The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About24-96 RESOLUTION NO. 24-96 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles approving the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan. WHEREAS, local governments are required under State law to establish stormwater management programs; and WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority developed and published the Water Quality Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin in 1987 and subsequently amended the plan in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994, and each local government that discharges into the Puget Sound Basin, including the City of Port Angeles, is required to develop a stormwater management program consistent with the Puget Sound Plan; and WHEREAS, the minimum that is required is that local governments should adopt ordinances to control runoff from new development and redevelopment, and to maintain both public and private stormwater facilities and to adopt either the State Department of Ecology's technical manual or one that is "substantially equivalent" to the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual; and WHEREAS, the preparation of the City's Stormwater Management Program has been funded by the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Project, Centennial Grant Program Project No. CO300308; and WHEREAS, the consulting form of Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., was contracted by the City of Port Angeles to prepare the Port Angeles StormWater Management Plan and implementing ordinance; and WHEREAS, stormwater pollution is a problem associated with land utilization and development; and WHEREAS, an expanding population and increased development of land in the Port Angeles area has led to water quality degradation through discharge of nutrients, metals, oil and grease, toxic materials, and other detrimental substances such as insect and weed control compounds, and drainage and storm/surface water runoff problems within the City; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to meet the intent of the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan and adopt regulations that at a minimum equals the protection of water quality provided by the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Technical Manual; and WHEREAS, the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan includes an inventory and analysis of natural features, existing man made stormwater improvements, identification of stormwater system deficiencies, recommended improvements and potential funding sources; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element, Policy B. 12, states "The City shall develop and implement a plan to improve water quality which includes measures to reduce and minimize stormwater pollutants and combined sewer overflow pollutant -1- discharges"; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW) have been met; and WHEREAS, a local citizen committee was created and participated in the development and review of the draft plan; and WHEREAS, public review and comments were solicited during the development of the plan, at public heatings before the City Council and Planning Commission; NOW THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES to approve the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan for the purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies related to the protection of water quality. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 17t.~ day of December ,1996. ATTEST: Becky f Up~lhTC'~ Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM~ Craig D.tson, City Attomey -2- Stormwater Mana~lement Plan I I I City of Port Angeles, Washington Department of Public Works Final Report 1996 I I I Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. P.O. Box 976 Olympia, Washington 98507 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Final Report 1996 City of Port Angeles Jack Pittie, P.E., Public Works Director Gary Kenworthy, P.E., City Engineer David Sawyer, Project Manager Department of Public Works 321 East Fifth Street Port/~ngeles, Washington 98362 Prepared By: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. Olympia, Washington July 18, 1996 Mr. David Sawyer Project Manager City of Port Angeles Department of Public Works 321 East FiSh Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Transmittal of the Final Port An_~eles Stormwater Mana_~ement Plan Dear Mr. Sawyer: Attached for your review and concurrence is the final draft of the Final Report of the City's 1996 Stormwater Management Plan. All of the City's comments received to date have been addressed and incorporated into the final draft of this document. Primary changes include: ® the editing and upgrading of all maps and exhibits throughout the document, ® shortening the Executive Summary preceding this final report document, ® including a description of the City's Ranny wells along the Elwha River in Sections 2 and 3, · editing and rewriting all references to the 1996 budget in Sections 5 and 7 to reflect the $290K level of appropriation, · adding paragraphs to Sections 5 and 8 to present the wastewater-stormwater utility fees, as proposed in the City's 1996 budget memorand~m, 12011 BeI,Red Road, Suite 201 Post Office Box 1989 Bellevue, Washington 98005-2471 Beqlevue. Washington 98009-1989 Telephone 206 451-8015 Fax 206 451-8096 Bellevue · Olympia · Portland · Vancouver, B.C. ° Washington, D.'(:. July 18, 1996 -- Page 2 · including a discussion of the City's Constituency Contact and Response System in Section 7, and · presenting and discussing a recommended long-term pubhc involvement plan in Section 10. According to the City's review process, this second drai% of the Final Report should be acceptable for presentation to the City's Citizen Advisory Committee and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Also enclosed for your information and files are three copies of the final Executive Summary document. It is my understanding that this doc,,ment was reviewed and approved by both Gary Kenworthy ~nd Jack Pittis on or before July 16, 1996. Please call me if you have any questions about either of these documents. Sincerely, ECI~CES, INC. Jo~bWJ. Simmler, Ph.D. Project Manager Enclosure JJS:drr cc: J. Maxwell, EES J. Pitt-is, City of Port Angeles G. Kenworthy, City of Port Angeles Contents Acknowledgments Recognition of State Financial Support Preface Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Background ........................................................................ ' ................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose B_nd Authority .......................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Approach and Scope of Work ................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Relationship to Other PIAn~ .................................................................. 1-5 1.6 Overview of Regulatory Requirements ................................................. 1-8 1.7 Technical Guidance Used to Prepare the Plan ................................... 1-12 1.8 Report Overview and Organization .................................................... 1-13 1.9 List and Location of Major Products ................................................... 1-14 2 Drainage Area Characterization 2.1 Description of the Study Area ............................................................... 2-1 2.2 Location and Boundaries ....................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Study Area and General Surface Hydrology ........................................ 2-4 2.4 Land Use ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.5 Port Angeles Growth Management Plan .............................................. 2-6 2.6 Population .............................................................................................. 2-6 2.7 Economy ............................................................................................... 2-10 2.8 Transportation ..................................................................................... 2-10 2.9 Climate ................................................................................................. 2-10 2.10 Topography .......................................................................................... 2-12 2.11 Geology.... ............................................................................................. 2-13 2.12 Soils ...................................................................................................... 2-13 2.13 Groundwater ........................................................................................ 2-17 2.14 Vegetation and Land Cover ................................................................. 2-19 2.15 Surface Water ...................................................................................... 2-21 2.16 Municipal Drinking Water Sources .................................................... 2-25 2.17 Sensitive and Critical Areas ............................................................... 2-26 2.18 Wetlands .............................................................................................. 2-27 2.19 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 2-30 2.20 Stream and Fish Habitat Assessment ................................................ 2-35 Contents i Contents 2-21 S~mmary of Study Area Drainage Characterization and Guidance for Developing an Effective Stormwater Management Progr_~m ........................................................................ 2-44 3 Water Quality Assessment 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... '.. 3-1 3.2 Existing Water Quality Data ................................ : ............................... 3-1 3.3 Identification of Receiving Water and Beneficial Uses ...................... 3-13 3.4 Stor,-,-,water Runoff Assessment .......................................................... 3-19 3.5 Water Quality Problems, Alternatives, and Solutions ...................... 3-20 3.6 Maintenance: As An Effective Source Control .................................. 3-40 3.7 Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City of Port Angeles ....... 3-52 4 Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Data Collection, Mapping, and Field Investigation ............................. 4-1 4.3 Field Investigation of Existing Drainage Facilities and Problems ..... 4-3 4.4 Storm Drainage Engineering Analysis ............................................... 4-26 4.5 Alternatives to Reduce and/or Control Non-Point Drainage ............. 4-34 4.6 Facilities, Solutions, and Costs for Drainage Control ....................... 4-39 5 Existing Sto,-mwater Program 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Administrative/Management Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program ............................................................................. 5-1 6 Regulatory Compliance 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Background Information ....................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Federal, State, Regional and Local Stormwater Requirements .......... 6-2 6.4 State of Washington Stomwater Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin ................................................................................ 6-3 7 Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Sto,~water Program 7.1 Background ............................. ~ ................... ~ ......................................... 7-1 7.2 Overview of the Programmatic Analysis Process ................................. 7-1 Contents ii Contents 7.3 Progr~m,~atic Analysis ......................................................................... 7-2 7.4 S~mmary of Progrsmmatic Analysis .................................................. 7-49 8 Stormwater l~nagement PlAn 8.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Sto~mwater Management Strategy and Formation of the Sto~awater Management Plan ............................................................. $-1 8.3 Recommended Stormwater Management Plan .................................... 8-7 8.4 Funding ................................................................................................ 8-15 8.5 Implementation ................................................................................... 8-23 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 Recommendations .................................................................................. 9-2 10 Public Involvement 10.1 Overview .............................................................................................. 10-1 10.2 Approach .............................................................................................. 10-1 10.3 Methodology and Results .................................................................... 10-2 10.4 Local Media Articles ............................................................................ 10-2 10.5 Long-Term Public Education and Involvement Plan ......................... 10-3 10.6 Acknowledgment .................................................................................. 10-3 Other Documents Supporting the Final Report Executive Summary Technical Appendices Volume I Appendices to Stormwater Management Plan Volume II Wetlands Inventory Volume III Stream and Fish Habitat Survey Volume IV-1 Regulatory Compliance Volt,me IV-2 Regulatory Compliance Volt,me V Sto,Lmwater Utility Feasibility Study Volt,me VI Port Angeles Watershed Mapping Portfolio Contents iii Tables ES-1 S~mmary of Recommended Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Port Angeles ...................................................................................... ES-6 ES-2 City of Port Angeles Ten Year Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan .... ES-8 ES-3 Programmatic Analysis: Estimate of Existing and Future Operating Costs and Level of Staffing to Operate the City's Stormwater Management Program .................................................................................. ES-9 ES-4 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program S~mmary of Staffing by Area of Responsibility .............................................................. ES-10 ES-5 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program S~]mmary of Annual Operating and Capital Costs by Area of Expenditures ................ ES-11 ES-6 Schedule for Regulatory Compliance .......................................................... ES-19 ES-7 Approach for Implementation of the Port Angeles Stermwater Management Plan ....................................................................................... ES-25 2-1 Port Angeles Land Use Information ................................................................ 2-7 2-2 Port Angeles Monthly Rainfall and Temperature Data ............................... 2-12 2-3 Water Quality Soils Groups and Corresponding Soil Characteristics ......... 2-16 2-4 List of Plants Typical of Puget Sound Region ............................................... 2-19 2-5 Rainfall Event Summary for the Port Angeles Area .................................... 2-22 2-6 Design Storm Events for the Port Angeles Area ........................................... 2-24 2-7 Continuous Stream Flow Data for Morse Creek ........................................... 2-24 2-8 USGS Estimated Peak Flows ..................................... , .................................. 2-25 2-9 Water Rights and Water Claims of the Port Angeles Region ....................... 2-26 2-10 Percent Total Wetland Acres by Watershed ................................................. 2-29 2-11 Partial Listing of Wildlife Common to the Port Angeles Area ..................... 2-32 2-12 Utilization of Streams Within the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Area by Salmonid Species ....................................................... 2-40 3-1 S~mmary of Surface Water Monitoring in the Port Angeles Watershed ......3-3 3-2 Morse Creek Water Quality ............................................................................. 3-5 3-3 Standards Listed in Current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ....................................................................................................... 3-8 3-4 Class A Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington ....................................................................................................... 3-9 3-5 Pollutants Associated with Urban Stox~mwater Runoff ................................ 3-11 3-6 Sources of Urban Non-Point Pollution .......................................................... 3-28 3-7 Correlation of Beneficial Use Impacts with Potential Pollution Sources and Proposed Solutions in the City of Port Angeles ....................... 3-30 3-8 Evaluation of Source Controls (Non-Structural BMP's) Needed for Water Quality Enhancement ......................................................................... 3-33 Tables iv Tables I I II 3-9 Evaluation of Source Controls/Non-Structural Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................... 3-35 3-10 Evaluation of Treatment Controls/Structural Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................... 3-36 3-11 Ideal Maintenance Activity Frequencies ....................................................... 3-43 3-12 Resource Requirements for a Typical Operations and Maintenance Program ................................................................................ : ......................... 3-45 3-13 Port Angeles Water Quality Enhancement Plan .......................................... 3-54 3-14 Port Angeles Water Quality Enhancement Plan Suggested Implementation Schedule .............................................................................. 3-57 4-! Port Angeles Drainage Management Areas .................................................... 4-9 4-2 S~mmary of Known Drainage Problem Areas by Drainage Management Area .............................................................................................................. 4-28 4-3 Evaluation of Structural Drainage Control Alternatives ............................. 4-38 4-4 List of Flooding Problems and Proposed Capital Solutions and Costs within the City of Port Angeles ........................................................... 4-40 4-5 City of Port Angeles Ten Year Stormwater Capital Improvement Progrsm .......................................................................................................... 4-42 5-1 City Codes and Ordinances Related to the Authority and Implementation of the City's Stormwater Program ................................................................... 5-6 5-2 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Program Expenditures for 1995 and 1996 .............................................................................................................. 5-16 5-3 Intra-City Distribution of Sto~-.-..water Operating and Capital Funds ........ 5-16 5-4 Summary of Responsibilities and Staffing for the City's Stormwater Program .......................................................................................................... 5-19 6-1 Water Resource Related Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Technical Guidance for Stormwater and Land Use ........................................ 6-2 6-2 City's Local and Regional Stormwater Responsibilities, as Defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan .................................................................. 6-29 6-3 Port Angeles Stormwater Program: Schedule for Regulatory Compliance ..................................................................................................... 6-31 7-1 Programmatic Analysis: Estimate of Existing and Future Operating Costs and Level of Staffing to Operate the City's Stormwater Management Program ................................................................................... 7-50 7-2 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program, S~]mmary of Staffing by Area of Responsibility .... : ............................................................ 7-51 Tables v Tables 7-3 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program, S~mma~-'y of~,~ual Opera~g and Capital Costs by Area of Expenditures ................................ 7-52 8-1 S~mmary of Recommended Stormwater M~agement Plan for the City of Port Angeles ......................................................................................... 8-7 8-2 Stormwater Program Funding Alternatives ............................................ ~ .... 8-17 8-3 Approach for Implementation of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management PI~ .......................................................................................... 8-25 10-1 List of the N~mes of the Members of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Committee ....................................................................... 10-1 10-2 Sto~-..water Public Education Program ........................................................ 10-2 Tables vi Exhibits ES-1 Concep~ml Schematic of the Responsibilities and Services of the Port Angeles Stormwater Progr-m .......................................................... ES-23 ES-2 Schedule for Implementation for the Port Angeles Stormwater management Plan .................................................................. : .................. ES-26 1-1 Pl-,~-~n~ Process and Scope of work ............................................................. 1-4 2-1 Location Map ................................................................................................. 2-2 2-2 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Natural Drainage Bas~-, .............................................................................. 2-5 2-4 Dr-~nage Management Areas ....................................................................... 2-6 2-5 Growth Management A_~a (Proposed) ......................................................... 2-8 2-6 Near-Term G~ow~ Areas .............................................................................. 2-9 2-7 Tr-,~pormtion Routes ................................................................................. 2-11 2-8 Topography for City Service Area ............................................................... 2-14 2-9 Study Area Soils ...................................................................................... ,..2-15 2-10 Groundwater Regions .................................................................................. 2-18 2-11 Hydrologic Cycle .......................................................................................... 2-23 2-12 Environmental Sensitive Areas .................................................................. 2-28 2-13 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 2-31 2-14 Stre-m Reaches ........................................................................................... 2-38 3-1 Conceptatal P]--,~i,~ Process Used to Develop the Recommended Water Quality Plan for the City of Port Angeles ......................................... 3-2 3-2 Example Pollutan~ Loa~i,~ Spreadsheets for Peabody Creek .................. 3-24 3-3 Standard Indus~ial Classification (SIC) .................................................... 3-25 3-4 Maintenance and Operations Activities Problem Applications ................. 3-44 3-5 Annual Maintenance Sched~ling ................................................................ 3-46 3-6 Complaint Invesci§acion Report Form ........................................................ 3-49 3-7 City of Port Angeles, Department of Public Works, E~mple M~ ~tenance Management Activity Spreadsheet for Ditch Cle~-~- g ....... 3-51 4-1 Conceptual Pl~,~-ing Processing Used to Develop the Recommended Dr~i-age and Flood Control Capital Improvements .................................... 4-2 4-2 Constructed Stormwater Sysmm .................................................................. 4-4 4-3 Natural Drainage Bas~-.~ .............................................................................. 4-6 · 4-4 Drainage Management Areas ..................................................................... 4-10 4-5 Drainage Problem Areas ............................................................................. 4-29 4-6 Location Maps of Proposed Prolimi.~-y Engineering Dr~i n age Analyses ....................................................................................... 4-31 4-7 Proposed Capital Stormwater Improvements ............................................ 4-41 E:~hibitz vii ]I Exhibits 5-1 City of Por~ Angeles Depamnent of Public Works Organization Chart for The City's Sto..-water Progr~,~ .................................................. 5-18 6-1 City. ofl~orc Angeles ~Letter of Compliance~ to the Washington Sta~e Pu~e~ Sound Water Quality Authority ............................................. 6-17 8-1 Concept~ud Schematic of the Technical and Progr~m,~atic Studies Used to Develop the City's Stormwater ~,~gemenl~ Plan ........................ 8-4 8-2 Concep~,~! Schematic of the Responsibilities and Services of the Port Angeles Stormwater Program ............................................................. 8-24 8-3 Schedule for lmplemenlm~ion for the Pore Angeles Sto, mwater M~nagement p]~n ....................................................................................... 8-27 10-L~. ]~-~mple SVv'P Committee Agenda #1 ........................................................ 10-4 10-lB F.-~mple SWP Committee Agenda ~2 ........................................................10-5 10-2A -M_inutes of the January 19, 1995 SWP Committee Meeting ..................... 10-6 10-2B .Minutes of the February 2, 1995 SWP Com,~ttee Meeting ...................... [0-8 10-3 Stormwa~er Brochure Developed by the Por*c Angeles Sto,-mwater [VIana~ement Plan Commit'tee .................................................................... 10-9 10-4 Stormwa~er Newspaper Article #1 fi'om the Pe,~,~-~ula D~iiy News, January 30, 1995 ....................................................................................... 10-10 10-5 Stm~uwa~er Newspaper Article #2 from the Penin--ula Daily News, January 7, 1994 ......................................................................................... 10-11 Contents of Technical Appendices Volume I~Appendices to ~tormwa~er Managemen$ Plan · Appendix IA Ecology/City Scope of Work for the Por~ Angeles Stormwauar Manageznen~ Plan ~ · AppendS-lB CityfEES Scope of Work for the Port Angeles Sto~.,.wa~er - Managemen~ Plan · Appendix IC Proposed 1996 Budget for the City's Stormwater Progr=m · Appenrli~ ID Washington State Mar/ne Se~llment Standards, Chapter 173- 204-320 of the Waah/ngwn-~d.~i-i=U'ative Code $ Appen~li~IE Port Angeles A-~-=! Pollutant; LoerllnE Assessment;: Approach, Ba-k~m. ound r~¢ormat/on and Spreac~heets · · Appendix IF Decision Makers Stormwater ]4'=,~dbook-- A Prir~er, 1992 Terrene Institute, EPA Re~ion 5 ® Appen~li~ IG Por~ A~geles Stormwat~r Pro/r~m: Stormwat~r M=i~tenance Standards =.d M=~mant; Spreadsheets Vol-me II--Weti ~n el ~ · Inventory · .&ppen~i- IIA City of Por~ Angeles We~d ~vento~ Repo~ ~po~ Appen~i- A~Wefl~ ~~ ~eld Da~ Fo~ ~po~ Appendi- ~D~ Wefl~d ~~~on Fo~ ~ App~i~ ~Wefl-nd Dam Fo~s (~cludin~ Re~o~l Wet]~ ~p) ~po~ Appen~i- D--Bi~ Bo~s Pond We~=~d De~ea~on Repo~ Dam ~ W~~on Dep~ent of E~lo~ We~ ~ Fora W~n Dep~ent of Ecolo~ D~ Wetl~ ~~~on Fora Contents of Technical Appendices III ¥olume tH---Stream ~d Fish Habita~ ~ey · .~ppen~ S~e-m ~d F~h Habita~ S~ey: ~oduc~on ~d ~ose · Appen~i~ ~ Backed Tn~o~a~on ~d ~e~ of Habi~ ~d ~fldlife U~~on Withi~ ~e Po~ ~eles S~dy ~ea · ~ppen~;~ ~he~es ~d Water Q~ T~h~ic~ lnfo~a~on Repo~ · Appendi~ ~C S~m ~d F~h ~i~t S~e~ ~s~ng Con~o~ ~d S~m Rea~ D~p~o~ of S~m- Withi~ ~e Po~ ~eles S~dy ~a · .~ppendi- ~ S~m ~d Fish Habi~t S~ey: Field Data Shee~ Vol~e ~-l~~ato~ Comp~ce · Appendi~ ~-A S~ of the ~ne~ ~o~ for ~ Fo~fion of ~ S~mwa~er ~ms, ~m Vol~e I, 1992 E~lo~ ~u~. pp. 32~6 · Appen~i, ~-B S~mm~ of ~u~emen~ for the State's B~ic Sto~wat~ · Appen~-C Dr~ Letter ~d Ou~hne for a "Letter of ~e~a~ Comp~' to ~he Pu~e~ Sound Wa~r · Appen~-D G~ce to ~he Ci~ for ~ the Ci~s 'Le~ of · Appen~i~ ~-E Pon ~ieles SWmwa~r Pl~: SW~a~r M~a~ement, 10-11-94 · Appen~ ~-F ~emew of the Ci~s Sto~wa~er M~a~emen~ P~~ ~ to Comp~ce ~ the S~te's B~ic Stomwa~ · Appenai- ~ E~~ ~al~ of the Ci~s ~~ s~,'mwa~r d~ m~ena ~d a comp~on of t~ Ci~s mte~a to thee ~~ ~ the S~e's B~ic S~wa~r · Appen~-H ~pos~ e~~ s~mwater o~ce for the CiW, ~mv~en~ ~ the E~lo~ M~el Sto~wa~r ~in~ce Contents or' Contents of Technical Appendices · Appendix l~r-I New proposed stormwater maintenance ordinance for the City, equivalent with the Ecology Model M~intenance Ord/nance · Appenrti~c IV J1 Listing of Watershed Enhancement Activities presented in the 1995 Port Angeles Watershed Plan · Appen~H~r IV-J2 Letter of Concurrence from City of Port' Angeles to ClalJAm~ County. regarding Adoption of C]AllAm County Watershed Plan, April 1995. · AppendixIV-K Memorandum to Cla]lam County for the Pot: Angeles Watershed Plan 'Overview of the City of Port Angeles Stormwater Program", 1993 Volnme IV-2~Re~lat~ry Compliance · Appendiw IV-L Puget Sold Wa~r Qu~]i~ M~agemen~ PI~, Sto~water ~d Comb~ed Sewer ~e~ows ~o~, 1994, Stomwa~r ~m Element, SW-1 ~ough SW- 7 (~cluai~g 1994 ~menaments to ~e 1991 PSWQM PI~) · Appen~ ~-M Stomwater ~~ G~d~ce M~u~ for ~e Puget Sold B~, Vol,,~es 1 ~d 2, pp. 1~5, W~~on State Dep~ent of Ecolo~, 1992 (~clu~ des~pfion of LocE Stomwater ~~, pp. I-1-6 ~o I-1-10) · Appen~-N Le~er dated 5-10-94 ~om Ecolo~, Water Qu~ P~m, Puget Sold Sto,-mwater ~o~m, '~we~ to Some Cowmo~y ~ked Questor' (~clu~ng doc~en~ entitled, 'G~d~ce for Lo~ Gove~ments when Subdued, M~ ~d ~sociated Or~n~ces for Eqmv~en~ ~ew') · Appen~ ~-O Le~er dated 7-19-93 ~m Dr. P. BMch of Ecolo~s Water Q~ ~o~ to M. J. Elekes of the Ci~ of L~wood reg~g Comp~ce ~th the Puget Sold Water Qu~ M~ement PI~ · Appen8i~ ~-P Ecolo~s M~el Sto~water M~agement O~ce, 1992 · Appen~ ~-Q Ecolo~s M~el Stomwater M~ten~ce Or~n~ce, 1992 Con~ents of Technical Appendices Contents of Technical Appendices III Vol,,me V--Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study · Appenrt~Y V-A Stormwater Utility Issue Paper #1: June 29, 1995, presenl:ed to City Council on July 10, 1995 · Appendix V-B Stormwater Utility Issue Paper g2: Augu~ 8, 1995, presented to City Council on August 14, 1995 Volume VI~Report and Project Maps Appendix V'l- l--Report Maps · 2-1 Location Map · 2-2 Study Area · 2-3 Natural Dr-in~e Basi.