Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources January 22 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 48 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 January 22, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Dan McShane Sharon Roy WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065) 1. RIVER AND FLOOD Update on Canyon Creek Alluvial Fan Acquisition and Relocation Project Paula Cooper, Engineering Manager - River /Flood, stated she put in an application on October 31, 2001 for the first round of the Hazard Mitigation Grant, which is the pot of money that becomes available after a presidential disaster. The Nisqually Earthquake triggered about $20 million worth of funding through that program. The money comes from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but is distributed through the State's Emergency Management Division. She worked with the Council and the community to develop a $2 million project. The primary buyout area included all the properties that had structures on them. Fleetwood asked what an alluvial fan is. Cooper stated an alluvial fan is a physical feature. When a creek comes out of a mountainous area, it has high energy and can pick up a lot of large debris. Canyon Creek has a landslide in the upper watershed that sends a continuous supply of that debris as the landslide moves. The stream comes out of the higher environment, takes a 90- degree bend, and hits a valley. The slope flattens out, and the stream drops the load. The stream flip -flops all over its fan. The Glacier Springs subdivision is on that active part of the alluvial fan. Roy asked the relationship between an alluvial fan and groundwater. Cooper stated there is not really any relationship. Alluvial fan activity is a debris -laden flood that is unpredictable and catastrophic when it occurs. The key thing is the unpredictability. They can't do the typical flood modeling to come up with which areas can be wiped out. There is not much they can do to stop it once it starts. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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. She tried to put together a map that depicts the highest -risk areas, based on past activity and physical evidence that they can see in the ground. In the first project application, they applied to buy nine houses in the primary and secondary buyout areas, and The Logs Resort. When FEMA put together its hazard mitigation funding strategy for this disaster, it divided the $20 million in two pots. She applied for the first pot of money, but it didn't qualify. FEMA is getting ready to release the second pot of money, and have told the County how to improve its application and qualify. She reproduced the cost - benefit numbers from their model. Whatcom County will have $1.1 million in benefits. A $1 million will meet that cost ratio. FEMA staff will verify the numbers before the County submits its application for next round. To scale the project down to the $1 million mark, there are a couple of things to do. When she put the project together before, there was a lot of community concern regarding developed lots. Therefore, she put together two projects. One project is the Salmon Recovery Fund (SRF) Board application that the Land Trust took the lead on. That project is for the undeveloped lots. FEMA is only interested in developed lots. The Whatcom Land Trust put together a SRF Board application for the undeveloped lots and the land under The Logs Resort. The Council supported funding a match for the Land Trust project if the County doesn't get the Hazard Mitigation Grant from FEMA. To repackage the project to stay within $1 million, she revised the primary buyout area to target four highest -risk houses. The Logs Resort is the highest risk out there today. They need to agree on repackaging the application to buy four houses and the structures associated with The Logs. The project includes demolishing the structures and restoration to natural environment. If the SRF Board grant is not successful, they will have to use 100 percent County funds for the land portion of The Logs. The structures are included in the grant cost. Then they would have a 12.5 percent match for Hazard Mitigation Grant program. Nelson stated the federal government is strictly interested in structural applications. The land issue is something the County would address. Cooper stated FEMA would not have a problem buying the land associated with the small lots. Nelson questioned whether the County or the Land Trust would buy The Logs outright. Cooper stated the Land Trust would purchase the land portion, and the County would pay for the structure portion. Nelson stated a unique area and access point for the north fork of the Nooksack River. The area could become a key area for recreational use. There are very few access points now that are large enough for public use. He questioned whether that has been taken into consideration. Cooper stated they talked about community uses with the Land Trust. The community has concerns about it becoming a County park or having camping activities. They prefer low impact access. The Land Trust is interested because it is a chinook spawning stream. The County would have to work with the community and the Land Trust. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated the community doesn't oppose public use of The Logs property. The community does have a problem with public use of the land inside the development. Nelson stated he was just talking about the larger portion. Cooper stated public use is acceptable as long as it doesn't interfere with the salmon. The Land Trust promotes public access. Crawford stated the Council recently said no to The Logs building new cabins. The Logs is giving mixed message. He asked whether The Logs owners are in favor of the buyout. Cooper stated the owners are willing to entertain a good enough price, based on fair market value. They wrote a letter saying that they are interested in the project. Fleetwood asked the precise location of The Logs. Nelson stated it is past Kendall, and before Glacier. Fleetwood asked what the previous proposal was. Cooper stated she reduced the secondary area to include two extra houses. The County can't justify spending that much money. She is trying to scale back the projects. FEMA determines whether a project meets a cost benefit formula that is based on how much the repair from damage would cost over a certain period of time. There is a model that FEMA uses. The formula comes up with the amount of benefit by avoiding flood damage. This area comes out to $1.1 million. Fleetwood asked if it is a one -time chunk of money. Cooper stated it is a one -time project at Canyon Creek. She would like to hire an alluvial fan expert from British Columbia to reassess the hazards at this area. There is a lot of concern about whether or not the County should be permitting more development out there. By opening up this area, they will have an overflow corridor. If the dike should fail, which there is reason to believe could happen, the water would have a safe path without wiping out more homes. Fleetwood asked if the primary object is to save lives and property or salmon. Cooper stated the object of the hazard mitigation grant is to save lives and property. It also works well for salmon. The value of land includes a value for salmon in the equation so they can justify the hazard mitigation part of the project. Nelson asked if part of the FEMA agreement is that the County will not support the dike any longer. Cooper stated it is. Nelson stated the reality is that the dike is the only thing that protects the rest of the remaining buyout areas. Cooper stated it provides some protection. The analysis by the consultant said that if the event that caused them to build the dike in the first place happened again, the dike would fail. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 questioned whether the county would face concerns from the citizens about putting the dike in again if a major event took out the secondary area. Cooper stated that is likely. Nelson asked if the County has to maintain the dike. Cooper stated County doesn't have any responsibility to maintain the dike. Nelson stated the County has a responsibility to the property owners to protect their homes and sites because they are improved lots. Cooper stated County doesn't have that responsibility. Nelson stated the homes would eventually be wiped out. He asked the State's response. Cooper stated the State has done a corridor analysis that recommended relocating the highway to go across the apex of the fan. The State recognizes this is a long -term problem. Fleetwood asked what a major event is. Cooper stated the 1989 event and 1990 event were large events that caused homes to (inaudible). The 1995 event was a major event, but not an extreme event. It did cause some problems that exposed the toe of alluvial fan. