it stops raining. The owner could do the finished work during the rainy part of the winter. They talked about phased clearing and grading. If someone is doing a 120 - lot subdivision, he or she doesn't need to clear the entire site at once. Leave the lots vegetative until each house is built. McShane stated that is a big problem in Lake Whatcom. Goodwin stated this and the seasonal restriction are the things that would have the most impact. Nelson stated it is also cost prohibitive. Equipment hauling is extremely expensive. They need to look at costs and alternatives, while keeping the equipment costs down. Goodwin stated they would take a look at that. They don't want to make the cost of construction prohibitive. Goodwin stated they need stronger policies on re- vegetation to make sure that once sites are clear, they are re- vegetated. They need better consistency between the development standards and the zoning standards. There is a discrepancy now about how long one can leave the lot open ground. They need better sediment and erosion control policies, and standards for soil coverage. Now, someone has a certain number of days to get the soil covered by straw or some type of barrier. The number of days is different between the zoning regulations and the development regulations. They cannot get shorelines done in six months. It will take a year or two. She recommends that they wait until they update the entire shoreline program, and then look at Lake Whatcom as a part of that review. There are two things that would affect the watershed, which are shoreline setbacks and shoreline designations. McShane asked if it would be possible, instead of updating the whole program, to update the shoreline designations now to apply to the use of the current shoreline designations. Goodwin stated they could. Once they get done, they still have to go through the lengthy State review process. They could not get it done before the moratorium lifted. It takes the State six months to even look at the program. Staff could begin making progress towards that. McShane stated that the County staff could work on just the designation part, because it would be more practical to do that part than to do it all, and then submit it to the State for an interim period. Goodwin stated she would look into the legality of doing an interim ordinance while waiting for State review. Fleetwood asked what is included in shorelines. He imagines areas such as Cherry Point and Birch Point. Goodwin stated it also pertains to lakes the size of Lake Whatcom and the streams the size of the Nooksack River, which are over 20 Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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. cubic feet per second. It includes a few of the smaller creeks. There are other, larger lakes that qualify, including Lake Samish. There is some opportunity to change designations, which restrict use and affect the setbacks. The critical area ordinance could be strengthened to implement the Lake Whatcom watershed. It will be difficult to get done before the end of the moratorium. They are mandated by the State Growth Management Act (GMA) to update the CAO by September 2002. They are not likely to meet that deadline. There is no staff to work on it yet and no money for a consultant. If the Council approves a resolution by September that tells the State when the County will do it, the County won't get in trouble with GMA. They can get started this fall after they finish some of this other stuff. Some of the things that could help for Lake Whatcom would be to strengthen the buffer requirements of the CAO. Right now, the buffer is variable. They can reduce the buffer if it is not an anadromous river. Most of the creeks flowing into the lake are not anadromous. There are not strong requirements of what kind of vegetation is maintained within the buffer. They could keep natural vegetation or required re- vegetation within the buffer areas to make them function better. There are not restrictive covenants. If a buffer does not become a deed restriction on the lot, the next property owner can remove it. The CAO doesn't have a mitigation sequence. The State and Federal government say one first has to avoid development in the critical area. If one can't avoid it, then he or she must minimize the development. If he or she can't minimize it, then it can be mitigated. Whatcom County does not do that, and she would like to look at it. Regarding long -term monitoring, if one does mitigation or has a buffer requirement, he or she has to plant new vegetation in it. The vegetation doesn't always survive, if it isn't monitored for five years. After the first year or two, the owner loses interest, the County doesn't follow up, and pretty soon reed canary grass and other things will choke out the vegetation they are trying to maintain. If they have a longer term monitoring requirement, it would be more effective. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Goodwin continued to state that they are not likely to get these things done by the end of the moratorium, but they can begin to work toward them. If they try to get all this done before the end of the moratorium, they would have to be adopted by May 7, 2002. It is not likely that they will get all of these done. The ones they expect to get done are improvements to the overlay district, stormwater, and land clearing and zoning regulations. Make them more consistent with the development standards. Work later on shorelines and critical areas. Hopefully they can make some improvements on the transfer of development rights by May 7, 2002. If they do a regular adoption of these items, it would first have to go for a Planning Commission public hearing. The public hearing for the Planning Commission would have to be scheduled by April 25. That means staff would have