~ · 2-4 Drainage Management Areas · 2-5 Growth Managem~t Area (Proposed) · 2-6 Near-Term Grow~ Areas · 2-7 Tr-n~portat~on Routes · 2-8 Topography for City Service Area · 2-9 Study Area Soils · 2-10 Groundwater Regions · 2-11 Hydrologic Cycle · 2-12 Enviro-mental Sensitive Areas · 2-13 Wetlands · 2-14 Stream Reaches · 3-3 St~nd~rd IndusWial Classification (SIC) ® 4-2 Constructed Stormwater System ® 4-3 Natural Dr-i-~ge · 4-4 Dr-i~age Management Areas ® 4-5 Dr-loage Problem Areas · 4-6 Location Maps of Proposed Prellmlnn.y Engineering Drainage Analyses · 4-7 Proposed Capital Stormwater Improvements Appendix VI-B--Project Maps · Map l~Wetlands · Map 2---Stream Reaches · Map 3 Priority Habitats · Map ~. Conswucted Stormwater System · Map 5--DmZ--ge Management Areas · Map 6~Solid Waste Facilities ~nd Hazardous Waste Generators C onmnzs of Technical App~ndic. Acknowledgments The following individuals contributed to the development of the Stormwater Management P]~n for the City of' Port Angeles. Their efforts are appreciated and acknowledged. The input of Mr. David Sawyer, Senior Planner and Project Manager, has been particularly helpful to the completion ofthi.~ report. City of Port Angeles Jack Pittis, P.E., Public Works Director Gary Kenworthy, P.E., City Engineer David Sawyer, Project Manager Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. John Maxwell, President and Principal-in-Charge Joe Simmler, Project Manager Paul Manwiller, CAD Mapping Diane Running, Word Processing Shari Neuenschwander, Word Processing and Associated Firms CH2M HillwEngineering and Mapping John Rogers, Senior Storrnwater Engineer Watershed Dynamics--Stream Surveys and Fisheries Assessment Tom Deming--Senior Fisheries Biologist Sheldon and Associates--Wetlands Inventory and Mapping Dyanne Sheldon--Senior Wetlands Specialist Acknowledgments xiii Recognition of State Financial Support The Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Project, Centennial Grant Progr-m Project No. G9300308, is sponsored by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the City of Port Angeles. This project is funded by a State Centennial Clean Water Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) and the Citfs Road and Street Fund. The City of Port Angeles appreciates the significant role Ecology has ass,,rn~d in leading the region's water quality efforts and provirHng financial assistance to local agencies. The following Ecology staff have guided and contributed to the success of this project. · David Palazzi, Original Project Manager, WDOE · Terra Heggy, Past Project Manager, WDOE · Margaret Hill, Present Project Manager, WDOE A copy of the contract between the City of Port Angeles and the Washington State Department of Ecology for this project is presented in Appendix I-A of the following Stormwater Management Plan Report. The scope of work for the consultants working on this project has been included as Appendix I-B. These appendices are included in Volt,me I of the Technical Appendices. "This project is funded in whole or part from the funding provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Recognition of State Financial Support xiv Preface As part of its strategic planning process, the City of Port Angeles (City) has undertaken ~n analysis of the City's stormwater facilities and program, and has developed the following Stormwater Management Plan. The Department of Public Works, being primarily responsible for the City's stormwater management functions, has developed the Stormwater Management Plan to be responsive to local drainage issues, ensure compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Plan and Support the City's Growth Msnagement Act plsnning process. In so doing, the Department of Public Works has also begun to prepare the City for the potential future regulatory requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit. In light of the increasing role and obligations of the City's new Stormwater Program, the City has deemed it prudent to undertake a review of the authority, funding, activities, and regulatory compliance issues associated with the City's current stormwater program. The following document s,,mmarizes the present stormwater program and recommends program refinements to meet minimum regulatory and local responsibilities. Higher levels of stormwater funding allow for an enhanced stormwater program to be developed. Priorities, staffing, and activities of higher %ervice levels" have been conceptually developed and are presented toward the end of this programmatic and management analysis. Information is presented to allow City Council, City staff, and the public to select the appropriate level of funding and staffing to meet the City's growing stormwater, water quality, and water resource obligations and responsibilities. Recognition of State Financial Support xv Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction As part of its strategic planning process, the City of Port Angeles (City) has undertaken a management analysis of the City's stormwater program and developed the following Sto.-,,,water Management Plan. The ~Department of Public Works, being primarily responsible for the City's stormwater ,management functions, has developed this Stormwater Management Plan to be responsive to local drainage issues, ensure compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority p]~_u_ and support the ~rnplementation of City's Comprehensive Plan and the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. In so doing, the Department of Public Works has also begun to prepare the City for the regulatory requirements which may be associated with a future National Pollution Discharge EHrn~rtation System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit. 2.0 Purpose and Overview. Within the City, the responsibility for storm and surface water management and the protection of the groundwater have been entrusted to the Department of Public Works (Public Works). It is the mission of the Stormwater Program within Public Works to control flooding, enhance water quality, protect sensitive habitat areas, and optimize the recharge of local aquifers. The purpose of this Plan is to evaluate the present operation and staffing of the City's Stormwater Program, suggest improvements to enhance the performance of the Program, meet regulatory requirements, and present an approach to fund and implement needed program enhancements. 3.0 Existing Stormwater Program 3.1 Funding, Organization and Staffing The City has been performing stormwater management related activities for years. In the past, the emphasis has been on street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. More recently the City's stormwater activities have included efforts to control combined sewer overflows and achieve compliance with its NPDES wastewater discharge permit. The stormwater activities are managed collectively in Public Works by the Public Works Director, the City Engineer and the manager of the Street Division. It is estimated that about $290,000 is spent annually on stormwater management, primarily in the fo~-m of maintenance related activities. The General Fund allocates about $235,000 annually for stormwater maintenance. The remaining financial support of $55,000 is from the City's Street' Fund. The City's existing stormwater Executive Summary ES- ] progrgm supports the equivalent of 4.2 full-time positions (FTE) with 3.0 FTE being in the stormwater maintenance nnlt of the Street Division, 1.0 FTE in the Engineering Division and 0.2 FTE in the p]snning Department. 3.2 Program Effectiveness The City has historically had only a few major flooding problems. The locations and magnitude of these major flooding problems were identified in the City's 1990 Stormwater Management Plan report. In recent history, most of ~the signi~c~nt flooding problems have been localized with a mi~im~r~ of property d~mage. This type of flooding is usually caused by lack of adequate capacity, the conveyance needs associated with new development and/or the lack of adequate maintenance. Generally, the capacity and effectiveness of the entire City system could be significantly increased by an upgraded, annual maintenance program. The City's drainage system also has a n,~mber of irregularities and inconsistencies (i.e., discontinuities) that either block drainage or reduce capacity and create localized ponding. This is especially true in the more rapidly developing western and eastern upland drainage basins within the City. Water quality treatment does not exist for most storn~water drainage basins within the City. Recent road and sewer utility CSO projects have added capacity and treatment to a few of the City's discharges into local marine waters. The City's CSO sewer separation projects will significantly reduce combined sewer overflows into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Biotreatment is being added when projects and opportunities allow, however, much of the drainage receives little if any treatment prior to discharge. 3.3 Problems and Deficiencies Overall Stormwater Program deficiencies include: · Little treatment of runoff prior to discharge to remove pollutants and enhance water quality. · Pollution of outfall areas from urban discharges and polluted sediment accumulations. · Localized flooding in many areas of the City due to discontinuities in the drainage system. · The identification of a number of capital facilities with little capital funding. · Lack of comprehensive maintenance throughout the City. · Limited site inspection and enforcement of the City's clearing and erosion control ordinance to' control pollution from new construction sites. Executive Summary ES-2 · Not enough inspection and enforcement of construction sites. · Limited stormwater program authority funding and enforcement to ensure the proper maintenance of private drainage facilities. · Failing septic tanks in some unserviced areas contributing to high coliform and nutrient levels. · Combined sewer overflows discharges into sensitive marine waters. · Limited basin hydraulic/hydrologic studies and data to support land use, development review and permitting decisions. · Lack of an appropriate level of staff~g to routinely carry out the various functions of the City's Stormwater Progrsm. · Lack of funding for many of the activities and capital needs within the program. · No well-defined organizational unit within the City to direct, st~ff, fund, and implement all of the activities of the City's annual Stormwater Program. · Out of compliance with the State's regulatory requirements as defined in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 3.4 Needed Improvements Enhancements to the City's Stormwater Program that would improve both its effectiveness and efficiency include: · Adoption of' a comprehensive stormwater management plan. · Creation of a stormwater unit within Public Works to be directly accountable for the Stormwater Program. · Creation of dedicated, long-te~m funding of stormwater activities for effective program implementation. · Development of an enhanced annual inspection and maintenance program of City owned facilities. · Undertaking the design and construction of needed major sto~-,,,water capital improvements. · Repairing and upgrading the drainage system to remove discontinuities and limit localized flooding. · Studies of critical drainage problem areas to support new development. Executive Summary ES-3 - 1 ·Undertaking source control studies (i.e., drainage basir~,assessments) within each drainage basin to reduce pollutant loadings. · The addition of water quality treatment facilities to the existing City- wide drainage system, based on the results of the above source control studies to improve water quality. ·New ordinances for sto~-,-water management, facility design, water quality and maintenance. ·Revised ordinances for the inspection and enforcement of maintenance of private drainage facilities. · Appropriate program funding and st~fBng to ensure proper maintenance of public And private facilities. · Upgraded and enhanced drainage design standards for new construction. · Additional experienced sto~-mwater staff. · Continuation of sewer improvement and CSO reduction projects. · Additional financial resources, especially to address the unfunded capital needs of the stormwater program and meet regulatory requirement obligations. 4.0 Stormwater Management Strategy The Stormwater Management Plan for the City is based upon two programs directives: first, to solve local drainage problems; and second, to develop a stormwater program that achieves regulatory compliance. One of the biggest challenges the City faces in regard to stormwater management is providing adequate treatment of the surface runoff before it is discharged into Port Angeles Harbor or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Most of the elements of the City's drainage system are older and are in densely developed areas of the City. As such, there is limited opportunity to provide adequate treatment prior to discharge. Drainage Basin Assessments within each major watershed in the City have been recommended to set up source control plans, prior to the construction of any new water quality treatment facilities. To achieve the first goal, the existing City Stormwater ProgrAm and facilities were analyzed and evaluated. Capital needs were based upon an inventory of existing problems, the CSO Reduction Report, and an engineering analysis (performed in the City's 1990 Stormwater Management Plan), which identified the need for a number of conveyance and capacity improvements. A w~mber of capital projects (25) totaling $9.3M were identified. Because major flooding was not a problem, the analysis emphasized the gains to be realized by an enhanced maintenance program. . Executive Summary ES-4 Sig~i[ic~nt capacity improvements may be realized through regular maintenance and through a series of minor repairs to remove discontinUities within the existing drainage system. Where needed, additional capacity improvements, consisting primarily of larger pipes, have been recommended to meet existing and/or future drainage needs. , Achieving the second Stormwater Program directive, to achieve regulatory compliance, presents many challenges because the City's stormwater program does not effectively address water quality, maintenance, or enforcement/inspection, at the present time. Providing the City with the needed funding and legal authority has been recommended as the first step in formfng an effective stormwater program. Also recommended are the adoption of ordinances to improve drainage design criteria for new development and to improve the maintenance of both public and private stormwater facilities. 4.1 Formation of the City's Stormwater Management Plan The following Stormwater Management Plan for the City is based upon the administrative, regulatory, and progrsmmatic analyses performed as part of this project and presented in the following report. Overview The recommended Stormwater Plan for the City has been divided into an annual operating program, costing $475,000 per year, and a capital facility plan, totaling $9.33 M, as presented in Table ES-1. With an annual capital program of $175,000, the total annual cost in the short-term (0-2 years) is $650,000. If the annual operating and capital increments are increased to accommodate all of the maintenance, capital and regulatory compliance needs, the annual budget in the long-term (3-10 years) could be as high as $1.75M, with $820,000 in operating costs and $925,000 in capital expend- itures. Capital facility projects are listed in Table ES-2 and short- and long- term operating costs are presented in Table ES-3. The City's annual stormwater program for both the short-term and the long- term consists of the following activities which are described in greater detail in Table ES-l: · Capital Improvements · Maintenance · Small Capital Flood Control Projects · Regulatory Compliance · Water Quality Enhancement · Staffing and Funding Program Enhancements Executive Summary ES-5 Executive Summary E$-6 '- Executive Summary ES-7 '- Executive Summary ES-8 Executive Summary E$-9 Short-Term Stormwater Needs (0 to 2 yeare) The ,~n-ual operating :plan has been divided into short-term (0 to 2 :years) and long-term (3 to 10 years) improvements, as shown in Tables ES-1 through ES-5. In the short-term, the funding is increased from $290,000 to $650,000 per year, an annual increase of $360,000, as displayed in Table ES- 1. The increased funding allows for annual maintenance to be enhanced and a capital construction program to be initiated at $175,000 annually. Drainage basin assessments would begin to be perfoAL~aed to establish source control programs to improve water quality. ComplJ-nce with the State's regulatory requirements, as identified in the Basic Stormwater Program, would be able to be met over about a 2 to 3 year period of t~me. The implementation of capital _-nd maintenance services would be enhanced by the hiring of two new staff, one in engineering and one in street maintenance, as shown in Table ES-4. Table ES-4 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program Summary of Staffing by Area of Responsibility Total Area Existing Short-Term Long-Term StatTmg of Responsibility Staff (0-2 years) (3-10 years) Changes Public Works Department Office of Public Works Director 0.1 0.2 0.5 +0.4 Engineering Di-,dsion 0.9 1.8 3.0 +2.1 Street Division 3.0 4.0 6.0 +3.0 Water Utility Wastewater Utility Subtotal 4.0 6.0 9.5 +5.5 Planning Department 0.2 -- 1.0 +0.8 Total 4.2 6.0 10.5 6.3 Increases in New Staff -- +1.8 +6.3 - Executive Summary ES-lO Table ES-5 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program Summary of Annual Operating and Capital Costa by Area of Expenditures 1995/1996 City City Existing City Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Program Prog~m Program Expense Item Program (0-2 Years) (3-10 Years) Operating Labor Public Works Department Director's Office $6,000 $13,000 $6,000 Engineering Division 41,000 92,000 154,000 Street Division 125,000 170,000 250,000 Plannln_g Department 8,000 -- 45,000 Labor Subtotal 180,000 275,000 455,000 Equipment $110,000 $160,000 $250,000 Other Costs Billing Services -- 15,000 15,000 Drainage Basin Assessments -- 25,000'~ 100,000'~' Operating Subtotal $290,000 $475,000 $820,000 Capital Capital Improvements -- 150,000'"' 900,000~' Small Works Projects -- 25,000 25,000 Capital Subtotal -- 175,000 925,000 Total Stormwater Program Costs $290,000 $650,000 $1,745,000 (1) Total cost of drainage basin assessments is $500,000; 10 basins @ $50, O00 per basin. (2) Total capital costs are $9,325,000 and is composed of 25 CIP projects. Long-Term Stormwater Needs (3 to 10 years) As future stormwater revenues are realized over the long-term (3 to 10 years), as shown in Table ES-l, the annual stormwater budget should grow beyond $650,00 per year to address the Citfs substantial and unfunded capital improvement needs. In the long term, as many as 4.5 additional staff may need to be hired to address the City's stormwater management needs and obligations. This higher level of funding allows the City to complete drainage basin assessments and develop a City-wide source control program to improve water quality and protect Port Angeles Harbor. It allows the City to meet its regulatory obligations and begin to address its responsibilities defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The primary emphasis of the City's long-term drainage program, however, is to acquire the revenue necessary to implement a viable annual stormwater capital improvement program. As much as $975,000 should be allocated on an annual basis over the next ten years to address the City's stormwater Executive Summary ES-11 I facility needs. The stormwater capital facilities plan for the City, presented in Table ES-2, lists 25 major drainage projects, costing a total of $9.33 million. At the present time there is no funding available to construct any of these projects. The projects have been prioritized over a ten-year period of time in order to effectively manage and fund the design and construction process. On an annual basis, $725,000 to $975,00 is needed annually to design and construct capital facilities. The following projects have been prioritized for funding in 1996. ® Peabody/Lincoln Street Culvert Rehabilitation $ 50,000 · Cronauer Property Acquisition 400,000 · Preliminary Engineering on Milwaukee/P Street Drainage Improvements 50,000 · Preliminary Engineering on Rose/Thistle/Schrivner Drainage Improvements 50,000 · Preliminary Engineering on Upper Golf Course Road Drainage Improvements 50,000 · Small Works Storm Sewer Projects 25,000 · High Priority Projects as identified in the three Preliminary Engineering Studies Above 100.000 $725,000 (Note: Capital improvements strictly for water quality treatment, are not recommended at this time until the effectiveness of the City's source control plans, maintenance improvements and small capital projects can be determined and the future regulatory requirements for water quality enhancement are better defined by Ecology.) A s~mmary of annual stormwater operating and capital costs is presented in Table ES-5. 4.2 Summary of Programmatic Analysis The City's Stormwater Program is emerging from a planning phase into an implementation phase. As such, it is appropriate to review and update the Division's operations, as well as funding and staffing levels. The City's Stormwater Program, at this time, is underfunded and understaffed. Each of the thirteen elements of the program, as described and analyzed in this report, will require additional effort and resources in the future. Staffing needs have been divided into short-term needs (0-2 years) and long-term needs 3-10 years), as shown in Table ES-3. In the short-term, the addition of 1.8 new FTE (3,600 hours) is recommended. In the long-term, as many as an additional 6.3 FTE (12,600 hours) may be required, as the City begins to '~'~. Executive Summary ES-12 address the needs of its capital program and 'full complianCe with regulatory requirements. The new staff, totaling 6.3 positions, is distributed among the Public Works and the Plsnning Divisions, as shown in Table ES-4. Recommended short-term improvements will cost $650,000 annually and should begin to be implemented as soon as practicable, as shown in Table ES-5. Operating costs are $475,000 and capital costs are $175,000 per year. (It has been assumed that the existing level of stormwater funding and staffing would be m~ntained.) Long-term improvements will cost an additional $1,095,000 per year for a total of $1,745,000 per year. The total cost of the future stormwater program will vary depending on the source of funding snd schedule used to complete the City's capital drainage needs, which total $9.33M. Future annual operating costs will need to be increased from $475,000 to $820,000. Future annual capital costs will need to be increased from $175,000 to $925,000 to complete the 25 capital improvement projects over a ten year period of time. 4.3 Scope and Effectiveness of the Proposed Plan The preceding stormwater management plan allows the City to: · Achieve regulatory compliance; · Address local drainage problems; · Improve the City's annual maintenance program; · Identify and fund needed capital facilities for flood control; · Undertake drainage basin assessments and establiSh source control plans to improve water quality; · Upgrade staffing and funding levels of the existing stormwater progr~ m; · Establish needed legal, design, inspection and enforcement authorities; · Develop new revenue sources, as needed; · Be consistent with the results and recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Sewer, Water and CSO Plans and local water quality studies; and · Implement many of the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. (Note: Due to the high costs of an annual City-wide water quality monitoring program, a specific monitoring plan has not been developed as part of this study and is not recommended at thip time. Site specific monitoring of water quality problem areas may be warranted on an as-needed basis.) Executive Summary ES-13 5.0 Regulatory Compliance The City of Port Angeles is affected by State and federal stormwater management requirements, as well as local and regional requirements, as defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. At the present time, the City is required to comply with the elements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program delineated in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The Basic Sto,-mwater Program emphasizes the establishment of appropriate legal authority, standards for new development and redevelopment, and maintenance of the existing drainage system. Compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program was to be achieved by January 1, 1995. The City is not required to comply with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program at this time due to its relatively small urban population. In the future, the City could be issued a Stormwater NPDES by Ecology. An NPDES permit has currently been issued to about eight of the larger urban areas within the State with populations of 100,000 or more. NPDES Stormwater Permits, for moderate and even small cities, are being considered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Although the City is smaller than 100,000, Ecology may elect to issue future NPDES Stormwater Permits based on either a watershed or "urban center" approach. If the later approach is used, the City and adjacent urban areas within Clallam County (County) could be issued a joint permit. Discussions to-date with Ecology indicate that if an NPDES Stormwater Permit is issued to the City in the future, the terms and conditions of the permit would be very similar to the conditions of compliance required in the State's present Comprehensive Stormwater Management Progrsm. The State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program requires monitoring, source controls and the elimination of water quality problems. Because Ecology does not currently have adequate authority under State law to enforce the PSWQ Management Plan, they will likely be using the enforcement powers granted to them under the federal NPDES permitting program to ensure compliance. 5.1 State of Washington Stormwater Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin The Puget Sound Stormwater Management ProgrAm is divided into the Basic Stormwater Program which applies to all cities and counties in the Puget Sound Basin, and the Comprehensive Stormwater program which applies to designated urban areas based on population. The City needs to comply with the Basic Program, but not the Comprehensive Stormwater Programs which was developed for larger urban cities. (See page 13-1 of Appendix B of ¥ol-me I entitled Program Implementation Guidance of the Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, July 1992, Ecology Publication N~mber 92-32 for additional information.) Executive Summary ES-14 All cities and counties in the Puget Sound Basin, including the City of Port Angeles, were to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater :ProgrAm by January 1, 1995, as required by the 1994 PSWQA Plan approved on May 26, 1994. Large urban areas within Puget Sound are also to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Stormwater Program by the year 2000. The 2000 date may be moved up to 1997 or 1998, because Ecology has chosen to implement the Comprehensive Plan requirements as part of the Phase I 1VPDES Stormwater Permit process. An NPDES permit could be implemented as soon as 1996-1998 for the larger urban areas around the Puget Sound Basin. 5.2 Conclusion Regarding Compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program Because the January 1, 1995, due date was likely to pass before the City had an opportunity to comply with all of the required elements of the State's Basic Sto~-uiwater ProgrAm, it was recommended that a ~Letter of Compliance" be written to Ms. Nancy Mci{ay, Executive Director of the PSWQA, describing the City's existing Stormwater Program and presenting a proposed schedule for full compliance. This letter was written by the City and in so doing has demonstrated the City's intent of making a ~good faith~ effort to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Program. This letter should also help reduce or eliminate any future penalties, enforcement actions, or legal challenges. (A copy of the City's letter to the PSWQA has been appended and is presented in Exhibit 6-1, p. 6-17 of this Final Report.) A nuruber of activities that will need to be undertaken by the staff of Public Works to ensure compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program include: · Adoption of a new City-wide stormwater ordinance that includes new design criteria, water quality enhancement and possibly new erosion controls; · Adoption of a new City-wide stormwater maintenance ordinance to ensure compliance with Ecology's model maintenance ordinance, which addresses the maintenance of privately-owned stormwater facilities; · Enhancement of the maintenance program, including increased annual staffing and funding; the development of an annual maintenance management plan, semi-annual inventory of public and private drainage facilities, improved maintenance field data and record keeping, and the to enforcement and/or annual maintenance of private facilities; · Adoption of the Ecology design manual for new developments; Executive Summary ES-15 · Development and implementation of a long-term public awareness/ education program for water resource protection, including water quality, source controls, recycling, proper use and disposal of hazardous materials and wetland preservation; · Continued regional water resource related coordination with the County and other agencies~ · Continued efforts to secure adequate staffing and funding for the program; and · Enhancement of appropriate inspection, enforcement and maintenance procedures for both new and old stormwater facilities. Because these activities were to have been completed by January 1, 1995, the City should make every effort to complete as many of these as practicable within the next I to 2 years. The cost for the City to be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program has been included in the short-term enhancements of the City's Stormwater Program presented in this report. If the short-term recommendations to enhance the City's Stormwater Program are adopted, as presented in Section 7, no additional staff and few additional costs will be needed in order for the City to comply with the various requirements of' the State's Basic Stormwater Management Plan. 5.3 Regional and Local Stormwater Requirements At the regional and local level, the stormwater requirements that need to be addressed by the City are described in the Port Angeles Watershed Implementation of these regional requirements is to be based upon available local funding and is to be done in a coordinated manner with the County and other local agencies. (These plans have been adopted by the Port Angeles City Council through letters of concurrence to Clallam County. The implementation of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan by the City is contingent upon the availability of local City funding.) In the letter to the City dated January 11, 1995, shown in Appendix J1 of Technical Appendix Volume IV, ClallAm County outlined a listing of over 90 discrete activities that needed to be accomplished to successfully implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Of the activities listed, about 43 of the watershed improvements involved the direct participation of the City and another 44 involved the City's support. Twelve of the 43 involving the City are to be implemented solely by the City. The twelve implementation activities in which the City is the lead agency include: Executive Summary ES-16 · #1--Manage Port Angeles Harbor ' · #2--Identify pollution problems in the harbor and t~ke corrective action, as needed. · #3--Establish urban wildlife programs. · #4--Conduct studies to characterize marine contamination problems and their sources. · #5~Construct development such that the City's natural drainage system is protected. · #6--Ellminate all on-site wastewater system within the City. · #7~Develop and implement a commercial source control program. · #8--Manage urban stream corridors as "greenways~. · #9~Monitor, identify sources and eliminate stormwater inputs. · #10~Revegetate urban riparian corridors and buffers. · #11tReplace culverts in urban areas to allow fish passage. · #12tEducate and involve the local community in preserving and enhancing each of the City's major urban streams. 