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the reason they are talking about this is because of the earthquake. There was enough damage to move towards a federal declaration. Declaration of that type releases money for repair and assistance, and also for mitigation. Because of the event that occurred, there is money to do these types of programs, although it's not related. The federal declaration was big enough to involve more than a small area. The State highway falls in the same category. While, there may be reasons to deal with the risk to the highway, the reality of the financing is that it is better off to wash out. They could not literally go and finance a highway protective project. If it were to go out, there will be federal assistance. Crawford stated the Council of Governments (COG) had a presentation from the State Department of Transportation (DOT) on the 20 -year State transportation plan. A category of road is rated both objectively and subjectively. It is called a highway or road of statewide significance. Now, the Mt. Baker Highway is not listed in that category. Part of reason for the DOT to come to the COG was to get input. The COG is writing a letter asking that the Mt. Baker Highway, up to some point, be listed as a highway of statewide significance. That listing will be important when transportation planners look at how to invest in roads. He is not sure if this section will be included. He asked if the flow of Canyon Creek moves around. Cooper stated it does. Crawford asked about the piece of land to the north of The Logs. Cooper stated it is undeveloped land that is included in the SRF Board application. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 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. Crawford asked what the Council is being asked for. Cooper stated she is asking if the Council supports resubmitting the application for just these four houses and the structures associated with The Logs Resort. If the Land Trust doesn't get the SRF Board grant, the County would purchase the land underneath The Logs Resort with 100 percent of County funds and provide the 12.5 percent match, which totals approximately $500,000 altogether. Crawford moved to resubmit the application with the four houses and The Logs structures per the Public Works Department request. Brenner asked the chances of (inaudible). She also asked why The Logs filed the appeal. Cooper stated it might be because there is a potential for growth. Brenner stated The Logs owners said they were willing to work with the Council. It seems like a waste of tax money when the County has to go through appeals. She is not comfortable buying their property if they are not willing to work with the County. It is not fair. She doesn't want them to up the ante while the County is trying to work with them. Get them to agree that they won't do any appeals while working through this process, or else she won't support the motion. She asked how good the chances are of the Land Trust getting the grant. Cooper stated the project number six out of 20 projects on the list. She had been told that there might be more money available this year than last year. Roll stated the Land Trust has a pretty good shot at getting the grant. Brenner asked for a friendly amendment that this is based on a negotiated agreement with The Logs owners that they won't continue with legal actions. That isn't right. Fleetwood stated it is not outside the realm of what is reasonable, but he needs more information, such as the property owners' inclinations. Cooper stated the owners hoped to expand the land to add more cabins when they bought the property. They are not making any money now, according to the owners. They need more cabins to make it profitable. Fleetwood asked if Councilmember Brenner's concern is that The Logs owners will ask for more money. Brenner stated the owners did that the last time the County worked on this. The owners suddenly came up with this appeal thing. It looks suspicious to her. This isn't some kind of a bidding war here. The owners should do what's fair. Cooper stated the amount the County will offer will be based on an appraisal of fair market value. Brenner stated the appraisal would be different if they got the extra lots. She talked to the owner. They want to have this business. They also talked about Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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. a rezone to allow the owners to expand in another area. Cooper stated the owners have been looking for other land with the same kind of amenities. Brenner suggested a rezone of a small amount of commercial property. Nelson stated there is only a certain dollar amount that the County will offer. If County the rezones, then the owners would have a hammer to ask for more value. Brenner stated the owners didn't get approval for more cabins like they asked for. She is talking about working with them, if necessary, for a rezone closer to Maple Falls. Nelson stated the Council should focus on what they are going to do to authorize the buyout. Brenner stated it behooves the Council to add the caveat that they are all working together in good faith, and that any legal actions brought forward will change the negotiations. Nelson stated there are no negotiations at this point. Crawford questioned whether the history is that the County has been working to figure out a buyout program and acknowledges that The Logs is in a geographically bad situation. The Logs owners applied for permits to build new cabins last year. The Planning Department turned down the permit application. The Logs appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner approved the application against the recommendation of the Planning Department. The Planning Department appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the full Council. The full Council upheld the Planning Department and said the owners can't build the cabins. Councilmember Brenner is concerned that the folks want to have a permit to expand their facility, while saying at the same time that they want the Council to buy out their property. Cooper stated that is their plan A and plan B. Ideally, they would like the place to be safe and stay there. When they purchased the property, the owners thought they could build on it. Crawford stated he doesn't fault the owners for taking what he considers the natural course of keeping their options open for preserving the value of their land. He didn't accept the friendly amendment, and restated the motion to include the four structures and The Logs structures as part of the application. Don't require The Logs owners to close off the option of this permit application. If the owners want to spend the time and effort to do that, that is their option. Roy asked if the County could restrict someone's right to due process. Brenner stated the County can make that request. