San Juan County Ordinance regarding the County Storm Water Utility (Dec. 2006) Section 1: “The purpose of the San Juan County Storm Water Utility is to improve flood protection, water quality and groundwater recharge through education, coordination, development, maintenance, and management of stormwater systems in an efficient and cost-effective manner that considers the needs for protection of public health, private property, the natural environment and economic development.”

At the July Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) meeting, committee members discussed the Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan from 2008 to 2014, along with the Long Range Drainage Plan for Eastsound Village UGA, written by G. Rasmussen in 2005. The Rasmussen plan is scheduled for adoption by the County Council on July 29.

“Timely adoption of a [stormwater] plan and funding sources are needed to bring Eastsound into GMA (Growth Management Act) compliance,” wrote EPRC Stormwater Advisor Gulliver Rankin. “Funding is checked off with a $2 million, one-time loan from the Public Works road budget.”

County Council Member Gene Knapp, County Engineer Gregg Bronn and County Director of Public Works John Shannon, discussed Eastsound stormwater issues with the EPRC members.

Define the problem

EPRC member Patty Miller stated the first goal of the discussion was to obtain a clear definition of the problem as it relates to Eastsound. Elements of the problem are water quality, pollution, erosion and aquifer recharge. “We need to articulate the answer because it will form the solutions,” said Miller. She suggested the basic rational is that impervious surfaces create runoff that is detrimental to the environment. She asked, “Why are public services needed when a private solution is implemented?” in reference to the county requirement for property owners to manage stormwater for their own development.

Miller also questioned, “If the problem… is the need to develop at a higher density level which would prevent each parcel from handling its stormwater on site, then shouldn’t that development pay for the systems? Is this a timing issue where we need to put in place the infrastructure but we will not recoup the costs until the development goes in and pays for it?”

Miller started by saying that the basic rationale for stormwater management is that development of impervious surfaces creates runoff.

EPRC member Audrey Moreland defined the problem in part, by saying “Ultimately stormwater must be collected and conveyed off property. When the ditch capacity is filled, infrastructure needs to be developed for culverts that can no longer handle the flow.”

Bronn noted that “80 to 90 percent of Eastsound projects don’t trigger the threshold for flow control” and that “We’re not doing anything for cumulative effects.”

Shannon said that the problem is not just to fix whatever the current situation may be, but to manage the resources and plan for the future. “Part of this is getting going,” he said. He said that “the cases where what you do on your property solves the problem is rare, particularly with commercial development.

“If we look at buildout, can we handle five to 10 times the amount of stormwater?”

EPRC member Gulliver Rankin said that a baseline watershed study of Eastsound basin had never been completed. He also stated that more focus needed to be on aquifer recharge.

Member Brian Ehrmantraut agreed, saying there was no data in Eastsound to point to an answer.

Bea von Tobel, Orcas Port Manager offered perspective from her nine years in that position. She cited a 2003 airport drainage basin study, and said that it takes longer for the outflow from some 600 acres flowing out to its drain basin each year: “A heck of a lot more water comes through us that takes a longer time to dissipate…. because the ditches are full,” von Tobel said.

Bronn said, “Regional solutions [for stormwater management] are more efficient and less expensive than individual solutions, and the same goes for treatment, which is why stormwater is both a private and a public issue.”

EPRC Chair Mindy Kayl brought up that neither environmental issues nor aquifer recharge are addressed if stormwater runoff is piped into the ocean. She suggested planting trees as a way to handle runoff “vertically,” and said, “It’s cheaper to do a vegetative version than an engineered version.

“Water demands and impervious surfaces will both increase,” she added.

Fred Klein noted that perforated pipe that would allow some aquifer recharge could be installed, to which Shannon replied that basic information on such a method is not available.

Rankin said that it will be five years before the well-monitoring system that was instigated this spring will have data.

What now?

Developing a clear understanding of the current Projects and programs underway by Public Works was a second goal identified by Miller.

In the six-year stormwater capital improvement plan, from 2008 to 2014, the Mount Property to Main Street stormdrain improvement project, budget at $218,000, is scheduled to begin this year and to be completed in 2009. The project is scheduled to go to bid in mid-August. Obstacles may include permit appeals and high construction bids, which have increased 15 to 30 percent per year in recent years.

Program elements in the Rasmussen Plan include “green” construction concepts. The EPRC was told that these concepts will be included in the Eastsound Stormwater Plan budget and are being formulated in the County Council sub-committee that is in charge of a funding formula for the GMA-required plan.

Rankin re-asserted that the Rasmussen Plan includes “the explicit recommendation for a needs capacity analysis of all wetlands to know how much flow they can absorb.”

Shannon asked, “Are we protecting the resource? The real answer is ‘I don’t know’ and I don’t think anyone else does.”

Miller repeatedly asked why the programs incorporated in the Rasmussen Plan were not listed on the Public Works list of projects for the next six years, specifically, the Eastsound Swale Wetland and Enhancement project, originally scheduled for 2008.

Much of the discussion around this goal centered on the timing of the $2 million funds from Public Works. While Shannon said they were intended as a guarantee, should the Stormwater Funding Subcommittee of the Council be unable to identify a stormwater utility funding source that would be approved by voters, Miller sought re-assurances that, should there be no alternative funding source, the $2 million would be used to advance the programs required by the Rasmussen Plan.