5.4 Recommended Approach to Achieve State, Federal, and Regional Regulatory Compliance It is recommended that the City respond to the regulatory requirements for the stormwater in four phases. The first phase (Phase I) should occur over the next 1-2 years and address the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program, as described in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The second phase (Phase II) of compliance should occur over the next 1 to 5 years and address the substantial local drainage needs of the Port Angeles area, including adopting this Stormwater Management Plan, adopting needed ordinances and design criteria, securing additional operating and capital program funding. This second phase will allow the City to meet many of the requirements of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and prepare the City to work with Ecology in the future on the initial application of a federal stormwater NPDES permit, if it is ever required. Phase III, occurring over the next 5 to 10 years, allows the City to increase local stormwater funding and comply with the various responsibilities it has to implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan are very similar and in many cases, identical to the State's Basic and Comprehensive Stormwater Program regulatory Executive Summary ES-17 requirements. No special or separate program is recommended at this time to accelerate compliance with the regional stormwater recommendations listed in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Unless an NPDES permit is issued to the City or the greater Port Angeles urban area, Phase IV of the recommended regulatory compliance program to address NPDES permit requirements may never be needed. The City was to be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program by January 1, 1995. The above regulatory approach allows the city to achieve compliance by January 1, 1998, as shown in Table ES-6. 6.0 Funding--Options and Alternatives 6.1 Revenues The City has not established a stormwater utility and presently does not have a dedicated, independent revenue source for stormwater related activities. In 1995, it is estimated that funding appropriated from the Street and General Expense Funds totaled approximately $290,000. The 1996 budget for the City's Stormwater Program remained at the same level of funding, with about $235,000 appropriated from the Street Fund, the remaining balance of $55,000 allocated from the General Fund. It should be noted that the Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study, completed as part of this planning effort, (and presented in Technical Appendix, Volume V) estimated that as much as $650,000-$1,500,000 of new revenue could be collected annually if a stormwater utility were formed. Alternatively, the rates of the City's existing wastewater utility could also be enhanced in a comparable manner to address the City's stormwater needs. 6.2 Expenditures Annual expenditures of the City's Stormwater Program are equal to annual appropriations. Expenditures for 1995 and projected expenditures for 1996 are listed below. 1995 1996 Operating Costs $290,000 $290,000 Capital Costs 0 0 Total $290,000 $290,000 Executive Summary F_.S-18 Executive Summary ES-19 - Additional stormwater financial information is presented in Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Final Report. The proposed 1996 budget is presented at the end of this Executive Summary in Appendix IC of Technical Appendix Volume I of the Final Report. 6.3 Developing Adequate Funding for Stormwater Management Future Revenue Needs The revenue needs of the City's Stormwater Program will more than double over the next 3-5 years, as the City achieves regulatory compliance and begins to implement its emerging stormwater program. The short-term operating improvements will cost about $425,000 per year, and long-term requirements as much as an additional $345,000 per year. The presently underfunded capital program totals an additional $9.33M. The cost of operating the City's Stormwater Program will be about $650,000 to $1.75M annually and require additional outside revenues, such as bonding for capital projects, the creation of new maintenance and inspection fees, increased permit review fees, creating an expanded wastewater-stormwater utility, and possibly additional support from the water utility for groundwater management and groundwater monitoring. 6.4 Recommended Funding Alternative In 1996, the annual budget proposal from City staff to the City Council included a suggestion to form a stormwater fund within the City's existing wastewater utility. This suggestion was presented to the Council in the form of a budget memorandum, which is presented in Appendix ES-C of this Executive Summary. The purpose of restructuring the wastewater utility to include a stormwater fee is to create an independent funding source to address the City's growing stormwater management problems and responsibilities. Under a combined wastewater-stormwater billing system, statements would be sent out using the City's current billing system. Three different levels or options of stormwater funding were proposed, ranging from $2 to $4 per month, for residential homeowners. Businesses and industries, not covered under a separate NPDES permit, would pay proportionately more, based on the amount of impervious area on their individual lots. Residents on fixed incomes and/or small city lots would receive discounts, as discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and the City's Utility Advisory Committee, held on August 14, 1995. (The financial feasibility study, describing the proposed stormwater rate structure, is presented in Technical Appendix, Volume V of the Final Report of the City's 1996 Stormwater Management Plan.) A discussion of the three different levels of funding follows. Option itl, at $4.00 per month, would generate $620,000 in projected annual revenue. This would allow the hiring of the two new staff, one ;n engineering Executive Summary ES-20 and one in street maintenance. The major advantage of this level of funding is that it increases stormwater maintenance, allows the City to initiate a capital improvement program (through bonding), supports new development, assists in the City's progrsm to control combined sewer overflows, achieves regulatory compliance, and frees up present stormwater funds of up to $135,000, presently allocated from the City's General Fund. Option #2, at $3.00 per month, generates $450,000 in new annual stormwater revenues. It allows the equivalent of one 'new staff person to hired, 0.5 FTE in Engineering and 0.5 FTE in Street Maintenance. The '. advantages are the same as Option #1 above, but the levels of maintenance and capital funding are less. Regulatory compliance would take longer and there would be less engineering and technical assistance available to support new development and respond to citizen requests. The General Fund would still be relieved of its revenue commitments to stormwater and up to $135,000 would be available for other appropriations. The third level of funding, Option #3, at $2.00 per month generates about $310,000 in annual revenue. It does not permit the hiring of any new staffor allow any improvements to the annual maintenance program. A small ~mount of funding ($38,000) would be available for a limited amount of capital facility construction. The primary advantage of this level of funding is that it relieves the General Fund of any stormwater appropriations and makes the existing level of sto~-nawater activities within the City self- supporting. The fourth option, not discussed in the 1996 budget memorandum, is to continue to fund the City's sto~-niwater activities at about the same level of $235,000 per year from the City's General Fund and $55,000 from the City's Street Fund. This option has no real advantage other than maintaining the status quo. There would be little stormwater improvements realized with this approach. The City would continue to be out of compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Existing drainage problems would not be addressed and there would be little support available to guide and support new development. 6.5 Funding Conclusion The City's Sto~-,,,water Program has a 1995 and 1996 operating budget of $290,000. Almost all of these revenues are from the City's existing General and Street Funds. The current funding level is not adequate to meet all existing Stormwater Program needs. Because the preferred management approach is to have stormwater, management be self-supporting, a new revenue option to form a wastewater-stormwater utility has been Executive Summary ES-21 recommended. Additional revenue sources inclu~ding bonding, state grants and loans, setting up new fees for new inspection/ enforcement services, and increasing wastewater and water utility support are also recommended to supplement the new combined utility fee. If the wastewater-stormwater utility revenue option was implemented, as discussed above, additional annual operating revenues could be realized by as much as $600,000 to $700,000 per year. This would be more than enough to meet the short-term st~g, program, and regulatory recommendations which would require an increase of $360,000 over the current funding level. An annual funding level of $1,745,000 per year has been identified to implement the long-term program recommendations and capital projects presented in this Stormwater Management Plan. New revenue sources need to be realized by the City to address these drainage infrastructure needs. The future obligations of the City, to implement the regional watershed plan and undertake groundwater management planning, are not well defined at this time and could require additional stai~Eng and financial resources in addition to those discussed in the management review. Future NPDES permits and compliance with the State's Comprehensive Program may also require additional funding. 7.0 Implementation 7.1 Future Stormwater Program and Priorities The responsibilities and services of the City's new stormwater program are conceptually displayed in Exhibit ES-1. Program priorities for the implementation of the recommended Stormwater Management Program for the City are as follows: 1. Regulatory compliance 2. Maintenance 3. Establishment of new funding sources 4. Hiring needed staff and developing an effective program · 5. Funding and building capital projects 6. Water quality enhancement and monitoring Executive Summary ES-22 '- Exhibit ES-1 Conceptual Schematic of-the Responsibilities and Services of the Port Angeles Stormwater Program Responsibil'rties: ,..... Stormwater Utility Fees ,~' and Grants Developer Permit Water/Wastewat. er Utility Support and InsTion F~s Management an~ / Technical Direction Wellhead Protection and Funding ~ ~ o Source Controls I ~o Program Prtor~tJes and \ · Developer _Fees . Workplan o Water Quality \ · Land Use Controls ~ · Staffing/Workload · Monitoring · Legal Authorit~ and · Public Education · CSO Separation Policies Funding Engineering and Technical Assistance Maintenance · ClP Planning and Funding ~ CIP Bonding · Maintenance Programs Inspection Fees ~ · Inspection/Enforcement (from private facilities) . Public Response · Spill/Emergency Response Services: City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program ~ F Grou!dwater ~ Executive Summary E$-23 7 7.2 Implementation Plan , The Port Angeles Storniwater Management Plan is recommended to be developed in three phases, as shown in Table ES-7. · Phase I (0-1 years)--Regulatory compliance, establish policies and secure funding, · Phase II (1-2 years)--Develop the Stormwater Program and complete regulatory compliance, and · Phase III (3-10 Years)--Operate the Program and build facilities. 7.3 Schedule The Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan has been designed to be developed and implemented over approximately a ten year period of time, as graphically shown in Exhibit ES-2. 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Conclusions · Marine, groundwater and surface water quality are important to the quality of' life for the citizens of the City and the region, making funding and implementation of the City's new Stormwater Program an important activity. · The City's Stormwater Program is underfunded to meet existing and future Stormwater Program and regulatory compliance responsibilities. · The City does not have adequate legal authority to develop an effective stormwater progrsm or meet regulatory requirements. The adoption of new drainage design standards (equivalent to the Department of Ecology Technical Manual) and enhancement of existing ordinances (stormwater, maintenance and inspection/enforcement) are needed. · New and additional staffing and funding alternatives should be considered to enhance the City's present Stormwater Program. · The City is not in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program and should take immediate action to be in full compliance as soon as practicable (1-2 years). Executive Summary ES-24 - Table ES-7 Approach for Implementation of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Phase I (0-1 years) [] Establish Policies, Standards and Controls, including Council adoption of the plan and new legal authority as defined in: · the new stormwater ordinance, · the new maintenance ordinance, · the new drainage design standards, and · new inspection/enforcement ordin.ance (if needed). [] Identifying and Securing Needed Financial Support, including such financial options as: · new developer fees, · new maintenance fees, · new inspection/enforcement fees, · creating a stormwater utility service charge, · grants and loans, and · revenue bends. [] Developing and Implementing An Effective Maintenance (O/M) Program, including · continuing to inventory and map facilities, and improve record keeping · identifying annual OflVI needs, and · performing O/M based on an znnual management plan, as priorities and funding allow. [] Enhancing Water Quality by: · Conducting Drainage Basin Assessments and establishing source control programs. ·Requiring Construction Treatment Controls and best management practices (BMPs). · Providing site inspection and enforcement Phase H (1-2 years) Developing the Stormwater Program [] Developing Internal Program by hiring identified short-term staff(l.8 FTE). [] Continuing to Perform Annual Inspections and Maintenance. [] Continuing Drainage Basin Assessments and Source Control Planning, and Construction Treatment Controls and BMPs. [] Securing Funding for Capital Projects ($9.33M) [] Establishing Inspection/Enforcement Programs. ~1 Achieve Regulatory Compliance with the Basic Stormwater Program by completing the abeve activities. Phase Ill (3-10 years) Operating the Program and Building Facilities [] Designing and Building Capital Improvements. [] Securing additional funding. [] Hiring Long-Term Staff, as identified in the Plan (6.3 FTE). [] Continuing and enhancing the Annual Maintenance Program. [] Implementing Source Control Plans. [] Continuing the Established Inspection/Enforcement Programs. [] Securing Grants and Loans, as appropriate. [] Preparing to meet future NPDES Permit requirements, if needed. Executive Summary ES-25 Executive Summary ES-26 8.2 Recommendations The City should: · Enhance the existing Stormwater Progr-~n to reduce or eliminate local drainage problems and reduce pollutant loadings into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca by increasing annual funding for maintenance, regulatory compliance, and capital projects. · Develop and implement a stormwater program that meets or exceeds the State's Basic Stormwater Program and prepares the City for compliance with possible State's imposed NPDES stormwater pe~-,,,it by 1997/1998. · Establish needed legal authority by revising existing ordinances, as needed, for stormwater, water quality, maintenance, and inspection/enforcement. · Adopt drainage standards for new development that meet or exceed the design requirements presented in Ecology Technical Manuals, Vol,,mes I and II. · Continue to reduce or eliminate combined sewer overflows into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. · Continue to e]iminate illicit connections to the City's sto~:m sewer system. · Establish a City-wide source control program to reduce the ~mounts of pollutants entering the City's stormwater system based on the results of Drainage Basin Assessments conducted in each of the City's urban drainage basins. · Investigate the establishment of new funding sources for stormwater management, including developer fees, connection charges, and creating a new City-wide combined wastewater-stormwater service fee. · Establish a regional, interagency agreement, including Clal]~rn County, the Coast Guard Facilities, and the Port of Port Angeles, to improve local water quality. · Continue to work with the Port of Port Angeles, the County, the County Public Health Department and other agencies and interest groups to establish specific monitoring and source control programs for urban and commercial/industrial discharges into the region's marine receiving waters. Executive Summary ES-27 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The City of Port Angeles (City) has recently undertaken a comprehensive effort to manage its water resources by conducting pl-nning studies for water, sewer, and stormwater. Common m~nagement goals for the City have been identified and used to integrate these three resulting h~rastructure pimps through the City's Growth Management Act (GMS) planning processes. The following Stormwater Management Plan (Plan) preserves and enhances the City's natural drainage system, while being responsive to local drainage problems and regulatory requirements. It also promotes the enhanced design standards needed to guide future development. The City has become involved in an ever-growing number of stormwater related planning and technical decisions. Many of these decisions have significant financial implications both to the City and its citizens. Whether it is surface water, water quality, wetlands, or groundwater; federal, State, and local storniwater regulations are requiring a greater level of local participation and funding. For the City, its stormwater progr,m needs to be upgraded to be consistent with the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Plan and be responsive to the technical requirements of' the Department of' Ecology's (Ecology) Basic Stormwater Program. It also needs to plan and be prepared for any future NPDES Stormwater Permits. As the City has grown, increased development has changed the nature and quality of' the City's water resources and natural drainage system. It is important that the City identify the role, level of involvement, and direction it wants to assume in managing drainage and enhancing the quality of its surface water discharges. The following StoL-mwater Plan presents a management analysis of the City's present drainage related activities and level of funding. It identifies the role the City needs to assume in order to comply with present regulatory requirements. Short and long-term improvements, along with funding alternatives, have been presented in a recommended implementation plan. 1.2 Purpose and Authority 1.2.1 Purpose The management of the City's drainage system is one of the many responsibilities of the City to pro, de for public safety and welfare. This responsibility includes the protection and preservation of the natural Introduction 1-1 resources of the area that play such a large role in sustain~g the City's quality 'of life. Within the City, the responsibility for storm and surface water management and the protection of the groundwater have been entrusted to the Department of Public Works (Public Works). It is the mission of the Stormwater Program (Program) within Public Works to control flooding, enhance water quality, protect sensitive habitat areas, and optimize the recharge of local aquifers. The purpose of this Plan is to evaluate the present operation and staffing of the City's Stormwater Program, suggest improvements to enhance the performance of the Progr~m~ meet regulatory requirements, address local drainage issues and present an .aPproach to fund and implement needed improvements. 1.2.2 Project Authorization The Department of Public Works of the City of Port Angeles retained Economfc and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) to assist the Council and City staff in reviewing the role and services of the Public Works' Stormwater Program. Documentation of this review and its findings and recommendations have been presented in this final report entitled Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Port Angeles. The Project Te~m for this effort included: · City staff, under the direction of Jack Pittis, P.E., Public Works Director, Gary Kenworthy, P.E., City Engineer and David Sawyer; Senior Planner and Project Manager · EES staff, under the direction of Project Manager Joseph Simmler, Ph.D. The agreement for these consulting services to develop a Stormwater Management Plan for the City consisted of the following tasks: Phase ImData Collection and Analysis Phase IItField Inventory and Engineering Analysis Phase III--Program Evaluation and Assessment Phase IV---Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Phase V--Stormwater Management Plan Development 1.2.3 Authorized Study Area The study area for the development of the Plan for the City included all natural and manmade drainage systems located within the existing City limits. Mapping, wetlands, inventory and stream surveys included areas within the City's Growth Management Area boundaries as well as within the City limits. Introduction 1-2 '- 1.3 Goals and Objectives In developing the Scope of Work for this Plan, it was important to characterize both the existing progr9m and the current regulatory fi-srnework in which the program is operating. At the s~me time, the Plan needed to present a stormwater program to adequately protect both surface water and groundwater, while effectively utilizing limited local resources. Keeping this guidance in mind, the following goals and objectives were established for this project: · Doc~ment the activities ~d responsibilities of the City's Stormwater ?-.~_ Program, with a particular emphasis on surface water management and the regulatory elements of the program; · Doc~ment and characterize the existing drainage system and water quality issues, identify capital and non-structural water quality improvements and costs; · Evaluate the City's stormwater activities from the standpoint of solving local problems, meeting regulatory requirements, e~nd providing services and protection for the City's citizens and drainage facilities; · Assess the Program's current scope of services, authority, organization, staffing, equipment, and level of funding; · Recommend a mi~irn~m stormwater management program that addresses local problems and meets existing regulatory requirements; .. · Provide technical, programmatic, administrative, and financial guidance to allow the City to identify the future role, organization, responsibilities, and level of funding needed for the City's Stormwater Program; and · Present prioritized program enhancements and funding sources in a recommended implementation plan for the City Council to consider in order to {mprove and protect the City's natural water resources and meet existing regulatory requirements. . 1.4 Approach and Scope of Work The above goals and objectives for the project were used to develop the approach and define the seven primary activities, listed below, that were undertaken to complete the following Stormwater Management Plan for the City. E~hibit 1-1, on the following page, presents a schematic overview of the planning process, and Appendix lB of Technical Appendix Volume I, contains a copy of the Scope of Work between EES and the City. The project was completed over appro~mately a two Introduction 1-3 - Introduction 1-4 year period beginning in December of 1993. This project was funded by the City of Port Angeles from the Public Works Street Fund and a Clean Water Centennial Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Activity 1--Project Management Activity 2--Water Quality Assessment and Drainage Area Characterization Activity 3--Hydrologic Analysis Activity 4~Problem Identification Activity 5tAlternative Development Activity 6 , Stormwater Management Plan Development Activity 7--Public Information and Involvement 1.5 Relationship to Other Plans This Stormwater Management Plan has taken into account a number of other existing plans and activities sponsored by the City of Port Angeles, Clallsm County (County), and the State of Washington. 1.5.1 Planning within the City of Port Angeles Significant water resources planning and infrastructure studies have been undertaken by the City of Port Angeles. Those that are most relevant to the following stormwater program analysis included the: · City of Port Angeles, Growth Management Act--Comprehensive Plan, 1994. Adopted by the City in July of 1994, the Comprehensive Plan presents general stormwater and watershed management practices and policies. Included in the plan is a list of stormwater capital improvement projects which have been identified for design and construction over the next twenty years. · City of Port Angeles, Stormwater Management Plan, 1990. The City completed its first stormwater management plan in 1990. The development of the plan included the modeling of each of the ten major drainage basins within the City. Based on the hydraulic/hydrologic modeling results, a list of capital projects and operations and maintenance recommendations were made. Regulatory issues were also reviewed and a series of financial needs and alternatives were presented. (Note: This 1995 Stormwater Management Plan builds upon this earlier 1990 engineering analysis and presents a more in- depth review of regulatory, management and financial issues. Progrsmmatic and staffing alternatives are presented for the various sto~-mwater activities. The financial analysis presents funding alternatives, including an in-depth analysis of the formation of a City- wide stermwater utility. Introduction 1-5 · City of Port Angeles, Combined Sewer Overflow ReductionPlan, 1994. The 1994 Port Angeles Combined Sewer Overview (CSO) Reduction Plan studied the City's eleven sanitary sewer drainage areas and recommended a CSO management approach that included peak flow reduction, reduction of infiltration and inflow through disconnection, storage, local treatment of CSO's and conveyance and treatment at the City's sewage treatment. A twenty year schedule for the completion of the above CSO improvement projects was identified and included in the City's sanitary NPDES discharge permit with the State. State comments regarding the City's proposed CSO reduction plan stressed the need for the City to improve the management and funding of its stormwater program. The formation of a stormwater utility was suggested by the City and encouraged by the state to enhance the City's ability to finance the needed CSO improvements and more effectively manage its stormwater discharges. · City of Port Angeles, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, 1989. The City completed its first wastewater facilities plan in 1989, two years after receiving a consent decree from the State (10-22-87). Four years later in 1993, the City received its first State N-PDES permit (11-30-93) for the operation of its sewage treatment plant and discharge of sewage effluent into Port Angeles Harbor. Among other improvements, the plan recommended the expansion of the capacity and level of treatment at the City's sewage treatment plant, reduction of combined sewer overflow, reduction of inflow and infiltration, and the completion of an inventory and mapping of the City's sewage and stormwater conveyance systems. The City is in the process of achieving compliance with the various elements of its wastewater NPDES permit, including improved management of its sto~mwater discharges, as identified in the twenty year compliance schedule. 