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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 stated she doesn't feel comfortable with it. Brenner stated the County represents the public at- large, not an individual property owner. The County has operated in good faith with The Logs owners. The County has only a limited pot of money. If the County is willing to buy them out, and they can put the same business somewhere else to make their money, then the owners should not get to make more of a profit because the County leaves it open - ended. The County is going to pay for the building. She is willing to pay the owners what they paid for the property, but not a potential profit. The County should not spend a lot of money in legal fees if the owners appeal the application decision. She doesn't want the owners to lose money, but she doesn't want them to make a profit off the taxpayers. She asked if the appraisal would be affected if the owners went to court and won. Nelson stated the appraisal would not be affected until the owners built something. Then the owners would have a different assessment. Cooper stated that the County could say it doesn't have enough money to buy and the deal's off. Brenner stated that is fine with her. Motion carried unanimously. Update on Sandy Point Coastal Floodplain Mapping Project Cooper stated this is a project for one of four maps. In June 2000, they started a coastal mapping study. Sandy Point was the first geographic area they focused on. The main reason is that when the County regulates for the National Flood Insurance Program, they have to tell people how to build so their structures will be safe. The County had bad information for the Sandy Point area and other coastal areas that was based on outdated and minimal information. It was a leap of faith when the County had to come up with conditions for people to build to. They hired a consultant out of Oregon who adapted East Coast methodology for the West Coast. There was a flood event during the study, and they were able to see where the logs ended up. They got a lot of great calibration from that flood. There was another flood a year later. The draft maps were checked to make sure the areas that they saw damaged showed up on the maps. The velocity zone is the highest risk area in the National Flood Insurance Program. They saw that happen in the flood event. Other areas include zones where houses have to be built up and above a certain elevation. Another zone requires homes to be built to a certain depth. The flood events were ten to 25 year flood events. These regulations are supposed to be for a 100 -year event. To property owners who do a substantial improvement, which means increasing the home's value by 50 percent or greater, the owner will be subject to the Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. requirements that go along with these zone designations. The biggest is the velocity zone, because the owners have to build the structure on column supports so there is an open area under the structure where waves can dissipate the energy. Crawford stated it looks like every structure is in the velocity zone. Cooper stated the section she gave them does include every structure. As they go up the beach, the zones change. There are areas that are safe and back further. One person is looking at moving her house back. Brenner asked if the liability is the County's and who has to pay. Cooper stated the County paid for the mapping study. It is up to the owner to move the house. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County takes the position that it does not have liability. However, people don't have to establish liability before they sue. Cooper stated there is no way that there is liability for the County. Gibson stated the County is compelled to use the new and better information. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, asked the value of the study. Cooper stated the study cost about $130,000. They are also going to Birch Bay and Point Roberts next. Fleetwood asked if the area in the velocity zone is calculated for a 10- to 20- year event. Cooper stated it is for a 100 -year event. McShane asked if there was any discussion about work that could be done on the beach to alleviate the massive wall of bulkheads, which causes the high - breaking waves. Cooper stated not at this point. It would be logical for the next phase of the study to look at management options. The beach is getting narrower, making the events worse. Brenner asked if they've already developed new building codes for this. Cooper stated they have. Hart asked if they are coordinating with the Lummi Nation. Cooper stated they are aware of the study. She will share the maps with them. Brenner asked if Lummi Tribal members own any of these properties. Cooper stated that probably a few of the members own them. Hart stated it is a checkerboard of ownership. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. Gibson stated a Lummi Tribal member who owns fee land may be subject to County jurisdiction and also Lummi tribal jurisdiction. Nelson asked about the effect of heavy snow pack on flooding events. Cooper stated that a heavy snow pack is good, because it acts as a sponge. There was a flood event that got 1.8 feet above the flood stage. They mobilized the forces in the middle of the night. Crews looked at the dikes and reported back to staff. There was a few portions in which they were aware of over - topping. They chose not to fight it, because there was not a lot of risk. There were two levee breaks on main stem of the Nooksack River and one on another creek. The Corps came up and helped fix one of them. Prieve stated the County spent about $3,800 on staff and $4,000 on equipment rental. Brenner stated she recently noted massive amounts of the colored stuff that comes from petroleum products near the location of a new gas station south of the river. Nelson asked for updates on flood events as they go into the spring. Cooper stated all the staff in the River and Flood Division has been hired within the last three years, and there hasn't been a major event. The recent flood enabled the flood staff to get a feel for flood response. Preparedness training is conceptual until they put it to use. They have identified areas for improvement. Crawford asked how flood response managed physically. Cooper stated Neil Clement is in the emergency operations center (EOC) with staff from the Public Works Department. She and others are at the central shop with the crew. The road engineers and inspectors go out in the field as sector observers who report back on what they are seeing and how things are changing. Caskey- Schreiber stated Sherm Polinder says the river is flowing faster this year because of the bridge and levee in Everson. She asked what to say to him. Cooper stated Sherm Polinder has been very involved. They will look at a model with and without the bridges for evaluation. These guys on the lower part of the river will say that the river was a foot higher in 1995 than in 1990. They were very similar at their peak. The only difference is there is the bridge and the dike. It is a combination of things. At this point, they don't know what is causing what he's seeing. Refer Mr. Polinder to her. Brenner asked when the modeling would be done. Cooper stated the Deming gauge is an enigma. The modeler puts in what the United States Geological Survey (USGS) thinks is the best rating during the 1990 flood. They are trying to reproduce Ferndale. They are finding that there is so much scour of the bed, they have to vary the factor during the storm event. The USGS feels that the 1990 event changed the Deming gauge reading in a big way. They have 30 high water marks and really good information on the timing. They will try to calibrate to a more recent event. It may be that these are the things that are hard to pin down. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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. The Canadian funding runs out in July. They are trying to resolve the Everson /Sumas overflow and Deming gauge enigma by July. 2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT Draft Phase III Scopes of Work Roll stated there are three items to talk about. This is the large watershed planning initiative in the county. It's represented by three drainages including Drayton Harbor, the Nooksack Basin, and Lake Whatcom. The three drainages are collectively called the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1. Today they are gathering relevant technical information and creation of the framework for the decision - support system (DSS) to incorporate models and data. They will be able to run "what if' scenarios tied to water quantity, water quality, instream flows, and fish habitat. The next phase of the technical study is phase III. The Council received a preliminary draft of the scope of work, and staff has received comments last week. The comments went back to Utah State University (USU). The Council will see another draft of the technical phase III of the technical studies. He will come to the Council when they get a scope they are comfortable with, and will look for guidance as he goes to the Planning Unit. The second piece has to do with crafting the plan. They are on target for 2003. He submitted the first version of the watershed plan (on file). He will seek consulting services for the purpose of writing the actual plan, performing work on development of management options, and the environmental impact statement as the plan is written. They have a draft scope of work. The Joint Board sent out a request for proposals (RFP) for doing this work. A top candidate was chosen. They are negotiating with Parametrix for a contract to do this work. This plan will be further refined in the next few weeks. There is a special workshop happening on January 30 and 31. Parametrix people will meet with USU people to map out timelines for the plan creation, the environmental impact statement (EIS), and the scientific information. Fleetwood asked if the terms "task" and "phase" are used interchangeably. Roll stated they are not. Legislation referred to three phases that each Planning Unit would go through while developing a plan. In terms of how they are doing the technical studies, they do that in phases also. Now they are in the third phase of the technical studies, which will complete the USU work for this stage of the project. They need to link the scientific information with how they use the information. A memo refers to the Council request to review and comment. There will be at least one more draft of this. He is looking at a convergence of this work and the USU work in early to mid - February. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. Hart stated the work that they're looking at and that will be developed will be very significant in land use issues down the road, and will have an impact on the County's Comprehensive Plan in about two years. Roll stated much of the project for the DSS will be available by year's end. This is the first version of the plan. One chapter will be about the adaptive management process to refine things and make them more defined in certain areas. They can expect a lot of data in particular areas to hone in on certain areas. They will be able to make pretty good judgements. This first version won't answer everyone's questions. Adaptive management will set the course for when other questions will be answered. With that will come more data that will be collected in the future, and a focus on particular drainages and areas where they have to do some tough decision - making. By and large, there should be some pretty good land use related modeling for water quality and instream flow. They will have guidance on proactive plans for land use and what that means for water quality and quantity. Brenner asked if Mr. Roll is confident that they are balancing how to achieve the goals with the collection of data. She questioned whether they are making sure that they have enough of a philosophy of where they are heading, and the data is going along with it. Roll stated the scope of work for the Planning Unit set the framework for what questions the collective body wanted answered. They also went through the DSS exercise sheets that circulated the various questions. To help refine that scope, all the caucuses created the DSS worksheets that clarified what people want out of it. They are now seeing the emergence of the scope of work. The data collection process identified places were there is a lot of data and places where there is not a lot of data. Over the next month, they will understand all the DSS questions, which body of these can be answered in the first version, and which will be answered in the future. The struggle is to get people to understand that not all questions will be answered at first. They will answer the big questions. A summary of all the DSS questions identified where there is overlap and where there are exclusive interests coming into the process. They haven't tightened it up as much as they need to yet. They will need more help through the establishment of the actual plan and plan development. They will need to triage the management options through Parametrix and USU to make sure having the science to support the management options. Nelson stated USU is assessing the information that was gathered. Roll stated USU is also gathering data. Nelson questioned whether USU will continue to gather data, and if they are preparing a list of facts and assumptions associated with the various management options. Roll stated that will be an outcome, but it is not done now. Nelson asked who is working on the various criteria and problems. Roll stated the Management Solutions Committee is working on the criteria. It has draft criteria for evaluating the management options. A group is specifically taking that on. It is not associated with USU. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 Nelson asked who will take the materials from USU, and if the summit is to 2 evaluate the facts and assumptions of USU regarding the criteria that have been 3 identified. Roll stated he hoped to make progress there, but it is not all done. The 4 key at first is to make sure the USU technical pieces mesh with answering all the 5 management questions and the things that need to be addressed for plan 6 development to make sure timelines are met and products come together. 7 8 Nelson stated his concern is that they do not put the horse before the cart. 9 Have specific criteria, realizing that there may be many different facts and findings. 10 They should be able to disseminate what is important and what is not at this time. 11 Roll stated he agreed. The amount of data needed for a decision depends on how 12 big the decision is. At first they characterized all the watersheds and basins. As 13 they drill down, there will be models and data sets to deal with that. They will have 14 some where people look at strategic planning, and there may not be much. When 15 they talk about particular land use changes, they will need a level of detail so they 16 feel comfortable. 17 18 Nelson asked if they identified the amount of detail they can work with to 19 have a workable course of action. He questioned whether they are looking at the 20 essential criteria they need to be on a course of action, or are they going to put in 21 just any criteria. Roll stated the solutions have brought forward criteria that have 22 been worked out through the Planning Unit. Now, they are going to have to narrow 23 the criteria down more. Criteria have been given to USU and Parametrix to deal 24 with management options. 25 26 Roll stated the next discussion is about the financial situation. He submitted 27 a schematic that describes the situation. The Water Resources Division's half of the 28 flood fee supports expenditures. As they move into this project last year, they 29 found that their ability to do work depended on their ability to have revenue to do 30 work. The fund balance has been eliminated over the last year, so they needed to 31 restructure the projects to spend at a rate to make sure there is enough revenue 32 coming in to cover costs. That is when the additional year was tacked on, to June 33 2003. The original target was June 2002. 34 35 They are on target with approximate expenditures that fall within the range 36 that they identified. That means that they may have some more than they 37 anticipated for some elements, but other elements may not be as costly. One 38 example is stream gauging. They were able to get stream gauging going through 39 the Centennial Clean Water fund, so the expenditures aren't as high. 40 41 In the fourth quarter of 2002, they will run into a deficit. He brought this to 42 the Council's attention last year, with guidance from the Council to consider a loan 43 from the Flood fund to make up the shortfall. Right now, the deficit will be about 44 $500,000. He anticipates that it will happen at the end of this year. 45 46 Crawford questioned the amount that 50 percent of the flood fee is bringing 47 in. Roll stated it brings in 1.8 million to 1.9 million. The reserve for the Water Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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. Resources fund is almost spent. The 1.8 million includes money for other pieces of the Water Resources programs, such as Lake Whatcom. Brenner asked if they will end up setting up a Lake Whatcom stormwater district somehow because of the moratorium, and whether some of the information would overlap with Lake Whatcom. The results that they find in some areas will benefit other areas. Roll stated that is a clear example of how the WRIA map goes to work on the ground in Lake Whatcom. He would address that question soon. McShane asked if the deficit is based on the assumption that the flood fee will not be renewed. Monsen stated the graph reflects the amount of money that they will likely fall short. They had concurrence from the Council to transfer up to $500,000 from the flood fee balance towards the project. They are still working on the assumption that they will have to take reserves out of the flood fund balance to fund this project, up to $500,000. The money is in the reserves. Roy asked what other kinds of programs are funded under the flood fee. Nelson stated all these presentations are funded from the flood fund. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council approved taking the money out of the reserves. Monsen stated the direction was to use up to $500,000 from the reserves, but they have to pay it back. Until they finalize the phase III scope and some of the other flood control program matters, it will be dangerous to give a better projection. Crawford stated it all comes out of the same pot. McShane asked the amount of the flood balance now. Monsen stated there is between $9 million and $10 million. A total of $5 million is set aside for an emergency major event. Because of the programs they are putting in place, they are projecting $500,000 in expenditures above revenue. They have a declining fund balance. Until they sort through phase III technical studies, some of the Lake Whatcom issues, surface water issues, and utility matters, it will be difficult to provide a better projection. By summer, they should have a good balance of what the choices are for revenues. Caskey- Schreiber asked how they would pay back the loan. Monsen stated a major part of the transfer from the flood fund to the Water Resources fund is to pay for the WRIA project. That is still planned to end in 2003. Therefore, there is more that will be transferred in. Roll stated the major blip for WRIA is the timeframe for getting the first vision of the plan. These will be the largest expenditures for the next decade, to get some of this stuff going. That doesn't mean the fund will automatically go back to zero. He talked earlier about adaptive management. There is going to need to Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. be some level of expenditure, but it will not be at the same magnitude they are doing now. It is tied to such things as long -term monitoring information related to land use, water quality, and stream flow. Over the next six or eight months, they will see more information on what implementation means in terms of WRIA. Also, Sue Blake received $250,000 for creating a long term monitoring strategy for WRIA. That is a huge piece that they were able to acquire through grant monies. 3. SALMON RECOVERY Update on Salmon Recovery Fund Board Grant Package Roll stated the next round of SRF Board grant funding is at the point of listing the projects that were submitted. The County proposed two pieces of work. One was instream flow assessment for WRIA 1. That is related to collecting instream flow information. The second one had to do with drainage structure inventory and fish passage assessment. It has to do with a culvert inventory. April 11 is the presentation to the SRF Board. Brenner asked about item four, the south fork riparian project by the Land Trust. Monsen stated the Land Trust will do an acquisition project. Roll stated he would find out that information. They are beginning to see a basis of information and planning that puts them in prime position of acquiring new monies. Many of the grants that come in are a reflection of the WRIA watershed planning. They are now creating a framework, so that when people are creating the grants, they are tied in to the big picture of resource management in the county. The total amount of centennial funds received was in the millions. A large percentage was tied to work being done with the WRIA effort. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Brenner stated some of the projects seem to overlap, particularly in the south fork area. She asked for summaries of each project. Roll stated he would have Dr. Sproul provide a summary. (Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break at 11 :40 a.m.) 4. LAKE WHATCOM Lake Whatcom Moratorium Roll stated one of the first exercises when they started this was to create the map to use to make decisions and delineate the management areas. They identified the various drainages. The drainage area is the smallest area for describing land use and some of the activities that will translate into decision support functions. They will focus on drainages germane to the Lake Whatcom watershed. Early watershed characterization is the work that was used to describe what they have and what the status of things is. One example talks about the Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 14 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 different land uses in the drainages. One of the things that this moratorium and 2 work under the Joint Lake Whatcom Management Group must address is what is 3 coming into the drainage areas. Many water resource projects are divided into 4 management areas or drainage areas to develop strategies for specific areas to deal 5 with specific land use areas. One issue in Lake Whatcom is about impervious 6 surfaces. Often times the amount seems low, but it is based on the entire 7 watershed. To get a value for impervious surfaces, they need to get down to the 8 level of drainage areas. 9 10 Another important piece on the drainage level is to get information on what 11 pollutant loads are coming into the lake. Work done by the WRIA and Joint Lake 12 Whatcom Management Committee identified the need to look at the drainage area 13 and pollutant loads. They don't have information on what the actual amounts 14 coming in from the tributaries are. They need to know the flows in a tributary. 15 They have blanketed Lake Whatcom with long term gauging stations. They also 16 need to have data collection on what is coming in from the tributaries. They need 17 to track whether or not they are making progress over time. 18 19 One of the first exercises at the drainage level will determine the percentage 20 of land uses in an area. They need to predict the pollutants tied to various land 21 uses. That will lead them into the management strategies to prevent pollutants 22 from entering into Lake Whatcom. Then they will identify programs to put into 23 place to deal with pollutants from different land uses. 24 25 Brenner asked for a breakdown of information on residential uses, such as 26 gardening or septic systems, that create pollutants. Roll stated that is a tough 27 question to answer to get to that level of detail. He could do that to some extent. 28 29 The intent of this is exercise is to begin to create a work plan for each 30 drainage area. The intent is not to say that they have all the data collected and can 31 provide fantastic modeling information. That information is three or four years out. 32 This is using existing science and estimating the relative amounts of pollutants 33 being contributed by each land use. This is a tool for creating those specific 34 management strategies that they want to have in place for each drainage area. 35 How they further refine the data is coming in the months and years. 36 37 Brenner stated it would be helpful to see a general breakdown of the 38 sources. 39 40 Caskey- Schreiber questioned whether they can simulate a scenario to 41 determine the increase in costs by switching (inaudible). Roll stated this is the first 42 step. They have to get enough definition to feel they are making good progress in 43 each drainage area. When they identify the various sources and amounts, the last 44 draft gets to the issue of the types of control programs they would put into place to 45 minimize pollutant loads coming into Lake Whatcom. The issue becomes what the 46 relative amount of resources and energy are that they want to devote to each of 47 the different BMP's. 48 Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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 asked if the breakdown coincides with the percentage of contribution or ease in educating people. Roll stated it coincides with some of both. The ability to stop pollutants will be from structural BMP's and nonstructural BMP's, such as educational programs. This is the first attempt to marriage structural and nonstructural BMP's to come up with estimates of relative mitigating factors to see what it means for the big picture. They are attempting to put definition on how much they can get on non - structural BMP's. This is to put a relative order of magnitude on what they hope to acquire in terms of mitigation of pollutants related to those