a month or two to write them. That's not likely to happen. It would be better to do Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. an interim ordinance, refer to the Planning Commission, and have a public hearing in 60 days. Those are the two options. Nelson stated they have a lot of work to do. Much of this discussion has preceded the current staff. Some of that information can be incorporated relatively easily. He questioned what the measurement qualifications would be if they are increasing the restriction on buffering or looking at how they do the standards. He is concerned that they would throw all this out, but they may not know that it will work. Goodwin stated they aren't going to do a before - and -after measurement of a site that maintains a 100 -foot buffer versus a 50 -foot buffer. They can look at land practices across the board and get standards in general for impervious surfaces, but that is dependent on soil and bedrock. They will not be able to get concrete data to say whether or not they achieve the percentage. They could do some test sites. Nelson asked if it would make sense to have areas they evaluate at different levels. They are monitoring water quality conditions now. He questioned whether they will be geared up in six months to gather the information necessary to find out what works and what doesn't work. Blake stated there is more work going on for tributary monitoring than there has been in the past. Roll stated they have gauged the major tributaries. They will start more in- depth monitoring around May or June, from a water quality pollutant perspective. Given the fact that they have very little data on long -term trends, they are looking at needing to collect sufficient data sets so they can begin to show changes occurring. That means that they need records for four to five years before they can be comfortable with the amount of water coming down. Concurrently, they need sufficient water quality data information that will correlate with the water coming in. That is no simple task. Together, those two are extremely costly and expensive. The question to consider is the level of data that is sufficient to feel comfortable moving forward. Nelson questioned whether they would decide what that level would be during the six -month moratorium. Roll stated they would not. He hoped to get guidance. McShane stated he's hearing that the councilmembers have to decide what level they are comfortable with. Having sure answers is never going to happen. They have to determine where they are comfortable. Nelson asked if it makes sense to approve these changes and standards dealing with water quality, and have no way to tell the public what they are doing and how they are going to evaluate it. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 9 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 McShane stated some evaluation would be from other areas around the 2 country. There is some data on runoff. It would vary depending on the soil. The 3 variability is great. 4 5 Nelson asked if they want to look at it microscopically or macroscopically. 6 7 McShane stated that is the question. They will have to evaluate every tool in 8 the toolbox. There are a lot of priorities, and it is overwhelming. 9 10 Fleetwood asked if there are staff to monitor levels. Roll stated there is to it some extent. Historically, that is one of the pieces he's been troubled with. 12 They've never had effective long -term monitoring strategies. There are many 13 things to be implemented, but he can't report how it's working. They don't have 14 serious monitoring programs to look at in the long -term. 15 16 Crawford stated the presentations at the meeting last Tuesday were very 17 good, especially the one done by Rich Duane. Mr. Duane provided hard numbers, 18 which makes things easier. At the same time, they are talking about the six -month 19 moratorium. They are trying to balance the concerns of the environment and the 20 concerns of the people who own homes in that environment. Achieve the balance, 21 but don't permanently stop using the land in an environmentally friendly way 22 through moratoriums. He's hearing that six months is not enough to do a lot of 23 things in terms of collecting data and establishing programs. He heard that the 24 best stormwater treatment systems clean out about 70 percent of the pollutant load 25 that goes in. When a developer develops, he or she spends a certain amount of 26 money to build that treatment system. The developer is doing more than building 27 the house or subdivision. Through the process of the emergency moratorium, the 28 Council said that there would be a net reduction of pollutant loading of 110 percent 29 when development occurs. If 70 percent is the best they can do, to achieve 110 30 percent they are taking polluting sources in other places and reduce those sources. 31 When done, they will have removed more than the 30 percent of pollutants they 32 are putting into the lake. In other words, they are taking out 70 percent of the 33 pollution, still putting in 30 percent, and taking out more than 30 percent 34 elsewhere. If there is a financial cost to the developer, a developer will have to 35 remove pollutants from other places at an additional cost. Instead, in six months 36 they could simply put a dollar figure on the cost of fixing up another system. They 37 don't have to assign a particular pollutant loading location. Just get a fund going. 38 Get some people to begin collecting money and prioritizing where they want to 39 clean up polluting locations. A question is still whether or not it is fair to require 40 someone to pay for cleaning up someone else's pollutant loading problem. He 41 questioned whether it was possible to come up with a simple system in six months 42 that would provide an assigned amount of money to begin looking at where existing 43 pollutants are going in. This fund wouldn't build up a lot of money. There are not a 44 lot of permits for subdivisions. This additional cost may even discourage a 45 developer even more. He questioned whether there is any logic to his thinking. 