1.5.2 Planning within Clallam County Watershed Planning . Clallam County has been active over the last few years in providing regional leadership through the coordination and development of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The County Plan includes the drainages from .the ten major city drainage basins that discharge into Port Angeles Harbor or directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The draf~ Port Angeles Watershed Plan was completed in January of 1995 and has been adopted by all participating agencies, including the City of Port Angeles. These planning efforts have been particularly successful due to the continuous support and input from the City of Port Angeles, the Puget Sound Introduction 1-6 - Cooperative River Basin TeRm, the State Department of Ecology, and ":' "' numerous citizen and environmental groups. Land Use and Growth Management Planning Growth management planning h~ been occurring in the County over the past two to three years. Coordination has occurred between the City and the County landuse planners. Comprehensive landuse plans and GMA boundaries have been mutually established, defining future City limits. Stormwater, Groundwater, and Water Resources Planning The County is actively involved in the land use pl~nnlng and development processes outside of the City in the unincorporated areas of the Port Angeles regional watersheds. The County approves building pe,:mits based upon established zoning and building codes, which include drainage. The County sanitation engineer reviews and approves the sanitary systems in unincorporated areas of the County which are primarily on-site septic tank systems. The County Department of Health (County DOH), County Conservation District and County Cooperative Extension Service have been active participants in local watershed studies ~nd have monitored water quality in and around the City of' Port Angeles. There is a need for one governmental entity with regional jurisdiction and authority, such as the County, to continue to lead and integrate the water resource planning, development, and protection processes throughout the County. Beginning with the implementation and enforcement of' the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, active regional leadership is needed to protect and guide the use of the area's surface, ground and drinking water supplies and marine resources. Regional water resource issues that need immediate attention include: · Funding and implementing the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. · Adopting stormwater ordinances that include the Ecology drainage design standards and O&M practices. · Effective permitting, inspection, and enforcement of building regulations, including the siting of septic systems. · Improving maintenance of existing facilities. · Preserving and protecting the natural drainage systems. · Securing adequate funding, staffing, and technical expertise. Introduction 1-7 · Updating plans and improving regional watershed planning, land use, and zoning decision m~ki~g, including coordinated and integrated development review and permitting processes. · Conducting stormwater, water quality monitoring, and habitat studies to establish effective source control programs, such as the reduction of colifo~-,,, levels in drainages discharging to Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. · Improving education of developers, hobby farmers, marina operators, commercial businesses, ',dairy farmers, and foresters/loggers in order to protect water resources, preserve habitat, and reduce the release of pollutants to surface and groundwaters. Both the Clall~m County planning and Public Works Departments have been jointly sponsoring regional water resources enhancement programs. The County should consider forming a stormwater utility throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. This new utility could annually collect new revenues which will allow the County to begin to implement the new Port Angeles Watershed Plan. 1.6 Overview of Regulatory Requirements Developing and operating an effective drainage system is one of the many responsibilities of local government to protect public and private property, wisely utilize and protect its natural resources (i.e., the natural drainage system), and provide for the welfare of its public. ~Many of the various components of an agency's drainage program, however, are required and/or guided by a series of federal, state, regional ~nd local regulatory requirements, as briefly summarized below. 1.6.1 Federal Regulations Federal requirements governing stormwater and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal are contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-5000), as ~mended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95- 217) and Water Quality Act Of 1987 (PL 100-4). This group of laws and its associated ~mendments are referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The objective of the Clean Water Act is to ~restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters" by eliminating all pollutant discharges into navigable waters and achieving ~fishable and swimmable conditions." Stormwater related goals of the CWA are to: ·prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants, · develop the technology needed to eliminate pollutant discharges, and · implement programs to control nonpoint source pollution. Introduction 1-8 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the responsibility to develop, administer, and enforce the regulations needed to achieve the above goals. In the State of Washington (State), this authority and responsibility has been delegated from EPA to the State. The State administers this authority through the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1.6.2 Washington State Regulations Wasl~ington State Law Chapter 90.48 of the Regulatory Code of Washington (RCW), is the State Clean Water Act which adopts the federal requirements that define stormwater as waters of' the United States that must meet water quality standards. Chapter 90.48 RCW states: "It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wildlife, birds, games, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known and available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington. ~ Chapter 173-201A WAC, establishes Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington and states.in part that: "qTtrAC 173-201A-160(3)Co) Best management practices shall be applied so that when all appropriate combinations of individual best management practices are utilized, violation of water quality criteria shall be prevented...~ 'qTtrA C 173-201A-160(3)(c)Activities which contribute to nonpoint source pollution shall be conducted utilizing best management practices to prevent violation of water quality criteria. (When~ applicable best management practices are not being implemented, the department may conclude individual activities are causing pollution in violation of RCW 90.48.080. In these situations, the department may pursue orders, directives, permits, or civil or criminal sanctions to gain compliance with the standards.)~ ~WAC 173-201A-160(3)(d) Activities which cause pollution of storm water shall be conducted so as to comply with the water quality standards. The primft, ry means to be used for requiring compliance with the standards shall be through best Introduction 1-9 management practices required in waste discharge permits, rules, orders and directives issued by the department for activities which generate storm water pollution. ~ ~tTAC 173-201A-020 AKART is an acronym for "all known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment. ~ AKART Shall represent the most current methodology that can be reasonably required for preventing, controlling, or abating the pollutants associated with a discharge. The concept of AKART applies to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The term 'best management practices~ typically applied to nonpoint source pollution controls is considered a subset of the AKART requirement.~ The Stormwater Management Manual developed by Ecology in 1992 for the Puget Sound Basin (SMMPSB) can be used to provide guidance for developing best management practices. Best management practices, in turn, are a subset of AKART, and are currently the primary means to show compliance with the water quality standards. Local governments are required under State law to establish stormwater management programs. Chapter 90.70 RCW establishes the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (Authority) and directs the Authority to develop a comprehensive pollutant management plan for the Puget Sound. The resulting Water Quality Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin was first published in 1987 and has subsequently been amended in 1990, 1991, 1992, and most recently in May of 1994. Each of the 115 local governments discharging to the Puget Sound Basin, including the City of Port Angeles, are required to develop stormwater programs consistent with the Puget Sound Plan subject to available funding. ~RCW 90.70.070(1) In conducting planning, regulatory and appeals actions, the state agencies and local governments identified in the plan must evaluate, and incorporate as applicable, subject to the availability of appropriate funds or other funding sources, the provisions of the plan, including any guidelines, standards and timetables contained in the plan. ~ The State expects that each local government demonstrate at least a "good faith' effort to obtain funding to develop and implement a stormwater management program that is consistent with the Puget Sound Plan. Compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is mandatory subject to available funding, and the mi~im~m that is required is that a local government should adopt ordinances to control Introduction 1-I0 runoff from new development and redevelopment, and to m~;ntain both public and private stormwater facilities, and to adopt either Ecolog~s manual or one that is ~substantiany equivalent~ to Ecologfs manual for the construction of new drainage facilities. The target date set in the Puget Sound Plan was January 1, 1995, for compliance with the Basic Stormwater Program, and the year 2000 for compliance with the Comprehensive Stormwater Program. (Note: The City of Port Angeles only needs to comply with the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program.) The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was adopted by EPA in May, 1991 as the first Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan in the United States under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The EPA can, therefore, enforce the Puget Sound Plan in a manner similar to any other program or activity described within the Federal Clean Water Act. Ecology's role in the Puget Sound Plan requires that: "Ecology shall monitor compliance with these requirements, reviewing the status of city and county operation and maintenance and runoff control programs every two years to ensure consistent and adequate implementation and report to the Authority. Ecology's oversight role shall pertain only to compliance with the objectives of the plan's stormwater program and appropriate rules and statutes and technical suggestions to improve implementation .... ~ (Note: A detailed discussion of what the City of Port Angeles needs to do to be in compliance with the Puget Sound Plan is presented in Section 5 of this Stormwater Plan). 1.6.3 Regional and Local Regulations Clall~rn County has ass~med the lead role in regional stormwater management. The County Plsnning Division in coordination with the Clallsm County Health Department, the Clall~m County Conservation District, the City of Port Angeles, and a host of other individuals and groups of concerned citizens, have collectively developed Watershed Action Plan for the Port Angeles regional watershed. This comprehensive management plan has been developed to eliminate the various sources of pollution and enhance the water quality and ecology within both Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The City of Port Angeles has adopted and approved both of these regional planning doc,~ments and has thereby agreed to implement its assigned activities and responsibilities, as local funding allows. Introduction 1-11 1.7 Technical Guidance Used to Prepare the Plan Substantial info,'~nation exists regarding the design of stormwater progr~m~ water quality treatment facilities within the State of Washington, and particularly within the Puget Sound Drainage basin. The two primary doc~ments used in developing this Stormwater Msnagement Plan for the City of Port Angeles were: ® The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, adopted November 21, 1990, by the Washington State Legislature, with its 1992 and 1994 ~mendments; and · The Stormwater Management M~-ual for the Puget Sound Basin, Vol~mes I and II, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology in February of 1992. Other doc~ments used for background information and additional technical guidance included the: · United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations (Federal Register, November 16, 1990). · Washington State Department of Transportation Hydraulics Manual. · Soil Survey of Clallam County Area, Washington; USDA; Soil Conservation Service, September 1980. · City of Port Angeles: Zoning and Land Use Plans. · City of Port Angeles: 1994 Comprehensive Plan. · City of Port Angeles: 1995-2000 Capital Improvement Plan, 1994. · City of Port Angeles: 1995 Final Budget Documents. · City of Port Angeles: 1990 Sto,~mwater Management Plan. · City of Port Angeles: 1989 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. · City of Port Angeles: 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan. · City of Port Angeles: Stormwater, Erosion, Control and Development -. Standards, as defined in City Municipal Code Chapters 5 and 6. · City of Port Angeles Ordinances: · Wetlands Ordinance: Ordinance #2655 · Sensitive Areas Ordinance: Ordinance #2656 · Clearing, Grading, Filling and Drainage Control Ordinance: Ordinance #2734 · Clall~m County: Port Angeles Watershed Plan, January, 1995. Introduction 1-12 · Clall~m County: Port Angeles Regional Watershed Report with Input from the City of Port Angeles and Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin TeAm, November, 1993. · ClallAm County: Port Angeles Area Watershed Report by the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin TeAm, August, 1993. · Clall~m County: Solid and Hazardous Waste: Existing Conditions in the Port Angeles Watershed, August, 1993. · Clall~m County: Report for Watershed Ranking Project for the Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution, December, 1988 (Tetra Tech). · 1.8 I~eport Overview and Organization The Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Port Angeles is presented in terms of prioritized program recommendations. This format allows the City Council to select the optimum balance between protection of the City's extensive and diverse water resources and the appropriate scope for the City's water resources program and level of local financial commitment. A minimum level of service has been identified that allows the City to comply with existing regulations and responsibly address most local needs and services expected by the public. Higher levels of service allow the City to increase the level of resource protection and begin to allow the City's Stormwater Program to prevent problems and manage the resources rather than responding to problems once they have occurred. The Plan presented in this final report is described in the following sections. · Section 1--Introduction · Section 2--Drainage Area Characterization · Section 3--Water Quality Assessment · Section 4--Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis · Section 5--Existing Stormwater Program · Section 6 Regulatory Compliance · Section 7--Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater ProgrAm · Section 8--Stormwater Management Plan · Section 9--Conclusions and Recommendations · Section 10rePublic Involvement · Appendices Section ! describes the goals of this study and reviews the planning process used to develop the recommended PI~, Section 2 presents background information and watershed characteristics of the various drainages within the study area, while Section 3 assesses water quality problems-and presents 'Control strategies and costs. Introduction 1-13 Section 4 reviews drainage problems, discusses management alternatives, proposes solutions and their costs. In Section 5, an evaluation of the City's existing drainage program is made. In Section 6, the various activities needed to achieve regulatory compliance are compared with the existing drainage program. Section 7 presents a management analysis of the City's existing Stormwater Program and recommends st~Wi~g, funding, and programmatic enhancements. The recommended Stormwater Management Plan is presented in Section 8. Section 8 also presents an implementation schedule and reviews and proposes financial alternatives to support the recommended program enhancements and meet regulatory responsibilities. Conclusions and final recommendations are presented in Section 9. Section 10 summarizes the public involvement process and the role of the Stormwater Management Plan Advisory Committee. The Technical Appendices of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan, contain a number of documents important to the understanding of the City's stormwater program and key regulatory requirements. See contents for a listing of the Technical Appendices associated with thi~ plan. 1.9 List and Location of Major Products Stormwater Management Plan: This document, the Executive Summary and Technical Appendices presented in Volumes I, II, III, IV-l, IV-2, V and VI. LTnder separate cover are: · Executive Summary. · Technical Appendices to Stormwater Management Plan: Technical Appendix, Volume I. · Wetlands Inventory: Technical Appendix, Volume II. · Stream and Fish Habitat Survey: Technical Appendix, Volume III. · Regulatory Compliance Documents: Technical Appendix Volume IV. · Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study: Technical Appendix, Volume V. · Port Angeles Watershed Mapping Portfolio: Technical Appendix, Volume VI. Introduction 1-14 Section 2 Drainage Area Characterization This section describes the study area and summarizes existing data regarding population, land use and economy, as well as the physical and biological features of the City's natural drainage system. Findings from previous studies and reports are presented as they relate to stormwater and water quality issues, and allow for the identification and discussion of existing drainage problems. Primary reference doc,,ments include: the Port Angeles 1994 Comprehensive Plan, the Port Angeles 1990 Stormwater Management Plan, the Clall-m County 1995 Port Angeles Watershed Plan, and the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report by Clall-m County, the City of Port Angeles and the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Te-m. (Note: Section 2, entitled Drainage Area Characterization, is provided as background info~-~uation about the stormwater planning area within the City of Port Angeles. It is intended to assist the reader in understanding the rationale and approach used to develop the City's Stormwater Management Plan. It is not intended to be an exhaustive literature review about the study area. For additional and more in-depth info~-vaation about the study area, the reader is referred to the November 1993 draft of the Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report.) 2.1 Description of the Study Area The study area for this Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan includes the natural and manmade drainage features within the existing City limits of the City of Port Angeles. Selected technical studies, including wetlands and sensitive areas assessments, mapping and stream surveys, were performed within the proposed City of Port Angeles Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. Generally, the study area is defined to the west by the western watershed boundary of Dry Creek and to the east by the eastern watershed boundary of Morse Creek. The southern limits of the study area extended to the City's southern GMA boundary, just north of the northern limits of the Olympic National Park. 2.2 Location and Boundaries The City of Port Angeles is located in Clall~m County, Washington, on the north end of the Olympic Peninsula, as shown in Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2. It is about 150 miles northwest of the City of Seattle. The City is just south of Ediz Hook, on the south side of Strait of Juan de Fuca, which- forms Port Angeles Harbor. To the east, Drainage Area Characterization 2-1 / / _.. ! ~ ~..o~ EXHIBIT 2-1 City of Port ~geles Stormwater Management Plan LOCkTION M~ " Table 2-1 Port Angeles Land Use Information Developed Land Available Land Land Use # Acres Percent # Acres Percent Residential 2,430 48 3,048 50 Commercial 350 7 422 7 Industrial 855 17 1,432 23 Public 1,440 28 1,200 20 Total 5,075 100 6,100 100 The developed portion of the City includes approximately 5,075 acres of land. Within the developed areas of the City, the land uses include residential (48 percent), commercial (7 percent), industrial (17 percent), and public (28 percent) properties. High density resident homes located on parcels of less than 1.5 acres cover 2,291 acres of the City. In total, approximately 83% (5,075 acres) of the City's available land area has been developed. Most of the development is along the lower reaches of Peabody, Valley and T~mwater Creeks. (1994 City Comprehensive Plan) 2.5 Port Angeles Growth Management Plan The 1994 Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan presents a proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary that is substantially larger than the City's present limits, as shown in Exhibit 2-5. Industrial and residential growth is presently being experienced in the four areas shown in Exhibit 2-6. Some of these areas may soon be annexed into the City. (1994 City Comprehensive Plan) This Stormwater Management Plan addresses the drainage issues within the most developed areas, within the existing City limits. As growth continues to occur, and areas within the GMA are annexed into the city, it is recommended that this Stormwater Plan be updated on an as-needed basis to respond to an expanded drainage service area. 2.6 Population Historically, the Port Angeles area has experienced a slow growth rate of about 1%. Through the 1950's, only 399 individuals were added to the City's population. This rate of growth is equivalent to about 0.44% per year. Currently, the population is estimated to be 18,270 people (in 1993), occupying about 7,975 housing units (in 1992). Of the 26,762 people living within the Port Angeles Watershed area, about two-thirds (66.2%) of them live within the City of Port Angeles. About 30% of the Drainage Area Characterization 2- 7 County's population of' 61,400 reside within the City of Port Angeles. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) Based on the 1990 census, and an average growth rate of' about 1.0%, the population within the city is expected to reach 18,382 by the year 2000 and 19,053 by the year 2010. (1994 City Comprehensive Plan) 2.7 Economy ~["ne economy of the region ~nd the City has been h~storica~ty dependent on the presence and level of` activity within the area's natu.ral resom'ce based Jndnstries, consisting p~ma~--J~y of` logging and :~s]:~ng. IV[ore recently tourism and a growing retirement commonalty have added to the diversifying economy within the city. The employment within the City is led by the service industries, followed by government, retail, manufacturing and construction. The City of l~ort Angeles provides the major economic stimulus for the entire region, with the City serving as the regional manufacturing and trade center that supports most of' the out-lying smaller communities. At the hub of the city's manufacturing trade are three large wood product firms of Rayonier, Daishowa America and K-Ply L~mber (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) 2.8 Transportation The City of Port Angeles is connected with the regions network of' highways though that section of' U.S. Route 101 that passes directly through the city in a east-west direction, as shown in Exhibit 2-7. State Route 112 intersects with U.S. Route 101, just west of` the City. Access is provided throughout the city by an interconnected network of' arterial and local residential streets. The city is the site of an international airport, operated by the Port of Port Angeles, just west and south of the city's central downtown area. Ferry access in Port Angeles Harbor connects the city directly with Vancouver Island. 2.9 Climate The area's climate is characterized by rainy winters and relatively cool, dry summers. It is similar to most areas along the northwestern Washington coast. The area is predominatelY maritime and experiences a small range of temperature extremes. Drainage Area Characterization 2-10 This m~ld c~mate reflects the i,~fluence of the winds from Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean. The uplii~ of Air masses moving from these large bodies of water produces rainfall which averages about 25 inches per year. The City receives 75 percent of its 9nnual precipitation as r~i,~fall between October and March. The western and southern areas experience about 3 inches more rainfall Per year than the rest of the city. Snowfall can occur in minor ~mounts in December, January, February. Snow rarely exceeds 3 to 6 inches in depth and readily melts within 1 to 2 days. Regional monthly temperature and rainfall records are presented in Table '2-2. The annual average temperature in the City is 49°F. Summer temperatures range from 50-60°F, while winter temperatures average between 40-50°F. The highest and lowest temperatures are 94°F ~d 6°F, respectively. (1990 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan) Table 2-2 Port Angeles Monthly Rainfall and Temperature Data Monthly Average Monthly Average Month Temperature ('F) Precipitation (Inches) January 39 3.87 February 41 3.06 March 43 1.99 April 47 1.08 May 52 0.89 June 56 0.96 July 59 0.48 September 59 0.58 October 57 1.10 November 44 2.48 December 41 4.35 ~,nntla[ Average 49 24.61 1990 Port Angeles Storrnwater Plan 2.10 Topography ~. The City and its surrounding area can be characterized as lying on a gradually descending slope extending from the northern foothills of the Olympic mountains at an elevation of 500 to 750 feet to sea level at the southern shore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The central, downtown area lies at the bottom of a gently sloping depression. Directly to the east and west of the central area are sea bluffs 50 to 100 feet in height. The northwestern borders-of the City, along the shoreline between Angeles Point and Ediz Hook consist of steep, shear sea cliffs ranging from 50 to Drainage Area Characterization 2-12 150 feet in height. Sea bluffs of about 50 feet in height are present along most of the Port Angeles Harbor area with the exception of Ediz Hook aud the central waterfront areas, which are at or slightly above sea level in the topographic depression mentioned above. Most of the City lies on a series of gently sloping tiers ranging from 150 to 450 feet in elevation, as shown Exhibit 2-8. This sloping tiered plateau is traversed by many narrow deeply incised, v-shaped valleys created by the many streAr~s flowing northerly, directly down the slope from the foothills of the Olympic Mountains into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There are seven major streAm~ which pass through the city in such a parallel manner, creating a series of long, narrow, south to north flowing drainage basins, as shown previously in Exhibit 2-3. (1990 Stormwater Management Plan) 2.11 Geology The geolog7 of the Port Angeles area is c[L~erent from other areas of the Puget Sound basin in that bedrock exposures of deep marine origin are common and the glacial deposits are thinner and more eroded than in other coastal areas. At least two glacial advances have previously covered the Port Angeles area, leaving relatively thin glacial deposits of only about 150 feet in depth over the sedimentary bedrock. The last Fraser Glaciation lei~ about 50 feet of glacial till over much of the lowland areas, below 1,000 feet in elevation and scattered outwash gravel on the older marine terrace at An elevation of about 150 feet. Erosion, after this last glaciation of 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, through this easily eroded glacial debris, has created the n~merous parallel drainage basins which characterize much of the study area. (Note: Additional detail of the various geologic units and geomorphic processes is presented in the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report. 2.12 Soils The soils of the Port Angeles area were formed by a series of physical and environmental interactions involving the surface geology, climate, topography, biota and time. Based on the 1987 Survey of Clallsm County Soils by the Soil Conservation Service, there are 37 different types of soil within the Port Angeles Study. Twenty of these soils have been mapped and are presented in Exhibit 2-9. The 37 soils mentioned above have been grouped into the four predominant soils present within the study area. Characteristics of each soil, including runoff, permeability, wetness and erosion are listed below in Table 2-3. Drainage Area Characterization 2-13 Table 2-3 · Water Quality Soil Groups and Corresponding Soil Characteristics Water Quality SoU Characteristicst Impact~ Water Quality % Perm~ Surface Ground- Soil Group of Soils Runoff ability Wetness Erosion Water water Clal~/Elwha 48% Slow to Very Slows Seasonal Slight to Medium to Low Medium Moclera~e High Louella/Terbies 26% Medium to Moderato None Slight to High Low Fast Severe Hoypus/~eilton 19% Slow Rapid to None Slight to Low to High Very Severe Medium Rapid Casey/McKenna 7% ?ondod to Yery Slow Seasonal None to Low to Low to Slow or Year- Slight High High round 2) This is a subjective rat~ o£ the group b~sed on the so~'s influence on transpo~ o£polluta~ts to either surface or groundwater. '~low" indicates little influence whereas a soil with a ~high" rating may be a significant factor. Other factors such as geology and topography affect an area's potential to impact water quality. 