She said, “Public Works is tasked with implementing the stormwater utility. You can’t implement the plan without implementing the programs [in the Rasmussen Plan, pages 8 to 15].

“How does the EPRC see that the section on programs doesn’t get lost in implementation?” Miller asked.

She said that it’s not just about how a particular project is done, but about what projects should be undertaken and how to lessen their impact. “Whatever money we spend, it’s so important we spend some money to better understand the problem.”

Shannon said that the $2 million set aside in Public Works to guarantee Eastsound stormwater funding compliance with GMA “doesn’t exist” but that it will exist in 2009 if the Council Stormwater Subcommittee provides a funding plan. “Then the intention is that an operating fund will be set up.”

Moreland attempted to clarify EPRC concerns, stating “I fear that 100 percent of identified funds will be spent on capital projects, before operations have been funded. Why not set aside a certain percentage for operations?”

She noted that the Eastsound Swale Bypass was not considered a capital [construction] project, and asked if Eastsound applied for grants to address the Eastsound Swale project, if the County would submit the grant applications.

Rankin said, “It’s not acceptable to put off again baseline studies that have been promised since 2000.”

Bronn brought up that the Eastsound Swale is located on as many as 40 private properties and that it was presumptious to say that there will be access to even study the wetland, but Rankin contended that most property owners would allow study of their properties.

Knapp said, “We’re running on a treadmill that’s going real fast to get in compliance with GMA; so we’re going to implement this plan. Part of the plan has requirements for capital plans, basic planning, monitoring, public education and wetlands – implementation of all aspects of the plan, not just ditches, gutters and conveyancy.”

Miller asked “Will you spend the $2 million Public Works fund if the public votes against [new stormwater] funding?”

Knapp replied, “If that happens, we’ll adopt a greener way to do them [the projects].”

Klein said, “Then we’ll need grants.”

Miller said she would like the Council to clearly understand that by adopting the Rasmussen Plan they were adopting the programs included in it.

Ehrmantraut noted that the Planning Commission (of which he is a member) had recommended that no individual project proceed without looking at each individual basin.

He added that he would like the EPRC to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation (stated in the Commission’s draft minutes) that that “Projects in the Long Range Drainage Plan for Eastsound Villa UGA and associated update six- and 20-year Captial Improvement Plans be undertaken only with basin-wide analysis and recommendation based on science-based stormwater management programs and low impact development …” Draft version of recommendation

Rankin’s report stressed the EPRC’s responsibilities and those of the county to implement studies and recommendations of existing plans.

Shannon suggested that the EPRC could help facilitate stormwater solutions by bringing in the Eastsound Water Users Association and the Eastsound Sewer and Water Districts into the conversation.

The third goal was to determine if the EPRC should make recommendations or requests to the Council prior to the July 29 session.

Report from Stormwater Advisor

In Rankin’s report to the EPRC, he wrote:

“The basic questions about stormwater the public are asking include:

“What is the problem? Between 1991 and 2001, San Juan County had a 44 percent population increase but only a one percent increase in impervious surface….

“Is the water polluted? In slow-flushing Fishing Bay, the outfall by Outlook Inn failed state standards for suspended solids, fecal coliform and ph….

“Is the solution correct and fiscally prudent? This is clearly the most difficult to answer. The Long Range Drainage Plan is only a component (but one of the few completed) of a capital facilities plan for Eastsound.”

Rankin’s report went on to detail changes since the report was drafted three years ago, and recommendations that have not been carried out. He noted “The Planning Commission approved the Long Range drainage Plan in May 2008 ‘…with profound reservations’ and recommended: ‘Projects in the …Plan…be undertaken only with basin-wide analysis and recommendations based on science-based stormwater management plans and low impact development as discussed on pages 9 and 10 of the plan.'”

Rankin also quoted recommendations from The Eastsound Water Supply Report and Recommendations of Mary 2008, issued after two years’ study. He added resolutions from the Eastsound Subarea Plan, stating. “The county should develop a Stormwater Management Plan for Eastsound which will recognize the natural limitations and benefits of the Eastsound swale to detain and filter runoff from streets, parking and other impervious surfaces.” (The Subarea plan was adopted by the County Council in 1981 by County Ordinance 225-1981.)

Rankin agreed to forward his recommendations to the Council prior to the July 29 meeting, and to investigate grants for accomplishing some of the studies outlined in the Rasmussen Plan.

New EPRC members

Bob Connell has been appointed by the County Council to serve on the EPRC. A vacancy on the committee still remains.

Did you Know?

• the County owns property in central Eastsound (the “Mount” property) to use as a stormwater drainage basin.

• There are 10 identified watersheds in the greater Eastsound area.

• Friday Harbor is a municipality and pays for its own stormwater management, at an average assessment of $10.25 per month for single family residences with one Equivalent Residency Unit (ERU).

To find out more, attend the July 29 Council Hearing in Friday Harbor and/or the EPRC meeting on Aug. 7 at the Orcas Island Senior Center.