46 When he thinks about all these development standards, he doesn't know how they 47 are going to do some of this stuff in six months. Some of the things they propose Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. will take three years or more. Create a mechanism by which people will continue to subdivide, but if they do, they will have a net positive impact on the lake. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that if someone constructs treatment facilities as part of a subdivision, the treatment facility will have a certain removal rate if it is constructed and maintained. In those settings, there is a net increase in pollutant loading, even in the best structural applications. A question is how they deal with the net increase and find another way to have a net decrease on the average overall. There are two matters. They can come up with an amount of what pollution is worth on the average, but it is difficult to take that number and go find a location to actually apply it. They must be able to locate an area that can be solved given that amount of money. The issue is the timing of the action compared to the time money is received, regardless of the money that is contributed. A second matter is that it presumes there is someone else who will maintain the system that was originally constructed so it continues to remove 70 percent of pollutants. Another issue is about the role played by those old subdivisions that currently allow pollution into the system. If there is $20,000 of seed money for a $500,000 project, for example, a question is how the rest of the money will be generated. Most likely, the rest of the folks in the neighborhood will have to provide the money. The focus of the discussion today is that they are not trying to promote a program based on specific actions or cash contributions. The programs they are talking about will give them the biggest bang for their buck, but they are the hardest to measure. Nelson stated the original concern in Lake Whatcom is the development that has occurred. They need to address the major concern, which is retrofitting. Look at the assorted tools in the toolbox. They will not solve the problem in six months. They will be able to move forward, which they haven't been able to do in the past. Focus on what tools they feel comfortable with to reduce the pollutant load in Lake Whatcom. They could probably summarize that they are close to the 110 percent and not be too far off. As far as types of problems such as maintaining stormwater facilities, it may be something that the private sector could do. The County could approve of a list of contractors who are approved to maintain stormwater facilities. Monsen stated that resembles what is in place today. The element that is missing is having someone on staff to verify whether or not it has actually occurred. Nelson stated the staff could go out and inspect when there are complaints or concerns. Monsen stated that is too late, from a maintenance standpoint. Nelson stated that they need to not be scared to do anything. They need to move forward and do something. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 11 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 Monsen stated a program for having the property owners collectively being 2 responsible for the facilities that are constructed doesn't have to be extremely 3 costly or elaborate to monitor compliance. The difficult part is getting 4 reimbursement and correcting the physical capacity. That is not easy. 5 6 Nelson stated that might be part of the retrofitting program. They need to 7 find out how to put this in place so they can feel assured that they are working 8 toward a working mechanism. If they throw all this onto the nonstructural BMP's, 9 they need to be sure that the non - structural BMP's are going to meet some specific 10 objectives. There are other areas and programs that have an evaluation 11 component. He questioned whether the non - structural BMP's have an evaluation 12 component of their effectiveness. 13 14 McShane stated an example from his work is that people often ask him how 15 close they can site their house to a potentially unstable slope. He can tell someone 16 what the setback would be for the house to last for a long time. If the landowner 17 wants to be closer, he or she would have to gather more data. His sense is that 18 this is not dissimilar to what the Council will work with. They are not going to have 19 great statistics. This is a huge list. One example is shoreline regulations. They 20 may decide that shorelines are the solution, and they should work on it now. 21 However, Goodwin indicated that it isn't the best activity right now. 22 Councilmembers should think about these things over the next few days, and talk 23 to staff further to get an idea of what is important. Regarding Councilmember 24 Crawford's idea, it was logical. However, that could be something they do in the 25 interim, while they work on other things. If someone really wants to do this, they 26 could go find an area to retrofit somewhere else. He questioned whether the 27 County could conceivably lift the moratorium for someone who wants to do 28 something like that. If they go beyond six months, it is not a big deal to him. He 29 questioned whether it is possible to do that on an individual basis if someone is 30 responsible for coming up with their own stormwater designs and plans to meet the 31 stormwater threshold. Maybe no one would do it. Monsen stated staff had in mind 32 that this would be discussed at the next Water Resources