3) Permeability is moderate above the compacted till layer and very slow through that layer. The predominate soil type within the city of Port Angeles is the Clallam/Elwha Group (soils #12 and #14 in Exhibit 2-9) which underlies as much as 80% of the city. It occurs throughout the study area except on the steeper slopes of the foothills to the Olympics. In addition to the Elwha and Clallam soils, a small portion of this group (3%) includes the Hoypus soils that are part of the Clal]am-Hoypus complex. Two percent is the Schnorbush and Cassolary soils. Soils in this group occur on slopes ranging from fiat to moderately steep. Creeks draining this soil group generally have httle or no flood plain. These types of soils often contain wetlands. The Clallam/Elwha Soil group is characterized by a moderately permeable, uncompacted till layer, 20 to 40 inches deep, overlying very compacted till material (hardpan). These soils are well drained above .the pan with low permeability throughout the pan. As a result, precipitation on these soils drains quickly to the pan then flows laterally to an outlet in a depression, hillside seep, stream, or road cut. Water often collects above the pan creating a seasonal high water table during the winter months. The depth to the cemented layer and seasonal water table varies, but is generally between 20 and 40 inches. Runoff is slow to medium depending on whether the profile above the till layer is saturated or not. The hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. The main limitations for on-site septic tank absorption fields are seasonal wetness, steepness of slope, and the depth to compact glacial till. Overall, these soils are rated as having a moderate to high potential for contributing to surface water pollution and a low Drainage Area Characterization 2-16 potential for impacting groundwater (assuming no connection between a water table perched on the till layer and an aquifer). (1990 Stormwater Management Plan and 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) 2.13 Groundwater The nature and extent of the area's groundwater aquifers are presented in the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report. The seven different aquifer regions identified within the study area are presented in Exhibit 2-10. It is interesting to note that no aquifers have been identified under the central,~ older business district of the City, but do underlie the areas of new development to the east and west within the City. Generally, the sixteen aquifers can be classified into two distinct categories, unconsolidated aquifers and bedrock aquifers. Unconsolidated aquifers exist as discontinuous layers or lenses in unconsolidated glacial and alluvial deposits. These aquifer zones lie between thicker layers of less permeable compact glacial till consisting of compacted clay, silt and sand. These aquifers are often perched, unconfined, or partially confined and are located in the northeast areas of the City at higher elevations, northeast of Port Angeles in the 'Elwha River drainage, and in the valleys of the various streams running through the City. Bedrock aquifers occur where groundwater flows within major fractures within the bedrock, but has little if any permeability through the bedrock itself. The bedrock throughout the Port Angeles area is highly deformed and fractures of this type are common. The presence, location and size of bedrock aquifers varies greatly throughout the study area Wells drilled south and east of the City and in the southern reaches of the Elwha drainage draw upon bedrock aquifers confined in deposits of shale, mudstone, sandstone and/or silt stone. Within the study area the following seven aquifer regions are present. (See Exhibit 2-10.) Most of these aquifers underlie the most eastern and southern regions of the study area. · Region 4 Deer Park Road: a few moderately deep wells with moderate to high fields. · Region 5--Lee's Creek: deep wells with moderate yields. · Region 6 Mt. Pleasant Road: shallow wells with moderate to high production. Drainage Area Characterization 2-17 · Region 7--Monroe Road: shallow to moderately deep wells with moderate to high yields. · Region 8--Mt. Angeles Road: shallow wells have low to moderate yields, deeper wells have moderate to high yields. · Region 9--Old Mill Road: moderately deep wells with low to moderate yields. · Region 10tBlack Diamond Road: a few deep wells with moderate yields, deep wells in glacial deposits have high yields. 2.14 Vegetation and Land Cover The Port Angeles area was originally very slm/lar to other communities around Puget Sound in regard to its original natural vegetation. Mature forests were once dominated by Douglas Firs, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock with a host of understory shrubs and herbs, as listed in Table 2-4. Table 2-4 List of Plants Typical of Puget Sound Region Common N~,-e Scientific Name Trees Big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Red alder Alnus rubra Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Cascara Rhamnus purshiana Willow Salix spp European mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia Western red cedar Thuja plicata Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Drainage Area Characterization 2-19 Table 2-4 (continued) List of Plants Typical of Puget Sound Region Common Name Scientific Shrubs ~rm maple Acer circinatum Red-osier dogwood Comus stolonifera Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Salal Gaultheria shallon Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis Devil's club Oplopanax horridum Stink gurrant Ribes bracteosum Prickly current Ribes lacustre Evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Scoule~s willow Vaccinium parvifolium Red elderberry Sambucus racemose Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Herbs Lady-fern Athyriuium felix-fernina Deer-fern Blechnum spicant Enchater's nightshade Circaea alpine Pacific bleeding-heart Dicentra formosa Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Bedstraw Galium spp Largeleaved evens Geum macrophyllum Tall mannagrass Glyceria elate Today, the vegetation in the study area is primarily a function of land use history, soil properties, and topographic characteristics. Native plant communities have been largely replaced by landscape plantings throughout most of the study area. In the relatively small portion of undeveloped land, second growth forest vegetation is composed of Big Leaf Maple, Douglas Fir, and Western Hemlock trees with a salal and sword fern understory. In areas of more moisture, Western Red Cedar, Alder, and Black Cottonwood may be found, with salmon berry and other common understory plants. Common plants in wetland areas include mosses, wine grass, reeds, cottontails, rushes, willows, sedges and a host of other diverse and often unique wetland species "According to the Washington .National Heritage Program, the Olympic Peninsula has the greatest diversity in kinds of wetlands of Drainage Area Characterization 2-20 any place in western Washington, and Peninsula wetlands..:support more rare plants than any other part of the State.' (1993 Port Angeles . Watershed Characterization Report) The type and amount of vegetative land cover within a region determines the amount of protection and stabilization afforded to the soils and provides a variety of drainage and water quality related functions. "Vegetation shields the soil from the action of raindrops, maintaining soil infiltration capacity and permeability. Plant roots bind the soil, increasing its stability against movement by gravity, wind, or water. The organic litter beneath the cover has a sponge effect, holding some moisture, and slowing the movement of what it cannot hold. Vegetative cover along stre~mba~k~ and wetlands provides hiding places for fish and other creatures, a source of prey (bugs, insects, etc.) and shade, which helps maintain optimum water temperature. Impermeable cover, such as asphalt pavement, increases both the quantity of runoff, and the rate at which flows reach their peak. As water flows over impermeable surfaces, it collects pollutants from a variety of sources, and produces cumulative downstream quantities much greater than at the source. Vegetative cover can reduce pollutant loads, by slowing, detaining, or even absorbing quantities of bacteria, chemicals, sediment, and even heavy metals. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) The challenge faced by the City of Port Angels is that much of the original vegetative cover has been removed, which significantly reduces the region's ability to control flooding, naturally remove pollutants, maintain stream flows and fish habitats, and recharge local aquifers. The City has recently adopted ordinances to help preserve the remaining natural areas within the City in order to retain many of the natural water resource related benefits listed above. Adoption, funding and implementation of this stormwater management plan will further assist the City in realizing these goals. 2.15 Surface Water Surface water and drainage patterns in the study area are largely dictated by local topography and underlying soils and geology. The' City is composed of numerous small drainage basins which collect local surface water runoff and discharge it directly into the marine waters. Most of the original natural drainage features (stremms, wetlands, springs, etc.) have been removed or altered during the development of the City. Major large stream corridors and drainage ravines still exist, however, in some areas of the City_. In most parts of the City, the drainage follows the existing topography and is intercepted and conveyed in a network of Drainage Area Characterization 2-21 pipes and. culverts which have been constructed in each of these developed watersheds. Flooding problems are common in many areas of the City. With the exception of the smaller basfn~s, each of the other seven large drainage basins within the study area have minor localized flooding problems. The Amount of water flowing from a watershed is determined by the hydrology of the basin. The movement of water within a drainage basin (i.e., the hydrologic cycle) is conceptually shown in Exhibit 2-11. The cycle shows water moving from the atmosphere as precipitation, flowing over the land surface and in channels, eventually reaching the strait and evaporating into the atmosphere to continue the cycle. Some precipitation sinks into the ground, becoming part of the groundwater system, and takes longer to find its way back to the atmosphere. Some water returns to the atmosphere before reaching the strait, evaporating from the ground and from lakes and wetlands, or being transpired by plants. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Plan) Surface runoff, subsurface water movement and water storage are determined by a myriad of features within the watershed including the Amount and intensity of rainfall, wetlands, soils, land use, topography, and rate of evapotransportation. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) A brief listing of past rainfall events is presented in Table 2-5. The 2-, 25-, and 100- year, 24-hour events were developed for the area in the City's 1990 Stormwater Plan by plotting rain intensity (in/hr) versus storm duration (hours). These design storm events are presented in Table 2-6. The storm that occurred recently on November 29, 1995 exceeded a peak intensity of 0.4 inches per hour and caused extensive flooding throughout the City. This storm caused significant damage due to the saturated soil conditions that occurred earlier that month in addition to a sustained high level of rainfall intensity that exceeded most previously recorded storm events, as shown in Table 2-5. (1990 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan.) Table 2-5 Rainfall Event Summary for the Port Angeles Area Total Average Peak Start Duration Rainfall Intensity Intensity Date Hour (houFs) (inches) (inche~hour) (inehe~nour) January 17, 1986 21 24 3.80 0.16 0.30 February 7, 1955 2 24 2.82 0.12 0.26 November 19, 1986 19 24 1.70 . 0.07 0.30 January 4, 1983 16 18 2.30 0.13 0.20 September 27, 1953 17 12 1.18 0.10 0.47 December 15, 1982 20 12 1.20 0.10 0.30 December 14, 1984 9 8 1.60 0.20 0.40 September 19, 1980 13 3 0.50 0.17 0.30 October 17, 1948 1 2 0.39 0.19 0.24 December 19, 1972 8 1 1.50 1.50 1.50 Februar~ 19; 1982 7 1 0.30 0.30 0.30 Drainage Area Characterization 2-22 Evaporation Precipitation Runoff Surface Flow Infiltration ~ ~ ~ Storage Streamflow Puget \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ Sound Groundwater Discharge to Lakes Streams. Wetlands, and Strait/Puget Sound EXHIBIT 2-1 1 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan HYDROLOGIC CYCLE PAGE 2-23 Table 2-6 Design Storm Events for the Port Angeles Area AveFafe Aver,~e Return Duration Total Rainfall Intensity Pesk Intensity Frequency, Date (hours) (inehe~) (inehe~hour) (inches/hour) (.years) January 17, 1986 24 3.80 0.16 0.30 100 February 7, 1955 24 2.82 0.12 0.26 25 November 19, 1986 24 1.70 0.07 0.30 2 Several of the streams in the Port Angeles region have been gauged for stream flow. USGS flow data was obtained through the Washipgton State Department of Fisheries (Washington State Department of Fisheries, 1993) for several streams in the Port Angeles Watershed. Daily flow data exists for Morse Creek (1966 to 1977), as shown in Table 2-7, and peak flows have been recorded for Lee's Creek and for Morse Creek. The USGS has conducted peak flow frequency analyses on each major stream within the Port Angeles area. Table 2-8 summarizes continuous and estimated peak discharges for Morse and Lee's Creeks. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Plan) Table 2-7 ' Continuous Stream Flow Data for Morse Creek USGS Gauging Station near Port Angeles Daily Average Monthly Maximum Monthly Min;mum Month (cf s) (cf s) (cf s) October 57 690 8 November 116 1,300 21 December 205 1,680 23 January 208 1,490 56 February 149 650 51 March 139 1,160 45 April 96 508 41 May 169 406 52 June 190 390 74 July 104 23O 33 August 51 139 22 September 35 131 16 -'- A-nual 125 1,680 8 Drainage Area Characterization 2-24 Table 2-8 USGS Estimated Peak Flows Storm Event Frequenc~ Peak Discharge (cfs) Probability Recurrence Interval Percent (years) Lee's Creek Morse Creek 99 1 19 310 50 2 92 1,270 2O 5 171 2,190 10 10 238 2,920 5 20 316 3,720 4 25 343 3,99O 2 50 436 4,900 1 100 542 5,900 0.5 200 664 7,000 0.2 500 851 8,640 Average Annual Flow 7 125 (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) 2.16 Municipal Drinking Water Sources The majority of the residential and industrial water supply for the Port Angeles project area is provided primarily from groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer underlying the Elwha River. Using a Ranney type of collector, groundwater is pumped from its location along the east bank of the Elwha River into the City's system of transmission lines, pump stations, and local conveyance systems. The City's Ranney well was constructed in 1977 and has a current capacity of about 10.7 mgd, which is more than enough to meet future growth. (1995 Port Angeles Comprehensive Water System Plan.) The City presently has permitted water rights from the Elwha River for 22,500 gpm (50 cfs, 32 mgd) for municipal uses and an additional 67,345 gpm (150 cfs, 96.9 mgd) for industrial uses (100 cfs) and fish rearing (50 cfs). The quality of the water in the Elwha River system and its groundwater has always been excellent due to the pristine state of the watershed. As the land uses within the watershed change, however, there is concern about these local shallow groundwater aquifers becoming contaminated by the infiltration of surface water runoff. It is for this reason that the City's 1995 Comprehensive Water System Plan has recommended that a wellhead protection plan be developed to preserve the quality of the City's primary drinking water supply. The City also has municipal surface water rights on Morse Creek. These rights total 20 cfs (8,966 gpm, 12.9 mgd) and are currently used for non-consumptive, hydroelectric generation. The Morse Creek water supply is a good alternative source of drinking water for the City if it should ever be needed in the future. Drainage Area Characterization 2-25 Additional sources of drinlri~g water, within the Port Angeles study area, include, small surface water withdrawals from a n,,mber of smaller stream systems and groundwater wells operated by a PUD water system, private water systems, or single domestic systems. Table 2-9 shows the recorded water rights on a n,,mber of the smaller stre-m~ within the study area. M~ny of these water clnlms pre-date the Water Rights . Registration Act (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993). The granted rights to surface water alone, on some streams, equals or exceeds the normal low flows of these streams. Groundwater extraction from the snrne water tabl° that feeds the seeps and springs that recharge area streams, could further diminish summer low flows. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report.) Existing and future surface water withdrawals must be undertaken in such a manner so as to not adversely impact aquatic habitats and aquatic life. Such precautions may restrict surface water withdrawals during the driest period of the year (s,,mmer through late s,,mmer). .. Table 2-9 Water Rights and Water Claims of the Port Angeles Region Water Water Rights Claims Stream Units Municipal Domestic Irribmtion Other Total Number Morse (G) gpm 120 2,912 70 30 3,132 Morse iS) cf~ 6.60 15.10 0.57 1.60 23.87 72 Lee's (G} gpm 180 304 308 792 Lee's (S) cfs 0.12 0.57 0.69 131 ]~nni.~ (G) gpm 80 134 34 248 Ennis (S) cfa 0.11 0.70 0.81 89 Peabody (G) gpm 54 54 Peabody (S) ds 0.14 0.02 0.90 1.06 23 Valley (G) gpm 42 24 66 Valley (S) cfa 0.24 0.40 0.32 0.96 41 Tumwater (G) gpm 135 . 40 175 Tumwater (S) c~ 0.25 0.28 0.60 0.04 1.17 48 Dr~ (G) ~m 9 9 Dry (S) cfa 0.25 0.02 0.27 27 (G)---Groundwater sources, ($)--- Surface water sources, gpm--gallons per minute, frs---cubic feet per second '" 2.17 Sensitive and Critical Areas The City has identified n~merous types of sensitive and critical areas in and around the City including: · Aquifer sensitive areas · Fish and wildlife conservation areas Flood hazard areas · Geologically hazardous areas Drainage Area Characterization 2-26 · Stream corridors ..?,. · Wetlands · Designed b~ffer zones The City's recent Sensitive Areas Ordinance (No. 2656) provides for public safety by locating ~nd de~inlug standards to guide development in and around these environmentally sensitive areas. Critical areas within the City of Port Angeles study area have been inventoried and mapped by the City. A map of these areas is presently available from the City's Planning Division, as shown in Exhibit 2-12. In some of the City's drainage' basins, the natural drainage features, such as recharge areas, flood plains, stream corridors and wetlands, have been preserved. These natural drainage features provide valuable and cost-effective flood control and water quality treatment functions. Within the central more highly developed areas of the City, these natural drainage features have been eliminated or have been damaged through development and now must be artificially reconstructed. This is expressive in terms of both the initial capital costs of construction and the long-term maintenance costs needed to keep the facilities operating properly. A more detailed discussion of facilities and costs is presented in Sections 3 and 4. 2.18 Wetlands 2.18.1 Background As defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979) wetlands are "lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water." Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, vegetation, and location of wetland areas. The functions performed by these wetlands are often very complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess or quantify. Wetland functions include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and natural biological functions (Adamus et al., 1987). In addition, the particular value of wetlands is often "in the eye of the beholder" and is difficult to evaluate. The education and recreational opportunities provided by wetlands are also social values which are difficult to evaluate. Drainage Area Characterization 2-27 . ~ -~ % '~, .... -:~ ...... ~ ~. ,,,,~ ~ ~~ - , ~ -'L~ ~ --'~'" o ¢ .C".': "'h~. :' ':~ ,;' 7', ./ ")'' · · .' ..."~ . ~z ~ ,{.'~.:, · :: .,; ..'-:.. ;' '¢{_ . .~.~ ,/~ ~0~ I ' OZ~ :"~ : ,~:.:. /..:,;,: / i~'''d~ '%¢ ~' :':'::": :""":'-: :':'~ ! ~ "~ ~ , -~. · , ~ ..,~ / ..: : :.' , , / / { ::. -? .: ,, . -- ~/ -' , _ ~ ~ "~._ 'h.. :.~ ':~::> .... :.'*~. ~ ~ ~ ~, , ~ ~ ~- ~o I I / ~ .....~ .... ~ / , 2.18.2 Wetlands Within the City of Port Angeles ?:' The Port Angeles project area contains a variety of well-nd environments ranging from small isolated freshwater and saltwater emergent plant communities through large freshwater forested/scrub-Shrub plant communities. Development within the project area has had a significant adverse effect on the City's wetlands; however, small local/zed wetlands still exist within a n-tuber of the City's urban drainage basin,. These areas are usually identified ~d protected during the permitting and development review processes according to the guidelines established in the City's '~ Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2655). Modifications of wetland areas through urbanization and plant community manipulation (i.e., forest harvest, land clearing) have resulted in increased soil erosion and consequent sedimentation of streams, increased shoreline erosion, degraded water quality, elimination and degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitats, reduced groundwater recharge, changes in the stre,m~low regimen within the watershed, and increased flooding. The City has dete~ined that the loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands is detrimental to public safety and welfare. Remaining wetland areas ~;ithin the Port Angeles area are listed below in Table 2-10 by watershed. Table 2-10 Percent Total Wetland Acres by Watershed Watershed % of Watershed Acres that m-e Wetlands Dry Creek 3% Elwha River 5% Enn/s Creek <1% Indian Creek 3% Lee's Creek 7% Little River <1% Morse Creek 2% Peabody Creek 3% West Seibert Creek 4% Strait 6% Tuxnwater Creek 2% Upper Coville Creek 5% Upper Salt Creek 1% Valley Creek 5% White Creek 7% (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) Drainage Area Characterization 2-29 2.18.3 City of Port Angles 1995 Wetland Inventory As part of this stormwater p]~nn;ng process, the wetlands within the City and selected wetlands within the City's proposed Urbe_n Growth boundary were identified, mapped and inventoried. This wetlands assessment, conducted by Sheldon and Associates, identified and characterized 23 wetlands within the study area, as shown in Exhibit 2-13. Data collected for each wetland included, area habitat types and vegetation, special features, preliminary rating (i.e., wetland class I, II, or IH), soil type, presence of hydric soils, ease of access, observed impacts, date of site visit, and notes and observations made in the field. Please refer to Technical Appendix Volume II of this 1995 Stormwater M~nagement Plan for a description of the methodologies used and findings of the City's Wetland Inventory dated, May 10, 1995. 2.19 Wildlife 2.19.1 Urban/Upland Habitat Areas and Wildlife Utilization The Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan project area contains a wide variety of habitats that support various vegetation communities and wildli~'e . populations. The majority of the project area consists of commercial and residential ~reas with ornsmental landscaping, pasture, orchards, and small gardens. Within the rural areas the vegetation communities vary from managed pastures to small patches of mixed second and third growth forests. Much of the original habitat areas in and around the City have been substantially altered from their natural state. No large msmmals, such as deer, elk or bear are present; however, many of the smaller animals have adapted well to urban life and sightings of raccoons, opossums, bats, and owls " are possible. A partial listing of birds and animals in and around the Port Angeles area is presented in Table 2-11. Drainage Area Characterization 2-30 Table 2-11 Partial Listing of Wildlife Common to the Port Angeles Area Common Name Scientific NRme Status Bird Species great blue heron Adea herodias SM belted lr~ngfisher Ceryle alcyon double crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis SM Canada goose Branta canadeniss game brant Branta bernicla game common mallard Anus platryhynchos game hooded merganser Lophodytes susullatus game gadwall Anas streparta game canvasback Aythya valisineria gzme ring necked duck Aythya collaris game common goldeneye Bucephala clangula game oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis gsme white-winded scorer Melanitta deglandi surf scorer Melanitta perspicillata black scorer Melanitta nigra greater scaup Aythya marila lesser scaup Aythya ~ glaucous-winged gull Larus hyperboreus Western gull Larus ossidentalis California gull Larus californicus herring gull Larus argentatus glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus Bonapart's gull Larus philadelphia common tern Sterna paradisaea American coot fulica americana killdeer Charadrius vociferus spot~ed sandpiper Actitis macularia bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST osprey Pandion haliaetus SM Western screech owl Otus kennicottii red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis non-game snowy owl Nyetea scandiaca spotted owl Strix occidentalis SE barred owl Strix varia barn swallow Hirundo rustica tree swallow Tachycineta thallassina red winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniseus marsh wren Cistothorus palustris American bittern Botaurus lengtiginosus common snipe G~llinago gallinago American robin Turdus migratorius song sparrow Melospiza melodia Drainage Area Characterization 2-32 Table 2-11 (continued) Partial Uating of Wildlife Common to the Port Angeles Area Common N=me Scientific Name Status , - Bird Species white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys dark-eyed junco Junco hyems!!s American gold6nch Carduelis tristis rufous humrnlnEbird Selasphorus rufus starlin~ Sturnus American crow Corvus brachynchos common raven Corvus coraw brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater California quail C~]]ipepla c~]i¢ornica game band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata game Northern flicker Colaptes auratus downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens pfleated woodpecker Drpocopus pileatus hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus purple finch Carpodacus purpureus house finch Carpodacus mexicanus house sparrow Passer domesticus Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratum MAm,~al Species shrews Sorex spp. voles Microtus spp. deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Norway rat Rattus norvegicus black rat Rattus rattus eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus muskrat Ondatra zibethicus striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Douglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasi Townsend's chipmunk Eutamias townsendii big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivag~n.~ beaver Castor canadensis raccoon Procyon lotor coyotes C~nis latrans California sea lion Zalophus cA!i¢ornianus marine mammal harbor seal Phoca vitulina SM harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena marine mammal orca Orcinus orca mar/ne m~Amm~] Drainage Area Characterization 2-33 Table 2-11 (continued) Partial Listing of Wildlife Common to the Port Angeles Area Common Nnme Scientific Name Status Reptile and Amphibian Species Pacific tree,rog Hyla regilla bullfrog Rana catesbeiana game Western toad Bufo boreas Northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracfle rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa Western redback ss]Amander Rhyacotriten olympicus long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Northwestern garter snake ThAmnophis ordinoides common ~arter snake Th~mnophis sirtalis Status SE = State Endangered FT = Federally Threatened game = game species, subject to hunting/fishing ST = State Threatened SC = Sta~ Candida~ regulations SS = State Sensitive SM = State Monitored 2.19.2 Upland/Freshwater Habitat Areas and Wildlife Utilization Streams within the City and their associated riparian corridors are important components of the natural environment and to wildlife habitats. Such areas provide a greater diversity in both the composition and structure of the plant communities than are typically identified within adjacent upland areas. This greater plant community diversity leads to an increase in the number and types of habitats available to wildlife. Such habitats are created, in part, by the presence of surface water, varying soil moisture conditions and variations in the plant community structure. The linear character typical of riparian corridors also provides a linkage to other habitat areas w/thin the City and provides a travel corridor for a number of wildlife species. Riparian corridors, shorelines, and wetland areas also provide vital breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and escape cover for amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Wildlife species listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive within the City include great blue heron, Ardea Herodias (state monitored); Western grebe, Aechrnophorus occidentalis (state monitored); marbled murrelet, Brachyramphus marrnoraturn (state candidate); bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (state and federal threatened); osprey, Pandion haliaetus (state monitored); spotted owl, Strix occidentalis (state and federal endangered); snowy owl, Nyctea scandiaca (state monitored); and pileated woodpecker, Drpocopus pileatus (state candidate). The single endangered species (spotted owl) has been documented within the upper forested areas of these watersheds well outside the project boundary. Drainage Area Characterization 2-34 2.19.3 Marine/Shoreline Habitat Areas and Wildlife Utilization Shoreline bluff areas are also present within the project areas. Sea bluffs, both east and west of the downtown Port Angeles area are limited in distribution -,~d provide nesting, rearing, escape, and foraging habitats for a unique species assemblage. Avian species which target these shoreline bluffs include a wide range ofraptors, colonial nesting seabirds, and shorebirds. The nearshore marine area of the Strait of Juan de Fuca provides a wide range of habitats for vegetation, fish, and wildlife. Many of these species are important to both commercial and tribal harvesting activities and many are also taken during recreational excursions. Important fish species include several species of s~,lrnon (f~,m;ly S~,]monidae), rockfish (f,m;ly Scorpaenidae), flatfish (order Pleuronectiformes), seaperch (f-mily Embiotocidae), and cods (f-rally Gadidae). Commercial, tribal, and recreationally important shellfish species present within the nearshore marine environment include Dungeness crab, sea cucumbers, urchins, squid, shrimp and subtidal hardshell clams. In addition, many fish and shellfish species are taken incidental to commercial, tribal, or recreational harvest activities or serve as a source of prey for other fish, birds, and mammals. Commonly observed marine mammals include river otter, sea otter, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales. Marine m-mmals of occasional occurrence include northern sea lions, California sea lions, orca, Dall's porpoises, mink whales, and humpback whales (Olympic National park, 1991). Commonly observed birds along the shoreline include several species of waterflow (i.e., common mallard, Canada goose, hooded merganser, harlequin duck, surf scoter, scaups, buffiehead), several species of gulls (i.e., Western herring, glaucous-winged, mew, Bonapart's), several species of shorebirds (i.e., dunlin, sandpiper, killdeer), and several species of perching birds (i.e., swallows, finches, sparrows). In addition, several species listed by the State of Washington as a priority species are also present along the shoreline (bald eagle, marbled murrelet, great blue heron, and peregrine falcon). 