programs. Fleetwood asked if other communities have tried this. Roll stated some have. This is cutting edge. Most people spend their time on structural BMP's. Fleetwood asked how the approach relates, given the fact that there is now a Lake Samish moratorium. He asked if the action strategies would be related. Nelson questioned whether the strategies could be used in both areas and WRIA -wide. Roll stated he lacks even more data in Lake Samish than in Lake Whatcom. Lake Samish isn't in WRIA 1. They have not delineated those boundaries. His question is about the relationship the Council sees. To duplicate the strategies exactly would be an enormous amount of work. Now that they've gone through how they will go through the process in the coming months, he will take about what they will see in terms of control and mitigation measures to deal with the various contributors. Brenner stated they should do this as efficiently as possible. She questioned whether a part of stormwater treatment practices would be street sweeping. Roll stated it could. Some of them do overlap. Some of them are broken out this way because they have information (inaudible). Hart asked what data is missing for Lake Whatcom. Roll stated the big pieces of data they are missing regarding pollutant prevention include good flow information, but that will be in place shortly. The second pieces will be the actual pollutant levels. Fleetwood asked what the Council committed to completing during the six - month moratorium it enacted on December 11, 2001. Roll stated they are figuring that out. He hoped to have good guidance from the Council by the end of this meeting. This action strategy came forward with the first moratorium proposed by Executive Kremen. It described the actions that needed to transpire following the moratorium. What he's described to this point is what he plans to deliver in two to three months, before the moratorium is over. Nelson stated the first product was the moratorium that Executive Kremen brought forward. These are expanded over three years or longer as they continue Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 48 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. gathering data and information necessary to evaluate and bring forward good science. He and Councilmember Brenner are concerned about the extended period of the moratorium that was attached to the other document. That is where the second document came forward. It is strictly about what they know and can demonstrate as endangering Lake Whatcom water quality, specifically regarding stormwater impacts. That was to have staff develop a strategy plan. Dr. Roll is beginning to discuss how to address that strategy plan to mitigate stormwater impacts to Lake Whatcom and the various loads that come from stormwater. There are other elements to the Lake Whatcom Management Plan that don't necessarily deal with stormwater. Roll stated he would cover the nonstructural programs next month. In the context of measuring how they are doing, most of the pollutants are not derived from point sources. In that context, it is difficult to put measures and scientific protocol in place so they will always be to predict the loads from a particular non - point polluted source in the watershed. As they begin to acquire data related to pollutants coming into the lake, they begin to measure how the group does in measuring the amount of pollutant coming into the lake. Over time, they will be able to see a net reduction in those major tributaries. He hoped they can show that reduction through using this strategy over time. Crawford stated he understood that the net reduction would be shown in a six -month period. Nelson stated the mechanisms for achieving the net reduction will be developed. The objective is to establish the mechanisms. Crawford questioned whether that is realistic. Roll stated that, before he answered that question, he would like Rich Duane to give his presentation on what it means to have a best management practice (BMP). There is misunderstanding about what a BMP can and cannot do. Brenner stated the moratorium is to develop standards to create a ten percent net reduction in pollution. The Building Industry Association and administration said it was doable in six months if the County Council made it the number one priority, which it did. McShane asked how they deal with episodic events. Data gathered might not be reflective of what the stream is doing. Roll stated they have to designate orders of magnitude of those events. They are talking about situations in which there is a huge spike. The model will incorporate that spike. The events have to be part of the pie that they look at because they do contribute over the course of a year. Nelson stated it depends on the level of observation they want to go to. He asked if they could have an average of the events. It will be an assumption. The assumptions have to be based on facts. He doesn't think they can get answers to all the problems that are associated with water. There are many variables. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 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. McShane asked how they would deal with those types of episodic events. Roll stated he would look at the order of magnitude and what transpired in terms of loading. Nelson questioned whether they could have an average for the spikes, because they occur periodically. They have to have some assumptions. That's how they find solutions to problems. If there are facts, there have to be assumptions that are based on facts. Richard Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated they will talk about the effects of development, impacts on water quality, BMP's, removal rate of BMP's, how they choose BMP, and BMP's in watershed management. When they talk about land development, they are changing natural land into residential and commercial uses. There are four categories to the impacts of land development, including: • hydrology, which means more stormwater runoff, • morphology, which means streams are going to get wider and erosion is going to increase, • habitat loss, which means there will be increased algae growth, and • water quality loss Regarding water quality loss, the effects of urbanization on water quality include increased pollutant loads and temperature. Pollutants are typically put into the ground through infiltration and runoff into water bodies. Typical pollutants from industrial urban runoff include suspended solids /sediments, nutrients, metals, oil and grease, bacteria, pesticides and herbicides, and temperature. There are many other pollutants. BMP's are structural or nonstructural practices, or a combination of practices designed to minimize the impacts of development on surface water quantity and quality. There are negotiated removal efficiency rates that are not based on science. Nonstructural BMP's include zoning, land use restrictions, education, and enforcement. Structural BMP's will provide water quality and quantity protection. They will protect against flooding. Types of structural BMP's include wet ponds, bio- retention, filtering devices, erosion and sediment control practices, and grassed swales. Wet ponds are good, but they require space and operations and maintenance. They are easy to maintain, but they must be maintained to work. All the removal rates are based on maintained facilities. Roll stated the removal rates are also based on appropriate designs for what they are trying to remove. In the case of Lake Whatcom, there are many ponds that were not designed appropriately. Therefore, the percentage of reduction is less than average. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 47 48 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. Duane stated removal rates would change based on soils and type of maintenance. In the wet pond, water would be infiltrated into the ground. Some of the sediments will fall out. McShane questioned where the removal rates come from. Duane stated they come from a variety of places. Many states have determined the removal efficiency rates. There is a document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that gives standard median rates. Roll stated the National Pollutant Removal Performance Database compiles the anticipated relative amounts. Another study from last year has a good compilation of predicted percentages. They used some of that information in the context of showing the relative amounts. McShane questioned whether there are differences in removal efficiency rates because these are based on national averages, and local rainfall events are somewhat different. Roll stated these removal efficiency rates are plus or minus about 30 percent. That 30 percent will take into account the type of rainfall intensity and soil that is put out. Roll stated they would develop export coefficients for pollutants for the land uses that are specific to the Northwest. Crawford asked how the wet pond works. Duane stated water will flow into the wet pond and circulate. Pollutants will fall out. A properly designed wet pond will have the outflow as far away from the inflow as possible. Roll stated there are two things that happen. Physically, things will fall out of the water. Biologically, things will happen to reduce phosphorus and bacteria. Holding the water in the wet pond will allow biological activity needed. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Caskey- Schreiber questioned where the major outflows of Lake Whatcom are. Roll stated the major outflows for Lake Whatcom are Whatcom Creek, the former Georgia- Pacific (G -P) line, and 20 million gallons per day for the water treatment and distribution system. The 20 million gallons per day is a small amount of water in relation to the size of the lake. One of the ways to gauge the size of the lake and how it deals with pollutants is to look at the water retention time, which is the time the water is retained in the lake. Water is retained in Lake Whatcom for four or five years. That's why it's tricky to describe the role of water coming in and going out in relation to retention time. Even with the diversion of G- P shut down, they are still talking about years that the water is in the lake and things can happen. The G -P shut down is not the major thing to worry about because of the sheer quantities of water. Another variable that they have little information on is the contribution of groundwater, and its role in adding water to the lake. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, 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 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. Crawford asked for information on the quantity of outflow for drinking water versus an estimate of the capacity for Lake Whatcom to see how they size up against a classic wet pond design. Duane stated 20 minutes is a reasonable retention time for a wet pond during an event. Roll stated they are talking years for Lake Whatcom. Crawford questioned whether they are saying that the flow through is miniscule compared to the tremendous volume of Lake Whatcom, relative to an engineering situation. Duane stated Lake Whatcom is used as one part of a wet pond, in that it is a flow control device. It is not a pollution control device. According to the Department of Ecology manual, one can run stormwater from a non - polluting impervious area, such as a rooftop, directly to a water body such as Lake Whatcom. The theory is that the water going into Lake Whatcom doesn't hurt the lake, and it helps the lake because it doesn't put the water into the ground. The lake is useful for water quantity benefits, but not for water quality benefits. A bio- retention system is a hybrid between a wet pond and a dry pond. These are nice devices landscaping is put in the middle of the detention area. Water runs off the parking lot and into a grass buffer and an infiltration area. In the infiltration area, there is landscaping. The median pollutant removal of bio- retention has not been well studied. If it works correctly, everything is infiltrated into the ground, and it is difficult to get a measurement. However, infiltration is one of the best ways to control water quality. Sand filters are approved for retrofits. They are expensive. Their removal rates are poor. Generally, they are not well maintained. Sediment ponds are just like wet ponds, only they are built specifically for sediment. They are not around very much because they are not very good to look at. They are built during construction. When construction is complete, they are turned into wet ponds. A treatment train is a number of BMP strategies in a row. For example, one could have a grass swale and then a wet pond. Some of the best BMP's are treatment trains. The best treatment trains have sediment ponds at the beginning of them. That way, they protect the other BMP's. The sediment is trapped, and the other treatment facilities are allowed to do their work. Nelson asked if they are cheaper to maintain, so it makes sense to put in a sediment pond first in a treatment train to protect the higher maintenance expense of the other methods. Duane agreed. It takes two guys with a shovel to maintain a sediment pond. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 20 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. Brenner questioned whether a sediment pond has a short life. It seems like it will get full quickly. Duane stated the life of any treatment BMP is dependent on the maintenance that is done. Hart stated one problem with the sediment pond is that the sediments could be hazardous. Roll stated this doesn't function as biological treatment as much as the other treatment options. This is mostly physical. Duane stated there is an underlying assumption that there isn't hazardous waste coming off residential building sites. There may be a problem with an industrial site. One might want to take precautions when removing the material. Brenner questioned whether there are legal restrictions to how the material is removed. Duane stated that an industrial facility would be under a DOE permit, which probably has some retention requirements. Swales are his favored measure because most engineers build them by accident. They are easy, cheap, and they have excellent pollutant removal rates. Swales do have a problem with bacteria. One reason is because they are usually next to sidewalks, where people walk their dogs. That could be one reason for increased bacteria levels. Caskey- Schreiber asked how they keep swales from turning into wet ponds during periods of rainfall. Duane stated they generally don't see dry swales in Whatcom County. They are located high above the water table and are maintained. They have to be dug out every five to seven years. Brenner questioned whether swales are supposed to lead into a secondary system, such as a pond or sewer system. Duane stated swales generally do lead into a secondary system, because they are cheaper to build and they do provide a good benefit. A swale could be the only treatment method if it is long enough and slows the water. A ditch block is installed to slow the velocity of the water. Sediment can collect behind the ditch block, and maintenance may have to be more frequent than every five years. Effectiveness of removal efficiency rates are dictated by maintenance. Dry ponds have good removal rates, but they are more difficult to build. Brenner stated they don't look effective. Duane stated a large storm event could stir up sediments that are not settled into the ground, and can wash out. Another type of structure is the baffle box. It is good in areas that are already developed. It is a sediment trap that can be any size needed. They are generally used where development has already occurred. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 21 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. Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated baffle boxes are expensive and very high maintenance. Fleetwood asked how it works. Duane stated it is placed underground. Water from a parking lot runs into the catch basin, swirls around, and sediment is captured. There are different baffle boxes that are designed to do different things. Nelson stated the message is that a combination of methods is the best thing to do. Duane stated a treatment train, a number of BMP's to do a number of things, is always the best approach. Hart stated a planner would say that the best approach is to not destroy the critical area. Roll stated this is a portion of the options. It is not all there is. They still have to discuss the non - structural BMP's next. Duane stated they choose the BMP's by knowing what kind of pollutants they are trying to capture, the amount of space available for the BMP, the maintenance requirements of the BMP, and also the amount of money budgeted for the BMP. Now they adopt interim standards. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Engineering Division are working through interim standards for the Lake Whatcom watershed. They hope to have something in six months, but he can't guarantee it. They collect baseline data. They need to know what 100 percent of the pollutants going in are. Watershed management is global. They have to talk about the entire watershed, not just individual sites. Brenner asked how they know what 100 percent is. Duane stated there have been studies in other parts of the country on different types of planning use and different types of pollutants. Brenner questioned whether the studies are based on other parts of the country that have the same amount of rainfall as there is locally. Roll stated the efficiencies could vary as much as 30 percent in terms of the rainfall. It is difficult to determine what specific pollutants to target. All pollutants have unique BMP's associated with them. Caskey- Schreiber asked how to address the pollution from the existing road around Lake Whatcom. Duane stated they could do some things to existing structures, such as sediment traps and swales. Many times, there isn't something to do. They address the areas they can. Roy asked if they plan to get that specific in the data collection. Roll stated they have to have the export coefficient for roadways. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 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 asked if they can't do stormwater retrofitting for some roads. Some roads don't have much room between it and the lake. Duane stated they would do what they can with the available space and technology. Mills stated they can't do a lot in some locations on Lake Whatcom Boulevard. They may have to over - retrofit in other areas so the net result is the same. Brenner asked if an alternative is drainage under the road. Mills stated the Lake Whatcom Boulevard is built on top of rock. Monsen stated that they can do something in almost any situation, but it becomes a matter of how much they want to spend and the return on the investment. Certain applications in the watershed will require a lot of money and produce almost no return. In other cases, they will have little investment of money and a big return. Duane stated that if they can't do something at a particular location, they will over - correct elsewhere in the same watershed. Another thing to do next is to build a pilot project and construct water quality facilities after they have good data on removal efficiency rates. McShane asked if Cable Street is the pilot project. Monsen stated that is what they are thinking right now. McShane asked how to pay for that. Monsen stated they are laying out choices for financial issues. McShane asked about other possible pilot project locations. Monsen stated they would identify the obvious opportunities in each sub - basin. Fleetwood asked when in the process does the Public Works Department come back to the Council. Duane stated they are working on standards every day. These specific standards will be brought forward to the Council. Monsen stated part of the challenge is dealing with the regulatory issues relating to the next subdivision and next home, placed in the context of a stormwater management program. To deal with improving water quality, they have to deal with retrofitting. Those are very difficult activities. He doesn't want to understate the work involved with the short -term regulatory matters. There are procedural matters. The big picture is dealing with water quantity and water quality beyond simply the next subdivision and their ability to insure that the water quality is improving over time, compared to only that one incident. Brenner asked if some of the standards are done administratively. Monsen stated they are trying to put it into the context of where they are placing the investment and what they are trying to achieve. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 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. Goodwin stated development standards go to the TAC. They are done administratively by the Executive. Only if the Council chooses to change them would the Council adopt them. Changes to the other ordinances would have to be done by May 7. They have to be at the Planning Commission by April 25. They are running out of time. She suggested a work session if they want to do anything to change those codes. Duane stated there are standards out there already. The DOE finished their manual in June. The City of Bellingham is already using the DOE standards in Lake Whatcom. It is not a burden on contractors and developers. Roll stated he needs to know what the Council wants to have to lift the moratorium. Brenner stated they want to have interim standards for developers to create a net reduction of pollution in the watershed to 110 percent. Roll stated an increase in good water quality translates into an improvement of where the tributary enters the lake and a reduction in the pollutants that they know are coming from the urbanized areas. That is the place to begin to measure how they are improving over time. When it becomes muddied is when they try to do that in addition to all the BMP's to determine what it means. He suggested creating clear measured benchmarks for success for each BMP so he can provide some idea of the success. Begin to acquire data and have the data available to look at how, over time, the programs are reducing enough pollutants in the lake. Hart stated the staff is going to offer the Council a set of solutions. Over time they will be able to figure out if they've reached that 110 percent. Crawford asked if they could do the set of solutions in the next couple of months. Nelson stated they won't be at 110 percent when they lift the moratorium. They will have something on the ground. The reason for the moratorium is to focus on what they don't have. Focus on what they don't have. Look at how to fix some of the current problems. Brenner stated that regarding the 110 percent, make the regulations more conservative and stricter when in doubt. Roll stated the strict version should include no deterioration of Lake Whatcom water quality, which translates into a loss of water quality (inaudible). McShane stated his concern is that they will need to make a decision on whether 110 percent is obtainable. Make that decision in the six -month period. If they don't have the money and land base to do that, then they need to think about other alternatives. Brenner stated the BIA only wants to know the standards for development. She talked to the administration, which said it is doable. Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated the standard may be no development. McShane stated he liked the idea of breaking it into separate basins. In some places it will be doable. Other places will be very constrained. Nelson stated one concern is that impacts in one area can be moved to another area. He preferred to do it basin -wide. If there is such a high standard in terms of cost and space that the developer can't develop, then it won't happen. The County is not saying that someone can't develop. They are just determining the cost to meet the needs. Duane stated the best BMP on a site will not provide 110 percent. Hart stated they have to look globally. Crawford stated his interpretation of what the Council did on September 11 was that a developer could spend some money mitigating existing development. He thought that is where they were heading all along. He didn't assume that they would clean up the lake by doing development. A developer could pay to have someone else's problem cleaned up. He questioned whether they are on track to have that proposal out there for people who want to develop in that six -month window. Hart stated they can accelerate the timeline by discussing the issue at the Natural Resources Committee. Brenner stated she is concerned about bullet item two on Council packet page 20, and suggested, "...and pursue amendments to enceurage &r require Low Impact Development (LID) practices:" The Council didn't say it would encourage, only require. They need to create the amendments, not just pursue them. Nelson stated they should find out what was said. The County Council, City of Bellingham, and Water District 10 approved these items already. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on March 12 , 2002. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 25 1 2 3 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. Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 1/22/2002, Page 26