work session. He asked 33 to finish the presentation and come back to this. 34 35 Nelson stated the intention was to allow subdivisions to occur, but at a higher 36 level than in the past. It may be too cost prohibitive to do a subdivision until they 37 get the rest of this done. However, the County would be able to assure the public 38 that it will protect water quality from further degradation and that they are capable 39 of doing that, which was the major concern, and at least have such standards in 40 place until they get the rest of this done. That was his intention when proposing 41 this. 42 43 Regarding the rest of the items on Executive Kremen's agenda, the County 44 will work on those over the next few years. The items will be put into place 45 gradually as they find which ones work and which ones don't work. None of this 46 makes sense without monitoring and getting the information they need. He hopes Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. they don't do this so globally that they get mired down, and it gets complicated. They need to begin doing something. Goodwin stated the point that staff has been trying to make is that sometimes an ounce of "provision" is worth a pound of cure. If the County can tell a developer to do his development in the summer when it's dry, retain trees, and put in stream buffers, then the cost of retrofitting and designing the stormwater facilities will be lower. It's a balance. Today, staff is presenting the non - structural things it can do, because ultimately, it might save the County and the developer some money. They aren't measurable results, but Kurt Baumgarten observes and sees all the developments. Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated he is in the trenches nearly every day. He works with folks in the field and also does long range planning. He often uses technical handouts such as development standards, drawings, and a homebuilding series that details the low impact practices. He uses these with folks daily. One strategy is to go through the materials and use them as efficiently as possible. Look at the audience they are reaching. Staff resources would coordinate between Planning and Building Services. He wants to make sure folks are getting the right information. They have materials that seem to work well. It's always good to make sure they are serving the public as well as they can. The materials include technical drawings and information on best management practices. He works with people on their site designs. Future activities include workshops for clearing and grading operators. Realtors are another target audience. Make sure people understand the possible scenarios that could happen when developing a property. They also constantly update road crew on their practices. Another idea to help get the message across is the pre - development meetings. It is more difficult to do for a single - family residence, although he tries to do that. A watershed development team would pool staff resources to work with folks on a site -by -site basis. These things don't necessarily cost a developer more, but they do take staff time and a commitment of resources. There is compliance and enforcement. Compliance is working with folks to make sure they are educated and informed as they go through the process. That works with a lot of folks. It doesn't work with other people. McShane asked if they document those pre - development meetings when they happen. Baumgarten stated they could through the Tidemark system. Baumgarten continued to state that they try to avoid the enforcement scenario as much as possible. They won't see long -term behavior conversion from enforcement. The enforcement staff works when they've exhausted all the other resources. That is when fines are levied. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Nelson asked how they know if there are positive benefits. Baumgarten stated the positive benefit could be as tangible as viewing whether or not the practices, such as silt fences, are working properly. He sees things working while doing an onsite inspection. Nelson stated financing and timeframes are critical during pre - development. He asked the number of subdivisions that were done prior to this last rush. Goodwin stated there was two the previous year, and 30 during that interim. There was only two the year before. There were a lot of individual residences. Nelson stated it would not take a lot of staffing for two pre - development meetings. He questioned the typical number of homes that are approved for development per year. Goodwin stated there might be 100 homes per year. Baumgarten stated building is very active in Sudden Valley right now. Nelson asked if Sudden Valley has stringent stormwater standards and other things they put into place. Baumgarten stated Sudden Valley doesn't have an adequate amount of staff to follow up on their standards. He is in Sudden Valley weekly. Nelson questioned whether it would be difficult to work with Sudden Valley. They already have requirements for their community. Baumgarten stated there are County staff constraints. Nelson stated the County wouldn't have to work with each individual house, because the regulations would be required through their covenants. Baumgarten stated he would still need to follow up with folks. People may think they understand as well as they need to. However, it's a different reality when he goes onsite. Nelson stated that if the County doesn't tell them about it, staff would have to go out there. It would be better to have something that tells builders about what they actually have to do, and then the builders agree to do that before they go in for financing. If the builders aren't told about it until after they have financing arranged, the builders would be reluctant to put the practices into place. Baumgarten stated the expectations upon a builder now are clear. It is just about the follow- through, and being able to work with them to the very end. Nelson questioned whether there are requirements that the builders understand and the planners already know about. Baumgarten stated there are. Those things do exist. What he's put forward is based on experience of the department. There are areas that need enhancing and to be cleaned up. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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. Nelson questioned what those areas are. Baumgarten stated they are on the list. Nelson questioned what Baumgarten does. He questioned why pre - development meetings help if the builder already knows everything. Baumgarten stated they happen now when staff is available. They are not required. The paper information is there and is handed to them. Whether or not they read it and follow it is another question. McShane stated a good example is the silt fence, which is required in the code. One is supposed to put a silt fence in to stop erosion and not have any sediment runoff. Nelson stated he is not talking about that. He's talking about damage to the watershed after development occurs. He questioned whether the silt fences stay up forever, after development occurs. Baumgarten stated the silt fences are supposed to stay until the ground is stabilized through vegetation landscaping. Nelson asked if what they are discussing is what the County does after that. Pre - development for a subdivision includes landscaping, parking, road access, and all the future impacts of that development. Baumgarten stated temporary erosion control measures are also included. Nelson asked why they can't use a pre - development process to help people prepare their site for stormwater runoff, pollutant loading, and landscaping. That is not being done now. Baumgarten stated it is not being done on a holistic level. There would be an intent for that to happen. Some of the educational materials will get at the longer -term issues for living in the watershed. Nelson asked if the County could work with Sudden Valley to develop stronger covenants, since it is one of the major places where single - family development is occurring. Baumgarten stated that is very possible, as long as there is adequate follow -up to make sure people follow through. Crawford stated he understood in the situation of the Neal Robertson house that the expectations were not set up from the beginning. He asked what occurred in that instance. The builder has no problem when he knows what he has to do going into the process, but it is hard to layer fix upon fix that is not anticipated. They need to create some level of predictability for the homebuilder. Baumgarten stated it is very indicative of a lot of the issues out there. With that site, it was ongoing when he began his job, so he doesn't know what information Mr. Robertson had been given. That site has a lot of water in the form of a stream running through the site. A pre - development meeting would have identified that situation, and he would have said that the builder needs to manage that first. Mr. Robertson is difficult to get in touch with. He suggested several times meeting on site with Mr. Robertson, but he could never get through. The expectations were clear, but it was difficult to get that across to him. Mr. Robertson was sent a letter specifically Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, 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 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. requesting an onsite meeting and outlining the expectations. There were also numerous corrections notices left that specifically detailed what happened. Whether or not Mr. Robertson got those notices depended upon his contractors onsite. That's where the communication issue comes in. Crawford stated he's addressing the concern that first hay bales were prescribed. When that didn't work, a trench was prescribed. When that didn't work, riprap was prescribed. When the rock was put in, it was the wrong kind of rock. He questioned whether there was a sequence of events that allowed the builder to feel like there was not much predictability. Baumgarten stated the details of the trench were described from the beginning. He was assured that it would be taken care of, but it wasn't taken care of adequately. The expectations were clear from the start. Often, when it comes to matters of finances, people will of course try to do as little as possible, or what is affordable. Not everyone has a stream running through his or her property, as Mr. Robertson had. Mr. Robertson maybe wasn't ready to step up to the level that was needed. Monsen stated there are two ends to the spectrum of development review and approval. One end is that the conditions and restrictions are so clear that the County itself becomes the developer. No matter what happens, the public is responsible for the outcome. If it didn't work, they would just have to live with it or invest in a change. The other end of the spectrum is a performance standard that water quality shall not drop below some certain measurable level, and it doesn't matter how much it costs. The developer is responsible, and there is no design direction. Whatcom County has always tried to move between the two ends of the spectrum. The more difficult the situation, the more likely the expectation of the owner /developer will be that the County dictates a solution so the owner knows what the cost is and would not be responsible for the outcome. McShane stated that in Lake Whatcom they might want to do things a little different than elsewhere in the county, because the expectations are higher. Monsen agreed. Ultimately, it comes down to who is responsible for when the development measures don't work. If the County is going to assume that responsibility, he would recommend more restrictive standards. Crawford stated ultimately, the County needs to clearly say to people that they are building in the water resource protection overlay district, and they are going to have these requirements. If the people don't like the requirements, then they can go build outside of the overlay district. He questioned whether that is the case. Baumgarten stated the individuals that he deals with are as varied as the sites they are dealing with. It is difficult to prescribe a measure. It involves interaction and working on problem solving. That site in particular was a very difficult site. It maybe could have been dealt with more effectively earlier in the process, and Mr. Robertson is an extremely difficult man to contact. Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 16 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. Roll stated non - structural BMP's can be measured. They have to approach it differently. Some of them are measured in widgets, and some are measured in behavioral changes. The next item is related to how they approach educational outreach in the community, in the context of the relative pollutants, the priority pollutants, and how to develop the strategies. This is the strategy they use. It isn't about creating a brochure and handing it out to a bunch of people. There is a very well thought out process when they go out to do these. First they identify the priority pollutants, and then determine the strategies for mitigation. Develop the educational strategies, which may include workshops, open houses, or flyers in the newspaper. It depends on the strategy. Evaluate effectiveness. All of these can be measured. Measurement may not translate into five workshops equaling a reduction of eight pounds of phosphorous in the lake. Measurement can include orders of magnitude of how effective the non - structural BMP's are. Monitoring effectiveness of the mutt mitt program was about the number of mitts that were used, where they were used, what percentage of them were used, and what they can calculate based on the percentage used and the number of fecal coliforms removed from the watershed and prevented from going into the lake. That total was in the billions or trillions. From that, they ask how to enhance the program. To enhance it, they are working with the community to identify the other areas where there is still a pet and pet waste problem. More stations will go up. They create each of the programs, identify the priority pollutant the program is associated with, create methods for measuring effectiveness, and then enhance the program. His goal is to create the programs in a way that the County is not perpetuating them. Community volunteers now propagate the mutt mitt program. When they look at stormwater, they look at the pollutants that potentially would go into Lake Whatcom. There is a multitude of them. There are priority pollutants. That is not to say that the priority pollutants will be addressed exclusively, and the others will be forgotten. It is important to know that priority pollutants can act as sentinels for the other pollutants. There is always a featured pollutant running around Lake Whatcom. It is very difficult to change strategies in mid - stride to go after a particular pollutant that becomes a media blitz. In this context, concentrate on the priority pollutants. In the process of mitigation, they will address the other pollutants. They will have the ability to deal with some pollutants structurally, and others they won't. For example, hydrocarbons can be filtered out by special BMP's. However, pesticides are difficult to remove from the water. Therefore, one of the best strategies may be good, strong educational programs tied to things to measure the amount of pollutants in the lake. Institutional programs would be in place that would coach people on applying these programs, when to use the programs, and when not to use the programs. Roy stated mercury wasn't on the priority pollutant list. Roll stated the strategies they are developing here recognize drinking water as a primary priority. In the case of mercury, the data indicates it is an issue for people who consume fish from Lake Whatcom that have bio- accumulated the mercury. This isn't a novel Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 17 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 issue. It's found throughout the United States, but that doesn't translate into 2 mercury being an immediate health threat in terms of drinking water. Now, 3 mercury is an issue for people who have consumed and bio- cumulated the mercury. 4 Mercury in the context of Lake Whatcom is a fish consumption issue. It does not 5 imply that those suggestions from the County Health and Human Services 6 Department apply to people who consume water. 7 8 Roy questioned whether these practices would have any affect on mercury. 9 Roll stated some of them would. There is no definitive source of mercury in Lake 10 Whatcom at this time. An ongoing study will be conducted shortly by the United 11 States Geological Survey (USGS) to identify any sources and give the relative 12 magnitude of all the non -point diffuse sources. Hopefully, information from the 13 USGS report will provide guidance on where they should spend dollars related to 14 mercury mitigation. At this point, data in the U.S. shows that these levels of 15 mercury are common in many regions throughout the United States. Some people 16 imply that it is likely caused by atmospheric deposition. 17 18 Roy asked when the study begins. Roll stated the Health and Human 19 Services Department is negotiating the contract now. 20 21 Stroebel stated some of the mitigation strategies are tied to priority 22 pollutants. The three big pollutants are phosphorous, bacteria from fecal coliform, 23 and sediments. 