2.20 Stream and Fish Habitat Assessment 2.20.1 Introduction As part of this stormwater planning process, a detailed survey was made of the seven major urban drainages within the City of Port Angeles. The intent of this stre~,m survey was to assess existing fish usage and remaining fish habitat areas within each of the City's major urban drainages. (Information Drainage Area Characterization 2-35 from this survey will be used by the City to prioritize, fund and implement future drainage and water quality improvement~.) 2.20.2 Background The seven major streams that pass through the City of Port Angeles, along with their associated riparian corridors (those areas adjacent to flowing water that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems), provide a wide diversity of fish and wildlife habitat. The Washington State Department of Wildlife (now Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW) has identified such riparian areas a "priority habitat" (WDW, 1993). A priority habitat is defined as an area which provides either a ~mique or significant value to many fish and wildlife species. The City of Port Angeles has also identified streams, stream corridors, and fish habitat areas as "critical areas" and "environmentally sensitive areas" because such areas are especially sensitive to land modifications and are among the most productive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (City of Port Angeles Ordinance No. 2656). The Port Angeles Watershed Plan, published by Clallnm County, lists several specialized qualities of streams that emphasize the importance of preserving and restoring the stream corridors throughout the City. · Streams provide migrational pathways along with spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, trout and other fish. · Streams and stre~mside vegetation provide food and habitat for insects, fish, and other wildlife. Root systems of vegetation stabilize stream banks and guard against erosion. The vegetative community serves as a source of large organic debris (logs) to the stream which provides needed habitat for fish. · Stream corridor vegetation shades the channel, helping keep water temperatures low, and assisting with the control of undesirable vegetation (i.e., reed canary grass). The vegetation provides a buffer between the adjacent land use and the active stream channel. · Small streams and wetlands help detain runoff and absorb rain water. This helps maintain stream flow levels during slimmer and fall. · Stream corridors serve as travel passageways for wildlife allowing movement between distant habitat areas. Drainage Area Characterization 2-36 2.20.3 Stream and Fish Habitat Survey: Approach The following stream corridor and fish habitat assessment doc-mented existing conditions and recommended habitat improvements. The stream systems included in this survey were Morse Creek, Lee's Creek, Ennis/White's Creek, Peabody Creek, Valley Creek, T~mwater Creek and Dry Creek. Data collected documented physical conditions, aquatic and · terrestrial habitats, fish populations and wildlife utilization. Biologists from Watershed Dyn;m;cs, Inc., completed on-site evaluations of the above seven streams within the study area to assess available stream habitats (spawning, rearing, cover, substrates), stre;m stability, stream morphology, and reach characteristics. Instre~am and bank physical habitat characteristics were evaluated in relation to suitability and sensitivity for anadromous and resident fish. Survey data on the current habitat was obtained using methods described in the U.S. Forest Service (1975) Strenm Reach Inventory and Cbnnnel Stability Evaluation Manual. A "stream reach~ was defined as an identifiable section of stream exhibiting similar hydrologic and physical characteristics. A break between reaches occurs wherever there are features which significantly alter the hydrology of' the stream. E×~mples of features which result in a reach break include the ' confluence of a tributary that provides greater than 10% of the instream flow, a sudden change in gradient, a dam or culvert, or a significant change in stream valley configuration. While the target species for such stream evaluations typically centers on anadromous and resident salmonids (trout and salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus), on-site evaluations were also completed to observe the habitats and distribution and abundance of non-salmonid fish, wildlife, and · macroinvertebrate species. Observations of macroinvertebrate production were evaluated based upon relative species abundance and were determined as either low, moderate, or abundant. 2.20.4 Stream and Fish Habitat Survey: Findings and Results Results of this stream and habitat survey are presented in Volume III of the Technical Appendices to this Stormwater Management Plan. Detailed maps and analysis by stream reach are presented along with a management assessment of problem areas and recommended stream corridor improvements. The map of the various stream reaches is presented in Exhibit 2-14. Drainage Area Characterization 2-37 General Findings Stream co~dors within the project area provide a va_Hety of habitats used by both resident and migratory wildlife species. Many of these species may utilize the stream corridor for all or only a single part of their life history requirements. Functions provided by these habitats include nesting, brood rearing, cover (daily, seasonal, and escape), feeding, and movements (migratory and between habitats). As shown below in Table 2-12, the identified seven project area stresms provide a wide range of habitats for freshwater and anadromous fish. The predominant s~lmonid species identified within these stream systems are coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch), Chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss), and both resident and searun cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarkii). Pink salmon (Oncorhyncus gorbuscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhyncus keta) have also been doc-mented, primarily within Morse Creek (Rymer, 1993, per corem). Additional fish species present within the freshwater environment include a n-tuber of sculpin species (Cottid) and lsmprey (Lampetra ayresi). Pink salmon and Chinook salmon utilization of the small streams within the project area is believed unlikely because these small streams do not provide habitats typically selected by these two species. A number of the following salmonid species were identified as a result of this survey, as being "threatened" (WDFW) within the Port Angeles watershed including: coho, chinook, and ch-m salmon in one or more of the City's stresms. · Coho salmon Dry Creek, Valley Creek, Tumwater Creek · Chinook salmon--Morse Creek · Ch~rn salmon-Morse Creek 2.20.5 Fish Habitat Requirements Both anadromous and resident sa]rnonids must have accessible gravels 'within the streambed for spawning and egg incubation. These gravels, while ranging in size depending upon the specific species, must be relatively free of sands and silts and must not be compacted to allow successful spawning and egg incubation. Salmonid redds (nests) are typically located in suitable sized gravels for each Species within riffle areas or just in front of instre~m obstacles (logs, boulders). In such areas instresm flow is constricted resulting in a localized increase in flow velocity and an enhanced movement of water within the intergravel area. Instream logs and st-raps (called Iai, ge organic debris or LOD) are integral to the physical and biological processes important to a healthy stream system. Drainage Area Characterization 2-39 LOD is commonly referred to as the primary structural component of fish habitat in small stre-ms. The presence and location of LOD is typically one of the primary features responsible for the overall shape of the stream channel and for the distribution and diversity of various fish habitats (i.e., spawning gravel riffles and rearing pools). Stre_mmside vegetation is also a physical characteristic important to instre-m habitats. Such vegetation provides shading and thermal protection during both the hot s,,mmer months and the cold winter months. High water temperature (typically >65°F for extended periods) results in both direct mortality of s-lmonids and reduces the ability of the water to hold dissolved oxygen. Increasing water temperatures also increases the incidence of fish diseases. Instre-m flow, particularly during the summer low flow period, becomes an important component to the survival of anadromous and resident salmonids. Without adequate flow, required habitat features may be seriously limited or eliminated. Improper culvert installation can oi~en create barriers to spawning and rearing areas for both anadromous and resident salmonids. Such barriers may appear as complete or partial blockages to migration and can act to eliminate or restrict the potential use of available habitats. In addition, such culverts may create washouts resulting in excessive erosion and scour downstre-m, entrap debris and sediment at the upstream end, and concentrate streamflows. The combined impacts of urbanization can result in a dr-matic change in the quantity and duration of instream flows particularly during storm events. These changes bring about changes in streambed material composition, sediment deposition patterns, availability o£ LOD, and changes in stream channel morphology. These impacts also act to reduce instre~m low flow quality and quantity. The challenges to be faced and overcome in order to restore fish habitat areas within the City's stre-ms include: flows that are excessive in the winter and too low in the s,,mmer, the stream channel is eroded, bank vegetation in many areas has been drastically thinned, or eliminated, spawning gravels have been silted in or eliminated due to erosion, natural habitat, such as logs, has been removed and culverts block access for fish to many upstream reaches. Drainage Area Characterization 2-45 2.20.6 Stream and Fish Management and Enhancement This survey has identified many opportunities within each of the City's major drainage basins to preserve and enhance remaining stream and fish habitat resources. The following recommended enhancements are critical to sustaining existing and enhancing future fish populations. Morse Creek The lower reaches of Morse Creek have been mo.dified by channelization, floodplain development, roadway and railway construction and vegetation management. Such modifications have restricted suitable salmonid spawning areas to those sections of the mainstream generally upstream from the Cottonwood Lane Bridge. The small hillside drainages and tributaries within the channelized area have been isolated and are no longer accessible for resident or anadromous fish species. Channelization and the lack of riparian corridor management have also limited the amount of existing and future LOD recruitment into the stream system. This lack of management has also reduced available wildlife habitats, especially those species that depend upon mature trees within the riparian corridor for nesting, cover, or feeding. Spawning, juvenile rearing, and adult cover habitats within the lower reaches of Morse Creek have been greatly modified. The past constriction of ' the channel and floodplain areas have resulted in greater channel scour during high flow events and the elimination of escape cover outside the active channel. Enhancement opportunities for Morse Creek would include the development . of set-back flood protection dikes, the removal of existing dikes to recreate floodplain areas, and the placement of LOD within the channel. Manipulation of the riparian vegetation solely for ~/iew~ should be discouraged to allow for the regrowth of streamside streams and shrubs. Surface water and groundwater withdrawals are also a concern within the Morse Creek system. Lee's Creek The box culvert under Highway 101 creates a barrier to resident and anadromous sslmonid migration. In addition, the accumulation of beach sediments and debris at the confluence of Lee's Creek and the Strait of Juan de Fuca also creates a barrier to anadromous salmonid migration. Roadway culverts located upstream of Highw~fy 101 have also created passage barriers to resident salmonid movements. These culverts als0 encourage streAmbank Drainage Area Characterization 2-42 and streambed erosion through the concentration and direction of stream flows. Within areas of residential and farm development, the ripari-n vegetation has been damaged and/or removed. Such activities have destabilized the stre,mbAnks, reduced shading and altered the stre-mside canopy. In addition, livestock access to' the stream corridor has trampled the stre-mba~ks, increased streambank erosion, and increased the likelihood of animal wastes entering into the aquatic environment. The channelization and release of stormwater at or near the top of the hillslope has also resulted in increased erosion, the loss of riparian vegetation, and adversely impacted water quality. The addition of this stormwater also appears to have resulted in streAmbed downcutting and aquatic habitat loss. Enhancement opportunities for Lee's Creek include altering the box culvert under Highway 101, along with a number of upstream culverts, to allow fish passage and reduce erosion. Additional opportunities include the restoration of riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) within residential and farmAivestock areas, ~nd the control of stormwater discharges to limit adverse impacts to the stream, streAmbanks and hillsides. Enni$/White 's Creek The box culvert under Highway 101 creates a barrier to resident and anadromous salmonid migration within White's Creek. Within areas of commercial, residential, and farm development, the riparian vegetation has been removed. These activities have destabilized the streambanks reduced shading, and altered the streamside canopy. As within Lee's Creek, livestock access to the stream corridor has trampled the streamba~lr~, increased streAmbank erosion, and increased the likelihood of animal wastes entering into the aquatic environment. The lower reaches of E~nls and White's Creeks have also been modified by channelization, floodplain development, and roadway and railway construction. Channelization and riparian corridor management have also limited the amount of existing and future LOD recruitment into the stream system. The lack of stream corridor management has also reduced available wildlife habitats, especially those species that depend upon mature trees within the riparian corridor for nesting, cover, or feeding. Spawning, juvenile rearing, and adult cover habitats within the lower reaches of Ennis and White's Creeks have been greatly modified. The past constriction of the channel and floodplain areas have resulted in greater Drainage Area Characterization 2-43 channel scour during high flow events and the elimination of escape cover outside the active channel. Enhancement opportunities within Ennls and White's Creeks includes the possible development of set-back flood protection dikes, the removal of existing dikes to recreate floodplain areas, altering the box culvert under Highway 101 and the placement of LOD within the channel. Additional opportunities include the restoration of riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) within commercial residential and farm/livestock areas, and the control of stormwater discharges to reduce the impacts to the stream, streamb~nk.,, and hillsides. Tumwater Creek Within the area of industrial and commercial developments, the riparian vegetation has been managed or removed and the stream channelized. Instrenm and riparian habitats along Tumwater Creek have been greatly modified. Enhancement opportunities would include altering or modifying culverts, the placement of LOD within the channel (primarily in reach three), and the re- establishment of a more natural stream corridor within the lower two stream reaches. Additional opportunities include the restoration of riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) within commercial, residential, and livestock areas and the control of stormwater discharges to assure that there are no adverse impacts to the stream, streambanks, and hillsides. ' Dry Creek Within areas of' residential and farm development, along Dry Creek the riparian vegetation has been managed or removed. Such activities have destabilized the stre~mba~lr.,, reduced shading, and altered the streamside canopy. In addition, livestock access to the stream corridor has trampled the streambanks, increased stre~mbank erosion, and increased the likelihood of animal wastes entering into the aquatic environment. The channelization of stormwater and release of` this-stor-,water at river- mile 0.5 has resulted in increased erosion, the loss of riparian vegetation and has adversely, impacted water quality. Enhancement opportunities in Dry Creek include the restoration of the vegetation along the newly created stream channel. In addition, instream structures could be modified to recreate the channel meander and stability identified within the planning dochments. Because of limited upstream Drainage Area Characterization 2-44 anadromous salmonid species habitat, the alteration of the natural falls at river-mile 0.8 would not be recommended. Peabody Creek A n,~mber of culVerts within Peabody Creek create barriers to resident and anadromous salmonid migration. Within areas of commercial, residential, and fa,-m development, the riparian vegetation has been drastically thinned or removed. Such activities have destabilized the stre-mba~k~, reduced shading, and altered the stresmside canopy. Spawning, juvenile rearing, and adult cover habitats within Peabody Creek have been greatly modified. The past constriction of the channel and floodplain areas have resulted in greater channel scour during high flow events and the elimination of escape cover outside the active channel. As in Morse Creek, channelization and riparian corridor management has limited the -mount of existing and future LOD recruitment into the stream system. Such management has also reduced available wildlife habitats, especially those species that depend upon mature trees within the riparian corridor for nesting, cover, or feeding. Enhancement opportunities would include altering or modifying culverts, and the placement of LOD within the ch-nnel. Additional opportunities include the restoration of riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) within commercial, residential, farmAivestock areas, and the control of stormwater discharges to reduce adverse impacts to the stream, streamba~k~ and hillsides. Valley Creek A n~mber of culverts within Valley Creek create barriers to resident and anadromous salmonid migration, as well as result in stre~mbed scour downstream. Within areas of commercial and residential developments the riparian vegetation has been altered and/or removed. Such activities have destabilized the stre~mbanks, reduced shading, and altered the stre~mside canopy. Spawning, juvenile rearing, and adult cover habitats within Valley Creek have been greatly modified. The past construction of the channel and floodplain areas have resulted in the greater channel scour during high flow events and the elimination of escape cover outside the active channel. Enhancement opportunities are similar to those listed for Peabody Creek and would include altering or modifying culverts, and the placement of LOD within the channel. Additional opportunities include the restoration of riparian vegetation (native trees-and shrubs) within commercial and residential areas, and the control of sto,-,,,water discharges to assure no Drainage Area Characterization 2-45 adverse impacts occur to the stream channel, streambank.%?, and adjacent hillsides. ":" 2.21 Summary of Study Area Drainage Characterization and Guidance for Developing an Effective Stormwater Management Program The Port Angeles Stormwater Study Area includes a unique combination of natural drainage, ecological, and geological features. Although altered from its natural '- : state by the various developments that make up the urban areas of the City, some elements of the natural system remain. These 'remaining elements of the natural system have been accepting increased drainage flows and increased pollutant loadings. Within the more developed areas of the City, there is little opportunity to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge, prior to the recharge local aquifers, or prior to sustaining remaining habitat areas. The few remaining features of the natural drainage system, within the less developed areas of the City, need to be protected by the City in order to ensure their continued long-term existence and health. From the reviewed literature summarized above, it was learned that: · The City's natural drainage systems have been significantly impacted by development and associated water quality has been degraded. · The City's existing topography, impermeable soils, and seasonally high groundwater table create ponding of surface water runoff which is responsible for a large number of localized drainage problems throughout the City. · Groundwater is not a primary concern to the City at this time; many wells are deep and are not easily contaminated by stormwater due to the impervious types of overlying soils. In the future, however, local groundwater resources may be needed to augment the City's existing surface water sources of drinking water. · Water quality has been impacted and needs to be improved. The restoration and long-term health of Port Angeles Harbor habitat areas are directly dependent on an effective stormwater management program being developed by the City and being effectively supported by Clallam County, the Port of Port Angeles and the local business community. Guidance for developing an effective stormwater program for the City from the above characterization of the drainage study area includes the need to: · Reduce local flooding problems; · Emphasize water quality treatment; Drainage Area Characterization 2-46 '- · Emphasize source control and the use of best management practices (BMPs) to enhance water quality; · Discourage the direct infiltration of surface water runoff without prior treatment; · Protect remaining habitat and natural drainage features, as defined in the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance; · Continue to identify critical wellhead protection areas, as-needed to protect the region's future groundwater supplies; · Continue to utilize effective on-site drainage controls for road runoff and new developments, as defined in Ecology's Technical Manual and the City's new drainage ordinance; · Establish common development and land use standards with the County, as defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, and the City and County Growth Management Act/Comprehensive Plans; · Conduct drainage basin assessment studies and establish a source control program; and · Develop an on-going public education program for businesses and residential homeowners to reduce pollutant loadings and encourage the proper handling and disposal of toxic materials. Drainage Area Characterization 2-47 Section 3 Water Quality Assessment 3.1 Introduction Critical to the development of an effective Stormwater ProgrAm for the City of Port Angeles (City), is the assessment of water quality problems and the development of recommended solutions. This water quality assessment will be combined with the recommended drainage controls developed in Section 4, and the regulatory compliance and programmatic enhancements presented in Sections 5 and 6, to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. The following water quality assessment reviews existing data and reports to identify water quality problems and their sources. A stormwater runoff assessment has been made from available literature to identify possible sources and impacts of pollution carried by surface water runoff. Receiving waters and their beneficial uses are discussed, along with measures to control both existing and future sources of non-point pollution. Various water quality source and treatment controls have been evaluated for their ability to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff and be implemented by the City. Costs and effectiveness for both types of controls have been estimated. The recommended controls have been selected to be consistent with the regulatory requirements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and the Ecology Technical Manual. The Ecology Manual has been used to identify treatment controls and costs. Implementation priorities are presented along with a long-term monitoring plan to track baseline water quality conditions and record the improvements achieved from the implementation of the City's enhanced Stormwater Program and Water Quality Enhancement Plan. The process that was used to develop the recommended Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City is conceptually presented in Exhibit 3-1. 3.2 Existing Water Quality Data 3.2.1 Background and Regional Water Quality within the Port Angeles Watershed Over the past three decades a number of water quality studies have been conducted to examine water quality within the Port Angeles project area. The majority of these earlier studies have concentrated on the industrial uses and resultant discharges along the marine shoreline. As identified within the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report, the information collected by these studies is dispersed among several agencies and private land owners/facility operators and-has not been developed into a common regional database (Clallam County et al., 1993). Water Quality Assessment 3-1 As a result, available data on surface water quality within the Port Angeles Watershed is ]~rnlted. Sporadic monitoring has been undertaken by the tribes, the County Conservation District, State Departments of Ecology, DNR and Tetra Tech, as listed below in Table 3-1. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) Table 3-1 Summary of Surface Water Monitoring in the Port Angeles Watershed Agency Location Parameters Time Period Clall~rn Fresh water, lakes Flow, temperature, May 1993-Present County/Lower Elwha and streams turbidity, S'Klallam Tribe conductivity, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH, transparency, nutrients Clal]nm Fresh water, stresms Flow, fecal coliform June-August 1988 Conservation District Department of Marine waters, Port Temperature, 1983-Present Ecology Angeles Harbor, conductivity, Morse Creek salinity, dissolved oxygen, transparency, pH, nutrients, total and fecal coliforms, turbidity DI~, Tetra Tech Marine sediments, Priority pollutants 1990, 1988 Port Angeles Harbor The one plywood and two paper and pulp mills (K-Ply, Rayonier and Daishowa America) along the industrial waterfront of the Port Angeles Harbor have undertaken various water quality s~mpling procedures as a part of their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits. These studies have, however, concentrated primarily on the environmental ~mpacts within marine receiving waters. Additional marine water quality studies include a program undertaken by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) as part of the Estuarine Water Quality Monitoring Program. Within this study there are two stations within the Port Angeles area s~mpled on a monthly basis. These stations are located at the head end of Ediz Hook and at the mouth of Morse Creek. Parameters assessed include dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, specific conductivity, salinity, fecal coliform, turbidity and nutrient loading. WDOE sampling activities have also been undertaken to assess specific water quality concerns. For example, a fish kill occurred within Ennis Creek on Water Quality Assessment 3-3 October 14, 1982. WDOE determined that pulp wastes from the I'Pr Rayonier Mill located at the mouth of ]~nn(s Creek resulted in this fish kill (WDOE, 1987). During 1988, ClallAm County undertook the Eastern ClallAm County Water Quality Project (Tetra Tech, 1988). This project, conducted by the Clallam County Conservation District, sampled the freshwater environment of five of the independent streams withf~ the Port Angels Sto~-,,,water Management Plan project area. Morse Creek, T,,mwater Creek, ]~nnis Creek, White's Creek, e~d Dry Creek were assessed within this study primarily for fecal coliform. For both Morse Creek and Ennfs Creek, none of the samples exceeded the 100 organisms/100 mL during the 1988 sampling program. White's Creek, Tumwater Creek, and Dry Creek exhibited 100 percent of the samples exceeding the fecal coliform 100 organisms/100 mL level. The County's study pointed towards septic system drainage as the probable source of the fecal coliform levels in these streams. (Note: A number of past water resource related planning studies dating back to 1966 are listed in the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report, however, little new or additional water quality data is presented.) Results of this surface water quality data are briefly summarized below by individual water quality monitoring parameter. A n,,mber of sites within the Port Angeles watershed show that regional water quality has been degraded. (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) · Temperaturc clevated temperatures noted on Elwha River and Big Creek · Turbidity--high turbidity readings during winter storm related discharges, especially Peabody and Valley Creeks, occasional high summer readings in Peabody Creek believed to be due to municipal stormwater discharges · Dissolved oxygen--depressed in Elwha River and Dry Creek, especially during the summer months, also very low (4-5 rog/L) in Port Angeles Harbor during the late summer and early fall months · Conductivity--high in Peabody and Valley creeks, probably due to sewage, stormwater, and/or polluted groundwater discharges · pHmno elevated readings recorded · Priority pollutants clevated hydrocarbons in harbor sediments from fossil fuel spills and fossil fuel combustion, also elevated levels of wood preservatives Water Quality Assessment 3-4 Groundwater water quality monitoring data is even more limited than the surface water monitoring summarized above. Grab ssmples of groundwaters associated with landfills and public drinking water supplies show that the presence and levels of contsmlnants varies widely. Lancl~]ls typically contained elevated levels of chloride, conductivity and metals (iron and manganese). Volatile organics and coliforms are detected occasionally, along with other contaminants including sulfate, nitrate and methane gas (vented to the atmosphere). Local public drlnlr~ng water supplies have, on occasion, exceeded the standards for turbidity, iron, chloride and/or manganese (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Plan). Selected surface water quality data for Morse Creek is presented in Table 3-2. The national standards for primary drinking water supplies are presented in Table 3-3. Table 3-2 Morse Creek Water Quality Analytical Results Parameter MCLz 9/25/87 2/21/89 12/17/90 Units Arsenic 0.05 0.010 0.010 0.010 mg/L Barium 1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 mg/L Cadmium 0.01 0.002 0.002 0.002 mg/L Iron 0.3 0.07 0.13 0.21 mg/L Lead 0.015 0.010 0.002 0.005 mg/L Manganese 0.05 0.010 0.010 0.010 mg/L Mercury 0.002 0.0010 0.0005 0.0010 mg]L Selenium 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.005 mg/L Silver 0.10 0.010 0.010 0.010 mg/L Sodiums 10 5 10 mg/L Hardness~ 76 60 54 mg/L as CaCO3 Conductivity 700 160 140 280 M~cromho~/cm, 25 C Turbidity 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.2 NTU Color 15.