24 25 Regarding phosphorus, the biggest source comes from gardening practices, 26 landscaping practices, and construction practices. Phosphorous may be found in 27 fertilizers and naturally in the soils. If someone is disturbing and exposing soils, 28 the phosphorous can get into the tributaries and lakes. Those are two places they 29 need to target strategies to reduce phosphorous coming into the lake. 30 31 In terms of bacteria, the biggest sources are animal waste, septic systems, 32 and sanitary sewers. Regarding other pollutants, hydrocarbons that are related to 33 boating is a community issue. The community needs to understand the issues 34 regarding boating in terms of protecting the drinking water supply. 35 36 Educational activities include the watershed living kit. It will be available 37 soon. It focuses primarily on gardening and landscaping practices. It will provide 38 information on gardening and landscaping alternatives to reduce impacts on water 39 quality. However, a brochure on gardening practices will not always be the way to 40 get the information out to the community. They can count the number of people 41 who receive the information, and see who is retaining the information. However, 42 they need to give people an opportunity for hands -on experience. Last year, they 43 held the first series of spring workshops that focus on the topics that are covered in 44 the watershed living kit. They had a good turnout, and found that people are 45 retaining a lot of this information and sharing the information with other community 46 members. 47 Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 18 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. Another example of an educational strategy is to work with other programs, such as those through the Health and Human Services Department and the Planning and Development Services Department. They are evaluating the programs to make sure they are getting the optimal use out of the programs. Regarding short -term and long -term monitoring of effectiveness, it is difficult to imagine how they would measure the success of the nonstructural BMP's. They've found that it is helpful to look at the various levels of effectiveness, such as short -term effectiveness that includes how many people receive the information, learn the information, and change their practices. The long -term measure of effectiveness is the reduction in pollutants. Nelson asked if these short -term goals could be done in a way that they could actually allow people to live in the watershed. Stroebel stated they could. There are things people can do. There will be a balance of activities that people can do in the watershed, and what they have to do differently to reduce their impacts. They know that, even if they take a step into the watershed, they have a good chance of having some sort of an affect. There are things to do to walk lightly in the watershed. They ultimately want people to understand the tools that people can use to reduce impacts. They all need to make changes. When they add all the changes together, there is a large impact. Roll stated a cultural change is needed to do what they have to do out there. The cultural change is gauged by how much the people who live in the watershed are willing to share ownership of being part of the problem. Development is a piece of the problem, as is the impacts from development that includes increased population and increased business that locate where there is new development. There are many contributors. He's seen people begin to understand that the fact that living there brings in a host of potential contributors to pollution. He hopes to tailor the programs so people understand their impacts. Stroebel stated there will always be a threshold above which it doesn't make sense to allow more development or a specific activity. They are trying to find that balance and find ways for people to have less of an impact when they are doing something in the watershed. The impacts don't come just from the people who live in the watershed. The community as a whole needs to take responsibility. Driving through the watershed has an impact. Don't put all the emphasis on development. Also look at the ways people recreate in the watershed. Roll stated next week he will try to take the discussion to the next level when they discuss the pollutants and the strategies to deal with the priority contributors in those areas. That's when you get into the conversation of how much time and energy they want to spend on retrofitting, structural stuff, and other strategies. They will also discuss the relationship of one having to occur for allowing another Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 19 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 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. one to occur. That is what the Council can expect at the next session. They are going to begin applying the structural and non - structural BMP's to the drainages. Nelson stated that as they go through this process, keep in mind that they have a limited timeframe. The Council needs to evaluate the overall tasks without the departments being dependent upon the Council for direction and priorities. Each department that is going to be involved should select its course of actions, and give the Council the ability to evaluate that. OTHER BUSINESS Roy stated there are three openings on the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC). She recalled that previously, one person suggested that they change the makeup of the committee to include one more citizen. She asked if it would be appropriate for this committee to look at that issue again in the future. McShane stated he would schedule it on the next Natural Resources Committee agenda. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 20