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Color Units Fluoride 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 mg/L Nitrate 10 0.2 0.2 0.3 mg/L Chloride 250 10 5 10 mg/L Sulfate 250 10 mg/L Copper 1.3 0.25 0.30 mg/L Zinc 5.0 0.25 0.30 mg/L TDS3 500 mg/L 1) MCL is the Maximum Contaminant Level allowed; based on WAC 246-290. 2) No MCL. 3) Total Dissolved Solids. Water Quality Assessment 3-5 Table ~ Standards Listed in Current National PHmary Drinking Water Regulations Parameter Federal MCL (mR/L) Inorganic Cons~tuen~s Antimony 0.006 Arsenic2 0.05 Asbestos-mgL3 7 Barium (reproposedf 2 Berylium 0.001 Cadmium (revised)' 0.005 Chromium (revised)* 0.1 Copper' Treatment Technique Cy~nlde 0.2 Fluoride 4 Lead' Treatment Technique Mercury (revised)* 0.002 Nickel 0.1 Nitrate (as N) (revised)* 10 Nitrite (as N) 1 Thallium 0.002 Total nitrate and nitrite (as N) 10 Selenium 0.05 Sulfatre? Deferred Organic Constituents Alachlor 0.002 Aldicarb (reproposed)*" 0.003 Aldicarb sulfoxide (reproposed)u 0.004 Aldicarb sulfone (reproposed) ~ 0.002 Atrazine 0.003 Benzene 0.005 Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 Carbofuran 0.04 Chlordane 0.002 Dalapon 0.2 Dibromo-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 cis- l,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 trans- l,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 Dichioromethane 0.005 1,2-Dich]oropropane 0.005 Water Quality Assessment 3-6 Table 3-3 (continued) Standards Listed in Current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Parameter Federal MCL (mg/L)~ 2,4-D (revised)' 0.07 Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4 Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 Dinoseb 0.007 Diquat 0.02 Endothall 0.1 Endrin 0.002 Ethylbenzene 0.7 Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 Glyphosate 0.7 Heptachlor 0.0004 Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 Hexachlorocyclopenta-diene 0.05 Lindane (revised)' 0.0002 Methoxychlor (revised)' 0.04 Monochlorobenzene 0.1 Oxamyl (vydate) 0.2 PAHs11 [benzo(a)pyrene] 0.0002 Pentachlorophenol (reproposed)' 0.001 Picloram 0.5 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 Simazine 0.004 Styrene 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 Toluene 1 Toxaphene (revised)' 0.003 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.20 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 Trichloroethylene 0.005 Trihalomethanes (total) 0.10 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 3 x 10~ 2,4,5-TP (revised)' 0.05 Vinyl chloride 0.002 Xylenes (total) 10 Organic Constituents (Treatment Techniques) Acrylamide 0.05% dosed at 1 ppm (or equivalent) Epichlorohydrin 0.01% dosed at 20 ppm (or equivalent) Water Quality Assessment 3-7 Table 3-3 (continued) Standards Listed in Current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Parameter Federal MCL (mg/L)~ Physical Parameters Turbidity Treatment Technique9 Microbioolgical Consitituents Coliforms 5% (presence/absence) Giardia lamblia Treatment Technique Legionella Treatment Technique Standard plate count Treatment Technique Viruses Treatment Technique Radiological Constituents" Gross alpha~° 15 pCUL Radium-226 & 228 5 pCUL Strontium-90 8 pCUL Tritium 20,000 pCi/L 1) All units in milligrams per liter, unless otherwise indicated. 2) U.S. EPA's current schedule is to revise and publish a final standard in 2years. 3) mfL = million fibers per liter (greater than 10 microns in length). 4) Copper and lead are regulated by a treatment technique, with systems required to optimize corrosion control treatment. The action levels for lead and copper are 0.015 rng/L and 1.5 rog~L, respectively. 5) Five compounds from the first Phase H proposal were dropped from the final Phase H package, and final standards for the five were published July 1, 1991. 6) The Phase II standard replaced an existing drinking water standard. 7) U.S. EPA's schedule for sulfate was to repropose a standard by October 1993 and publish a final standard by December 1994. U.S. EPA did not meet the October 1993 deadline and has not, as of July 1994, indicated a new regulatory schedule. 8) On May 27, 1992, U.S. EPA issued a stay on the MCLs for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide. As of July 1994, U.S. EPA continues to review the health effects data. Utilities are required to monitor. 9) Under the SWTR, filtering and nonfiltering systems must meet specific performance requirements for turbidity including in some cases, such as Washington State, maximum limits. 10) Including radium-226, but excluding radon or uranium. 11) PAll = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. 12) Washington State's somewhat more stringent and different. Within Port Angeles Harbor, the Department of Health, has not allowed the growing or harvesting of commercial or recreational shellfish due to the presence of pollutant loadi_ngs from maritime activities within the Harbor and stormwater runoff and discharges from the adjacent urban areas of the City. Water Quality Assessment 3-8 Concerns about the water quality in Port Angeles Harbor in the late 1980's lead to state and local funding for the development of a plan to improve the water quality throughout the Port Angeles Watershed. The resulting Port Angeles Watershed Plan, developed in 1995 by the County, City of Port Angeles and other local agencies, businesses, and interest groups, has recommended numerous watershed management activities for each of the major basins located within the regional Port Angeles Watershed. Local support and long-term funding will be needed to successfully implement the proposed Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The above regional water quality monitoring ~nformation from throughout the Port Angeles Watershed, suggests that the State's Class A water quality standards, presented in Table 3-4, are being violated and that the area is being polluted by: · Bacteria and nutrients from failing septic tank~ · Runoff and discharges from marinas · Industrial and commercial discharges within the surrounding area, including shipyard and boat repair wastes and byproducts · Sewage discharges and combined sewer overflows from the City · Non-point pollutant discharges, primarily from the City's urban and commercial impervious areas Table 3-4 Class A Water Quality Standards* for Surface Waters of the State of Washington Marine Waters O Fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 organisms/100 milliliters (mL), with not more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 43 organisms/100 mL. ~1 Dissolved oxygen levels shall exceed 6.0 milligrams (rog)filter (L). ~l Temperature shall not exceed 16.0°C due to human activities. When natural conditions exceed 16.0°C, no temperature increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by more than 0.3°C. ~1 pH shall be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a variation within a range of less than 0.5 units due to human activities. Fresh Waters ~ Fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean value of 100 organisms/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 200 organisms/100 mL. ~ Dissolved oxygen levels shall exceed 8.0 mg/L. ~ Temperature shall not exceed 18.0°C due to human activities. When natural conditions exceed 18.0'C, no temperature increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by more than 0.3'C. ~ pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 with a variation within a range of less than 0.5 unless due to human activities. (*Note also that applicable standards include the April 1991, Chapter 173-204-320 establishes marine surface sediment management standards for the State of Washington.) (See Appendix I-D in Technical Appendix Volume I.) Water Quality Assessment 3-9 3.2.2 Water Quality within the City of Port Angeles Water quality monitoring within the City includes grab samples taken by the State Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources, the tribes, and the Conservation District at selected out,ails, stre;m locations and catch basins. The City has recently monitored sewage and combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges along the shoreline of Port Angeles Harbor as part of its CSO reduction plan and the expAn;ion of the sewage treatment plant. This data shows that the stormwater and sewage from the City contain a n~;mber of pollutants that are routinely being discharged into the local marine receiving waters surrounding the City. The Clallam County Watershed Ranking Project for the Management of Non- Point Source Pollution stated that stormwater runoff from developed areas had been identified as a pr;mary pathway for nonpoint pollution to enter the natural environment (streams and wetlands) within the Port Angeles project area (Tetra Tech 1988). Stormwater runoff` from homesites, roadways, small fm~ms, and commercial/industrial areas carry nutrients, fertilizers, insecticides, automobile byproducts (oils, greases, heavy metals), and sediments. Leachate from six landfill/disposal areas within the project area also contribute nonpoint sources of pollution to adjacent surface and groundwater (Tetra Tech 1988). Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within the project area occasionally discharge raw sewage along with stormwater into the Port Angeles Harbor area during large storm events. In addition, uncontrolled stoimwater runoff' is being conveyed directly into streams and wetlands with the resultant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitats. In spite of the above historical water quality data within the region, there is little water quality information available from within the City. For this reason, most of the following statements made in this water quality assessment of the City of Port Angeles are based on interpretation and extrapolation of the regional monitoring data presented above, water quality related statements made in the following three doc~ments, as well as other regional and national information about urban runoff`, its sources, its impacts and various control and treatment measures: ® The 1988 Clal]~m County Watershed Ranking Project for the Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution (by Tetra Tech) ® The 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report (by the County, City and PSCRBT) ' · The 1994 Port Angeles Combihed Sewer Overflow Plan Water Quality Assessment 3-10 - Due to the similarities of urban land uses across the national, and the runoff and pollutant loadings associated with them, the water quality issues: throughout the City of Port Angeles are thought to be typical of most urban and commercial areas. Pollutants commonly associated with urban runoff are listed in Table 3-5. (Additional monitoring within the City, however, will be necessary to characterize nonpoint urban sources and establish an effective water quality source control progrnm. This should be part of the City's future Drainage Basin Assessments mentioned in Section 2.) Table 3-5 Pollutants Associated With Urban Storrnwater Runoff Pollutant Potential Form~ Category Sources Impacts Measurements Sediment Construction sites Tiasue abrasion Total suspended solids Stream channel erosion Gill clogging (a mass measure. Poorly vegetated lands Light reduction Turbidity (a light Slumping on steep Benthic siltation scattering measure) slopes Trnn,~port of other Vehicular deposition pollutants Nutrients Sediments Eum)phication Phosphorus Fertilizers (enrichment) Soluble and Particulate Petroleum products Nuisance algal blooms Nitrogen: Domestic animals Reduced clarity Ammonia Septic systems Odors Nitrate and nitrite Vegetative matter Oxygen depletion (algal Organic decomposition) R~duced drlnkin~ water quality Oxygen-demanding Sediments Oxygen depletion Biochemical oxygen orgamcs Vegetative matter demand Domestic animals Chemical oxygen Petroleum products demand Metals Sediments Toxicity Lead Vegetative mater Copper Domestic animals Zinc Petroleum products Cadmium Others Organic toxins Sediments Toxicity Many specific chemicals Pesticides Combustion products Petroleum products Paints and preservatives Plasticizers Solvents Bacteria Sediments Shellfish bed Coliform indicators Animal and manure contamination Total transport Drinking water Fecal Domestic animals contamination Specific pathogens Septic systems Contact recreation Water Quality Assessment 3-11 Table 3-5 (continued) ' Pollutants Associated With Urban Stormwatsr Runoff Pollutant Potential Forms/ Category Sources Impacts Measurements Oil and grease Petroleum product Benthic acctunulation Oil and grease leakage and systems Toxicity Chlorides Roadway deicing Osmotic effects on Chlorides freshwater snirn~ls Reduced drlnirlng water Heat Pavement runoff Reduced ability to Temperature Loss of shading support temperature- sensitive fish and invertebrates Ever since commercial shellfish growing and harvesting areas within Port Angeles Harbor were decertified by the State Health Department a number of years ago, the region has been aware of the importance and economic impact of water quality. Studies performed over the years have shown that the City of Port Angeles is a major contributor to the area's water quality problems and that the area's water quality is being impacted by numerous sources of pollution, including: · Sewage and combined sewer overflows from the City · Bacteria and nutrients from failing septic t~nk~ · Nonpoint pollutant discharges from stormwater runoff, primarily from the City's urban and commercial impervious areas · Industrial and commercial discharges from within the City and surrounding area, including shipyard and boat repair wastes · Runoff and discharges from the City's marinas and commercial harbor ' activities In response to the above water quality findings and the development of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, as well as other technical needs within the City, the City of Port Angeles is considering the establishment of a City-wide sto,-,,,water utility. The concept of forming a stormwater utility is discussed in greater detail in Sections 7 and 8. The following section of this Water Quality Assessment contains additional information about the City's water quality problems and the activities and costs needed to address these problems. ~ Water Quality Assessment 3-12 3.3 Identification of Receiving Water and Beneficial Uses 3.3.1 Background The concept of ~beneficial uses' has been developed to de'ne, protect and restore the various and diverse qualities of our nation's natural drainage systems. In the State of Washington, the beneficial uses of our State's waters are defined in the Water Quality Standards for surface water, as described in Chapter 173-201 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). For the Puget Sound region, the goal of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan along with the State's water quality standards, is to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. The nonpoint source watershed planning process (Nonpoint Rule), as defined in Chapter 400-12 WAC of State law, was developed as one technique to achieve the management goals of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The Nonpoint Rule uses the characterization of a watershed's beneficial uses to define the overall health of' the watershed. Beneficial uses are used to assess an area's water quality impacts, and develops specific watershed action plans to protect remaining resources and restore the original qualities of the natural drainage system within the watershed. 3.3.2 Local Water Quality Goals The City has been blessed with a myriad of freshwater and marine water resources. Freshwater systems include surface streams and natural drainage swales, springs and wetlands, lakes, ponds and groundwater aquifers. Marine waters are adjacent to the City and include Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca which connects the region's marine waters with Puget Sound. A primary purpose of this City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management plan is to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of the water resources within the Port Angeles area. The beneficial uses to be used to develop such a plan have been defined in the State's Water Quality Standards for Surface Water (Chapter 173-201 WAC). The beneficial uses for the City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan include: · Water supply (domestic, industrial and agricultural) · Migration, rearing, spawning and harvesting of salmonids and other fish Water Quality Assessment 3-13 · Rearing, spawn~r~g and harvesting of cl-ms, oysters, mussels, crayfish, crab, shrimp and other crustaceans · Wildlife habitat · Recreation (contact recreation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic enjoyment) · Commerce and navigation The status of these beneficial uses within the City of Port Angeles is presented below. 3.3.3 Overview of Beneficial Uses within the Port Angeles Area The following s~mmary of the area's beneficial uses is taken from the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report. Water Supply Most residents of the City of Port Angeles, as well as the greater Port Angeles area, receive their drinking water from the shallow groundwater wells located on the east bank of the lower Elwha River. About 25,000 to 27,000 customers are supplied from shallow groundwater sources in such a manner. The water is distributed through 8-10 water treatment and conveyance systems operated by the City, public utility districts, and private purveyors. Water quality is routinely monitored and by State law must meet strict water quality standards, as listed earlier in Table 3-3. The City's 1995 Comprehensive Water Supply PI~ has recommended that a wellhead protection plan be developed by the City to protect these shallow groundwater aquifers from contamination by stormwater runoff. As many as 1,500 to 2,000 of the area's residents utilize other water sources, including local streams, wells or springs. As the area continues to grow, groundwater sources will continue to be actively used to supply the ever growing demand for uncont~mirxated freshwater. Fish Resources At one time the City of Port Angeles supported a variety of marine and freshwater fish and shellfish. Prior to development, Port Angeles Harbor was thought to contain numerous and extensive eel grass beds which provided food, shelter and nursery areas for many species of crabs, c]-rns, salmon and other fish (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report). Present fish populations are dominated by coho and chihook salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. Most of these fish utilize Morse and Ennis Creeks and to a Water Quality Assessment 3-14 smaller extent Dry, T~,mwater, Lee's and Valley Creeks, ss described in Section 2.20. Each of these stregms, including Peabody Creek, originally supported diverse salmon populations. Steep gradients, low stream flows in the s-tamer and fall, uncontrolled stormwater, impassable culverts, and the conversion of rural to urban land uses have reduced remnlning natural fish populations in many of the City's major watersheds. Shellfish Resources Also sensitive to the effects of urbanization, the local shellfish, common in Port Angels Harbor, are not allowed by the State Department of Health to be commercially or recreationally harvested. Port Angeles Harbor is a prohibited shellfish harvesting area due to its proximity to urban pollution. Wildlife Habitat Prior to urbanization, the Port Angeles area supported a variety of habitats and a great diversity of plant and animal communities. Today much of the original ecology has been impacted by the development of the City and associated removal or modification of the area's natural vegetation and habitat areas. Undeveloped lots within the City and remaining wetlands and stream corridors offer small parcels of habitat which are used by a variety of plant and animal species that have been able to adapt to an urban life style. Refer to Sections 2.14 and 2.19 for a listing of plant and wildlife species present within the Port Angeles study area. Recreation Recreational uses of the area's water resources are a special attraction of the City of Port Angeles. The natural beauty of the Olympic National Park and the surrounding rural areas attracts many visitors. Sport fishing and boating is a major industry to the City and stimulates and stabilizes the local economy. Commerce/Navigation The availability of large supplies of fresh water and the presence of' a natural deep water harbor have substantially contributed to the commercial and industrial opportunities within the City of Port Angeles. It is these features that initially stimulated the formation of the City and establishment of its extensive wood products and maritime industries. Water Quality Assessment 3-15 Summary of Beneficial Uses A s,,mmary of beneficial uses within the Port Angeles Watershed is presented below (1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report) · Important fish and shel!6~_~h resources are found in the Port Angeles Watershed. Fish resources include both marine, anadromous, and freshwater species. · Port Angeles Harbor is considered ~prohibited' by the Washington Department of Health; for the commercial and recreational harvest of shellfish. · Several stocks of anadromous fish in the watershed have either become extinct or are considered in "critical~ or "depressed' condition. · Several aquaculture projects, including hatcheries and net pens, are found in the watershed. · The watershed, particularly those areas outside of the City of Port Angeles, supports a high diversity of habitats for plants and s_nimals. · Surface water withdrawals from streams in the Port Angeles Watershed are used for hatcheries, industrial, domestic, and agricultural purposes. · Marine waters of the watershed are important for marine transportation, industrial uses, recreational uses, and habitat areas. Based on the above review of the beneficial uses of water resources within the City of Port Angeles, primary directives for the development of the City's Stormwater Management Plan are to: · Keep existing surface water sources clean and protected (in order to sustain current and future drinlrlng water supplies). · Control urban flows and restore the natural qualities of stream and habitat areas (in order to reduce flooding and channel erosion, improve water quality and restore fish populations). · Reduce and/or eliminate the release of pollutants and sewage discharges through source and treatment controls (to improve water quality and maintain, enhance and restore the beneficial uses of the City's natural drainage system) Water Quality Assessment 3-16 3.3.4 Overview of Beneficial Uses within the City's Natural Drainage System Freshwater Systems Streams and Natural Drainage Swales. The drainage basins within the City of Port Angeles Sto,-mwater Study Area are relatively small in area. Each basin is heavily developed within the City limits and drains directly into an adjacent marine receiving water system. MAny of the natural drainage features within the lower reaches of these basins have been eliminated or significantly altered by development. In a few of the basins major ravines, drainage swales, and streams remain, which act as conduits for the City's stormwater drainage system. Primary uses of these elements of the natural drainage system include: · Flood control through storage and detention of runoff · Surface water collection and treatment · Conveyance of natural and urban runoff · Urban riparian habitat areas · Recharging of shallow aquifers · Storage retention and infiltration to help maintain s~]mmer low flows in the area's creeks · Aesthetic and open space · Habitat and rearing areas for fish · Recreation Wetlands and Springs Although heavily developed, the City has many remaining wetland areas and a few freshwater springs. These elements of the natural drainage system have been heavily impacted by urbanization but still provide many natural functions and beneficial uses including: · Flood control through detention and storage runoff · Collection and treatment of runoff Water Quality Assessment 3-17 · Conveyance of runoff " · Urban wetland habitat areas · Recharging of local, shallow aquifers · Retention -nd in6!tration to help maintain base flows in urb~ streams · Depending on location, may provide habitat, food, and protection for migrating s~lmon · Open space and aesthetics Groundwater Aquifers Groundwater aquifers are an i~nportant part of the natural drainage system in the role they provide in water supply. Although much of the water supply for the City of Port Angeles is from local surface waters, the region's groundwater resources may need to be actively developed to supply the growing local demand for new drinking water sources. Beneficial uses of the region's groundwater aquifers includes: · Water supply - · Filtration and treatment of surface water · Recipients of surface water runoff · Hydraulic feeding of local springs and wetlands · · Maintenance of s,,mmer base flows in some local stre.ms Marine Systems The City of Port Angeles is adjacent to the marine waters of Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. For years these marine receiving water systems have contributed to the economic health of the region, as well as being the primary recipient of much of its wastes. While marine receiving waters are more resilient to urban pollution than are freshwater systems, they have been locally overloaded, particularly within Port Angeles Harbor, with pollutants from the City's runoff, sewage overflows, direct charges from industries, and other sources of urban pollution. The beneficial uses of Port Angeles marine waters are: · Receives, treats, and assimilates urban wastes and surface water discharges including: · receiving waters for freshwater discharges and urban surface water runo~[' ~ Water Quality Assessment 3-18 · receiving waters for industrial processing, manufacturing, and commercial wastewater discharges · receiving waters for the City's sewage effluent and combined sewer overflows ® Provides a deep water port for the Port of Port Angeles · Provides harbor and marina areas for the Coast Guard, the commercial fleet and recreational boating that support the local economy and the quality of life in the area · Is part of an extensive ferry system to Victoria, British Columbia and the San Juan Islands · Provides for and supports rich, diverse ecological and environmental habitats that provide for a great diversity of marine life and nurture a complex estuary ecosystem · Is an international port of entry into the United States · Fish rearing, passage, and protection · Commercial fishing, fish farming and harvesting · Aesthetics, open space, transportation, and recreation 3.4 Stormwater Runoff Assessment 3.4.1 Overview The £ollowing Stormwater Runoff Assessment identifies existing and future water quality problems in and around the City. It lists and characterizes the various potential sources of both point and non-point pollution by reviewing the data and results of the 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report, the 1988 Watershed Ranking Project Report, and the 1994 CSO Reduction Plan. Observed water quality problems are correlated with their potential sources in order to recommend an appropriate source control program for the City. The goal is to enhance the quality of water being discharged from the City into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 3.4.2 Port Angeles Watershed Plan and Watershed Characterization Report The 1995 Port Angeles Watershed Plan (PAWAC) and 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report were regional planning efforts conducted in 1993-1995, that focused on the reduction of pollutants and enhancement of Water Quality Assessment 3-19 water quality within the Port Angeles watershed. The City of Port Angeles was a participant in this planning effort and has since adopted the plan and its recommendations. The PAWAC P]~ found through this two year study by the County and the City that the State's Class A water quality standards were being routinely violated, particularly for coliforms. Sediment loadings were also high and stormwater and CSO discharges witl~i~ the City of Port Angeles exceeded the fecal coliform standard. The study concluded that a signi6cant amount of nonpoint source pollution is carried by stormwater runoff into the waters of the Port Angeles Harbor and adjacent marine waters. A water quality survey along the shoreline of the City documented elevated coliform levels from failing septic t~nlr~, combined sewer over~ows and urban discharges. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon levels have also been detected to be elevated in the sediments of Port Angeles Harbor (1988 Tetra Tech Report). Stormwater systems within the City were found to be functioning inadequately for the control of water quantity. Uncontrolled runoff has caused erosion and stream channel instability and has resulted in the loss of habitat areas. There is little Annual maintenance and limited treatment for water quality. Ordinences to properly control stormwater and guide new construction were determined to be inadequate in both the City and the County. The 1993 Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report concluded that in regard to stormwater: · Uncontrolled stormwater is greatly affecting many streams within the urban area of' the Port Angeles Watershed. Visual observations of storm events in winter indicate that high turbidity values can be expected in the strenrns most impacted by direct stormwater inputs-- Peabody and Valley Creeks. · Occasional high fecal coliform counts in Peabody Creek in the past indicated a sewage discharge into the Creek. These high levels and the Creek's prox~mlty to Hollywood Beach prompted the County Health Department to issue an advisory recommending closure of' this area to swimming. This problem was immediately corrected by the City and the beach has since been reopened. · Dry, ~mwater and White's Creeks showed fecal coliform levels in exceedance of water quality standards. Water Quality Assessment 3-20 · Sediment monitoring within Port Angels Harbor revealed two types of pollutants--wood preservatives from pilings, and' oil and grease residues. Port Angels Harbor has the highest levels of PAH's (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) of any of the sites sampled in the Puget Sound basin. · A sight,cant portion of the stream corridors in the Port Angeles Regional Watershed are adjacent to commercial forest land. S~]rnonid habitat within these stream corridors is affected by both road construction and timber harvest. · Overall, agricultural impacts to the Port Angeles Regional Watershed are fairly limited. The majority of animal access to steam corridors occurs in Lee's Creek and in Tumwater Creek. · The majority of the Port Angeles Regional Watershed is rural in character; however, nonpoint pollution associated with urban and high density residential areas will increase as the population continues to grow. · The base flow of streams is maintained by groundwater recharge and wetlands. · Low stream flows are natural factors ]imlting anadromous and resident fish production in the watershed. · Further loss and degradation of wetlands will impact the hydrologic cycle, resulting in lower s~mmer stream flows and reduced fish production, greater instresm and overland flows during wet weather, and less groundwater recharge. · Residential development and associated impacts pose the greatest threat to wetlands over the coming years. · Most watershed residents' drinking water is the Elwha River and is distributed by the City of Port Angeles, the Dry Creek Water Association, or one of the smaller water purveyors. Additional sources of drinking water include Morse Creek and other small stre2ms and groundwater wells. · Several stocks of anadromous fish in the watershed have either become extent or are considered in "critical~ or "depressed~ condition. · The watershed supports a high diversity of habitats for plants and animals. Water Quality Assessment 3-21 · Marine waters of the watershed are important for marine trsnsportation, industrial uses, and recreational uses. · Soils in the Port Angeles Watershed pose limitations for On-Site Sewage Disposal systems. · Older on-site sewage disposal systems, those which pre-date regulated permitting (1974) and soils/design standards (1984), are the systems most likely to fail and for which there is little recorded information. · One of the primary problems with on-site sewage disposal systems is often the owner's lack of knowledge about proper maintenance. · Primary influences on current and potential stormwater sources outside the City of Port Angeles will be conversion of forest to residential uses, the c~mulative effects of development, and the lack of clearing and grading ordinance in the County. · It is estimated that approximately 36,000 gallons of hazardous waste is produced by County residents each year, which are largely exempt from hazardous waste regulations. The concluding statement of the Port Angeles Watershed Characterization Report is applicable to both the City of Port Angeles and Clall~m County. "The biggest challenge will be to control and effectively manage development while protecting water quality, habitat, and other beneficial uses. The existing nonpoint water quality problems in the Port Angeles Watershed are in a manageable state if actions are taken now. A complete solution will require integrating point source pollution and growth management issues along with the problems of nonpoint sources. Water quality is a social or public good from which all of us .. derive some benefit, whether we live in the watershed or not. Long-time solutions depend not only on rules and regulations but on society developing a sensitivity to natural resources. Ethics that foster good stewardship of the land and water are needed." 3.4.3 Status of Stormwater Quality in the City of Port Angeles Although considerable monitoring has occurred in adjacent marine waters, there are significant gaps in the data that characterizes the freshwater inputs and urban discharges from the City. Water quality issues throughout most of the City are thought to be typical of most urban and commercial Water Quality Assessment 3-22 areas. Pollutants commonly associated with urban runoff were listed earlier in Table 3-5. Available water quality data was' summarized in Section 3.2.1. Almost all current and historical data involves primarily fecal coliform monitoring. A summary of data collected to date within the Port Angeles area for key water quality parameters, presented in Section 3.3, documents violation of state water quality standards and the degradation of local beneficial uses. Stormwater and Erosion Stor,,,water m~d erosion increase as an area is developed. R~tes and vo1~mes of sto.-,,,water runoff increase which pick up and transport numerous cont~mlnants, including petrole~m hydrocarbons, coliform bacteria, nutrients, particulates, and heavy metals. The result is stream bank erosion, scour, and destruction of habitat areas. Road runoff`is a significant portion of this runoff' and is a major source of solids, hydrocarbons, and metals. Urban runoff from the City of Port Angeles is contaminated by metals, coliforms, and organics. Future growth will have a significant impact on the water quality of Port Angeles Harbor and adjacent marine waters. This will require future stormwater to be pretreated prior to discharge. While the City has a plan to reduce CSO discharges, it was concluded that stormwater and erosion are also significant sources of pollution to the receiving waters in and around the City of Port Angeles. Water Quality Enhancement Plan A Water Quality Enhancement Plan is recommended for the City that includes the treatment of existing stormwater runoff and a source control program to reduce the generation of pollutants throughout the City. Pollutant Loading Assessment and Source Mapping As part of this stormwater management pla~niug project, the City of Port Angeles has begun a program to assess and control water quality throughout the City. Pollutant loading spreadsheets for each major drainage basin have been developed by the City, as shown in Exhibit 3-2, and the location of potential hazardous waste dischargers within the City's GMA have been mapped, as shown in Exhibit 3-3. To complete the pollutant loading assessment, land use areas within each basin under existing and future conditions needed to be estimated. This will require compilation, interpretation and reduction of land uses within both the City and the County into a common system of land use designations. Average percent imperviousness for each land use type will also need to be estimated and the loading equation rerun and totaled-for each land use type within each basin under both existing and future land uses. (This preliminary water quality Water Quality Assessment 3-23 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Plan I~$TIMATED ANNUAL RUNOFF POLLUTANT EXPORT Peabody Creek ~ Precipitation (in) 49.5 inches per year PJ 0.9 (Est]mate used as example only. Actual rainfa]l is much lower.) Comments: Residential Open Low Medium High Commercial Total ~~~i~ Area Area (acres) ' 50 i(%) Rv 0.095 0.185 0.275 0.455 0.860 Residential Open Low I Medium I High Commercial Total Space Density Density Density Industrial Loading '* Loading (Ibs/¥r) Total P 4 9 13 21 40 67 Soluble P 2 3 4 7 14 30 Organic P 1 2 4 6 111 24 Total N 32 62 92 152 287 625 Nitrate 9 18 27 44 83 181 TKN 23 44 65 108 204 444 COD 871 1,696 2.52,1 4,172 7,885 17,145 BOD 5-Day 114 222 330 547 1,033 2,246 Zinc 2 3 5 8 15 33 Lead 2 3 5 8 16 34 Copper 0 1 I 21 4 8 Sediment 863 1,681 2,499 4,135 7,816 16,994 Exhibit 3-2 Example Pollutant Loading Spreadsheets for Peabody Creek Water Quality Assessment 3-24 , assessment information is presented in Appendix I-E, included in Technical Appendix Vob~me I of this report.) The City intends to use this information as the basis of their City-wide nonpoint source control program, which is to be developed and implemented as part of the following recommended stormwater management plan. General water quality impairment has been doc~mented within the City of Port Angeles to be: · The acc~mulation of pollutants in sediments · Fecal coliform and other water quality standard violations · Destruction of the natural drainage system through development · Loss of riparian cover and channel dsmage in urban stresms · Impairment of commercial shellfish beds · Reduction of wildlife habitat · Wetland degradation from runoff and development · Possible groundwater supply impairment from failing septic t~nk.~ and urban runoff. (The full extent of this type of' impah-ment in the Port Angeles area is not known at this time.) 3.5 Water Quality Problems, Alternatives, and Solutions 3.5.1 Overview Results of the Stormwater Runoff Assessment, presented above, are used in this section to identify, evaluate, and recommend effective water quality controls to improve the quality of the surface water runoff within the City. In this section, documented contaminants and pollutant loadings are correlated with potential sources. Treatment and source control alternatives are presented to address the observed water quality problems. Alternatives are evaluated and a series of recommended source and treatment controls are presented in a proposed Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City. 3.5.2 Results of the Stormwater Runoff Assessment Water Ouality Within the City of Port Angeles The preceding Stormwater Runoff Assessment defined the general water quality in and around the City of Port Angeles. Violations of water qualit~ standards were documented, organic concentrations were elevated in the sediments, fecal coliform standards were routinely violated and natural habitat areas and drainage systems were substantially impacted by urban Water Quality Assessment 3-26 development. Beneficial uses of the City's water resources were documented to be impaired and degraded. Sources of Water Quality Problems In general, the sources of water quality degradation within the City are: ® Uncontrolled releases of sewage ® Failing and poorly maintained septic tanks · Untreated urban and street/freeway runoff · Industrial and commercial waste discharges · Degradation and loss of the natural drainage system · Impacts of development and construction Water quality pollutants commonly found in urban stormwater runoff, including that from the City of Port Angeles are estimated to include: · High suspended solids and turbidity, 100-200 mg/L · Oxygen demanding substances, 60-80 mg/L, COD · Toxic metals and trace elements, (especially lead, copper, and zinc) to 20- 200 mg/L · Organic contaminants, 5-10 mg/L · Nutrients, 1-2 mg/L · Pathogenic bacteria, 400-50000/100 mL (Note: Approximate concentration levels have been taken from Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A Comprehensive Review, British Columbia Research Corporation March, 1991, page 15.) These pollutants originate from a host of urban sources. Common sources for each pollutant are shown in Table 3-6. Water Quality Assessment 3-27 Table 3-6 Soumes of Urban Non-Point Pollution Water {[reality Pollutant Common Urban Sources Suspended Solids · eroded soil from construction · highway runoff Oxygen Demsnding Substances * illicit storm sewer connections · combined sewer overflows · fhilln_= septic t~nks · pet droppings, plant Wastes, household waste Toxic Metals and Trace Substances · fossil fuel combustion · corrosion of metal alloys · automobile related activities Organic Cont~miuants · use of pesticides · fossil fuel combustion · automobile related activities · use of plastics · pestidde use · fertilizer use · natural degradation of vegetation Nutrients * intensively landscaped areas · golf courses, cemeteries, etc. · decaying vegetation · animal/pet wastes Pathogenic Bacteria · human sewage · pets · wildlife · construction erosion · highway runoff · illidt sewer connections · failing septic tanks · combustion of fossil fuel · auWmobile related activities · corredin~ metal allo~s Areas within the City which would tend to have greater releases of non-point pollutants would include: · Combined sewer overflows · Storm sewer outfalls · Highway discharges · Runoff from arterial streets ® Commercial, manufacturing, and industrial areas, including · Marine manufacturing areas · Industrial and commercial areas · Shopping centers · Automotive service, repair, restoration sites · Golf courses, cemeteries and parlr~ · Faihng septic tanks · Residential use of fertilizers and household hazardous wastes Water Quality Assessment 3-28 Restoration of the City's Water Resources Restoration of the City's water resources, ss described by its beneficial uses, can be achieved by identifying the sources of pollution, ss listed above, and proposing solutions for enhancement and restoration. Table 3-7 correlates the City's beneficial uses with documented water quality impacts and proposed sources and solutions. 3.5.3 Alternative Analysis Approach to Solving Nonpoint Water Quality Problems There are generally two commonly used approaches for reducing non-point pollution. They include: 1) Source Control--Treating and removing the specific pollutants at the source, before they enter surface water runoff.; and 2) Treatment--Treating the surface water runoff' to reduce overall pollutant loadings once it has entered the stormwater runoff.. To have an effective control progrsm, both approaches usually need to be in effect at the same time. This is especially true for a City such as Port Angeles, with so many different land uses and such a diversity of activities that could potentially contribute pollutants. Alternatives to Reduce and/or Treat Non-Point Pollution Alternative controls are presented below to reduce and/or treat non-point pollution within the City. Controls include both source controls and treatment controls. 3.5.4 Source Controls: The Use of Non-Structural Best Management Practices Source controls, or non-structural best management practices (BMPs), are institutional in nature and are usually the first practical step to enhance water quality. They are initially preferred over structural controls because of the high costs and operational problems in constructing new treatment facilities. Source controls are olden referred to as non-structural BMPs. Source controls appropriate for the City of Port Angles include: Water Quality Assessment 3-29 Water Quality Assessment 3-30 · Sl--F, iim~uation of illicit connections to the storm drain system (through testing, education, and enforcement). · S2--Fi~dng and mg~ntaiplng failing septic t~nl~ systems (through education, inspection, and possible enforcement). · S3--Properly maintaining the public drainage system (through an enhanced City mainten~uce program). · S4--Properly maintaining private drainage facilities (through a new ordinance, education, inspection, and enforcement). · S5--Monitoring and controlling construction sites (through education, a new sto~-~-,,water ordinance, new design standards, enhanced plan review, and site requirements, and enhanced inspection and enforcement). · S6: Reducing the use of household hazardous materials, including the use of pesticides and fertilizers and proper management of yard, pet, and kitchen wastes (through education and recycling programs). · S7--Reducing industrial, manufacturing, and commercial releases of pollutants by changing manufacturing processes, proper waste disposal, and the development of on-site water quality and spill response plans (through education, inspection, and enforcement). · SS~Education regarding the use of sand instead of salt to de-ice private roads and driveways (as appropriate). · S9~Educating City staff and maintenance crews about BMPs for controlling erosion, stormwater runoff, and enhancing water quality. · S10~Retrofitting existing City drainage structures, where needed, to enhance the City's runoff and reduce pollutant loadings into local receiving waters (by adopting, funding and implementing the recommendations in this plan). · S11mInventorying the drainage facilities, mapping the system, collecting as-built drawings, and establishing a process to update this inventory as new developments occur (through funding and mapping of the City's drainage system). · S12~Effectively coordinating drainage infrastructure needs with the City and County Growth Management Act planning processes. Water Quality Assessment 3-31 · S13mDeveloping .nd enforcing effective stormwater, design, water quality, construction, maintenance, and inspection ordinances; these are the processes and programs needed to appropriately implement the City's stormwater management progr-m. · S14--Routinely conducting public and business education on stormwater management and water quality. · S15---Establishing the funding and staffing needed to implement an effective Stormwater Management Program. Many of the above source controls are either required for regulatory compliance with the State's Basic Program, (as defined in the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, as amended in 1994), or are required to implement the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, and/or future NPDES permits, as shown in Table 3-8. Most of these source controls (S1-S14) are usually implemented as part of the routine activities of a well-run, effective stormwater program, as listed under source control S-15 in Table 3-8. Additional discussion of activities, costs and staffing for a well-run stormwater program are presented in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. (Source controls and non-structural BMPs are further described in Appendix I-F in Technical Appendix Volume I and the 1992 Stormwater Technical Manual developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology.) Treatment Controls: The Use of Structural Best Management Practices Treatment BMPs are used in those situations within the urban environment where source controls are likely to be insufficient or impractical. The control and treatment of runoff from urban freeways and roads is a good example of where the pollutants have already been combined with surface water runoff and the contaminated runoff (drainage plus pollutants) needs to be treated. The cost and nature of treatment BMPs can vary greatly with the particular drainage problem and location where additional treatment is needed. Treatment controls are often referred to as structural BMPs. There are at least seven different types or classes of structural BMPs including: · Tl--wet pond detention basins · T2---dry pond detention basins · T3wartificial wetlands · T4--oil/grease trap catch basins or oil/water separators · T5~infiltration practices · T6 vegetative practices · T7 erosion and sediment control practice during construction Water Quality Assessment 3-32 Water Quality Assessment 3-33 '- To be effective, structural controls need to be specifically designed for the site a_nd the type of water quality problem to be addressed. Many designs combine one or more of these structural controls together within the same overall design, in order to improve the total performance of the facility. Combining one or more of these treatment techniques is usually recommended because rarely will one type of control remove all the different types of pollutants that are typically found in urban stox-,,,water runoff. Please refer to Technical Appendix Vol,~me I, Appendix E for additional information about these structural BMPs. The structural BMPs likely to be most effective for the City include: · Regional dry pond detention basina, where adequate land area is available (Note: Where the land area is not available, as is the case throughout much of the downtown area of the City of Port Angeles, underground settling ta~ka and underground storage are recommended.) · A combination of infiltration and vegetative practices (where soils and available land allow). · Various erosion and sediment control practices during construction (with the appropriate ordinances, design standards, and inspection/ enforcement programs, as needed for this BMP to be effectively implemented). · Oil/water separators or other water quality filters (e.g., composted leaf mulch, etc., where no other form of water quality treatment is practical or achievable). Alternative Evaluation Both source and treatment control alternatives have been listed and evaluated in Tables 3-9 and 3-10, respectively, using the following evaluation criteria: · Cost effectiveness · Environmental impacts · Practicality · Effectiveness · Redundancy · Political feasibility · Agency willingness to implement Water Quality Assessment 3-34 Water Quality Assessment 3-35 Water Quality Assessment 3-36 Evaluation of Source Controls/Non-Structural BMPs Of the fifteen different source control alternatives evaluation in Table 3-9, maintenance, fixing septic t~nk~, controlling development, and reducing waste loadLugs are always cost effective. Education and enforcement can bring good returns for limited financial investments. One of the most effeCtive investments, although often costly, is to properly staff and fund the City's Stormwater Program so the various stormwater processes and activities can be properly developed and effectively implemented. Often, the political will of a City is hesitant to properly control new development or to provide the proper funding and sto_~ng needed to have a viable stormwater management program. In the State of Washington, State laws require agencies, such as the City of Port Angeles, to develop, properly fund, and maintain an effective stormwater program. The State is also required to support such mandated programs by providing technical and financial assistance. Drainage Basin Assessments One of the best investments the City can make is to conduct initial drainage basin assessments in each of the City's fourteen most developed drainage basins. These assessments would characterize existing water quality problems and recommend basin - specific source control programs to enhance water quality. Later, if these source control plans prove to be inadequate, structural stormwater treatment facilities can be constructed to provide additional water quality treatment, where needed, throughout the City. Evaluation of Treatment Controls/Structural BMPs Treatment controls were evaluated according to the seven evaluation criteria listed above and presented in Table 3-10. Generally, the best water quality returns for the dollars invested are in the use of infiltration (T5) and vegetative practices (T6). These two treatment controls are usually inexpensive, relatively effective, and can be placed olrnost anywhere. They present excellent opportunities to add new treatment facilities to older, established areas of the City's existing drainage system, if local soils are appropriate and if the land area is available. Unfortunately these two treatment controls are of limited use within the City of Port Angeles. The control of construction (T7) is always worth the investment because it is always easier and cheaper to prevent a problem from occurring than to fix a problem once it has already occurred. This is especially true of drainage control and water quality treatment. The other four treatment controls involving wet and dry ponds (and underground settling ta~l~s) (T1/T2), artificial wetlands (T3) and oil/grea~e catch basins or water quality filters (T4) can be effective for solving certain types of drainage problems, but are Water Quality Assessment 3-37 usually more costly and difficult to fund, construct, and maintain. Because they are more costly, it is recommended that source control programs and the less expensive treatment controls be established initially. If these types of controls prove to be inadequate, these other more costly structural treatment facilities can be designed and built. 3.5.5 Proposed Water Quality Solutions Source Controls/Non-Structural BMPs Each of the source control alternatives are viable control techniques for the City. Many, if not all, of these source controls will eventually need to be adopted and implemented by the City. Due to the shortage of available funding, a three phase approach with short- and long-term priorities has been identified. Those that would be the least expensive and most effective in the short-term would include the following ten, Priority No. I Control Techniques. Which source controls are appropriate for each of the City's urban drainage basins would be determined by undertaking the Drainage Basin Assessments mentioned above. · Phase I Priority No. 1: Short-Term Source Controls · S3 Properly maintaining public facilities · S4 Properly maintaining private facilities · S5 Monitor and control new construction · S8 Use sand for de-icing · S9 Educate City staff · Sll Set up an effective record keeping program · S12 Coordinate with GMA planning process · S13 Develop and enforce stormwater and maintenance ordinances and adopt design standards, as defined in the Ecology Manual · S14 Educate the public and businesses about stormwater · S15 Properly fund and implement the City's Stormwater Management Program. It should be noted that many of these are also the s~me elements needed for the City to be in compliance with the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. (Regulatory requirements for the City are discussed in Section 5 of this report.) The other five source controls can be implemented as funding allows and local program priorities dictate, as defined in the Drainage Basin Assessment reports. A suggested order of priority for the future adoption and implementation of these remaining five, Priority No. 2 source controls is presented below. Water Quality Assessment 3-38 ® Phase IImPriority No. 1: Source Controls · S1 Eliminate illicit connections (already part of City's sewer/CSO program) · S2 Fix and maintain septic tanks (to be undertaken by the County Health Department ® Phase IIIwPriority No. 2: Source Controls · S6 Reduce household wastes · S7 Reduce industrial, commercial, manufacturing wastes · S10 Retrofit existing facilities (only if all other controls are inadequate) ' Treatment Controls/Structural BMPs Structural BMPs, presented and evaluated in Table 3-10, to treat existing or future stormwater runoff, are site specific and are to be selected, designed, and built as needed to meet the City's water quality goals. Based on the site visit and knowledge of the City's drainage system, the City should: · Control drainage erosion and sedimentation from new construction (T7). The City's sto~-mwater and water quality construction/development review practices need to be improved and upgraded with new ordinances, standards, and inspection/enforcement procedures. Developers of new construction are responsible for implementing these new structural water quality BMPs. · Use wet (T1) and dry (T2) detention ponds (or underground ta~k~) to provide regional storage and add water quality treatment to those areas of the City where no treatment presently exists, as sites allow. · Use a combination of infiltration (T5) and vegetative practices (T6) to provide treatment to the more developed areas of the City where adding regional storage and treatment systems are not feasible due to the lack of available space/sites and where suitable land is available. The construction of artificial wetlands (T3) is not recommended at this time. Oil/grease catch basins and oil/water separators (T4) may prove effective and may be needed in the various industrial/commercial developments located throughout City, as local site conditions require. In some highly developed basins within the City, oil/water separators may be recommended due to the shortage of available land needed for detention ponds or underground tank-~. Generally, the use of treatment controls (T7) for new construction may be the only realistic structural control available to the City. Treatment controls T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 are limited to selected site specific applications. Water Quality Assessment 3-39 Priorities for the adoption and implementation of treatment controls and structural BMPs are: · Phase I--Priority No. 1: Short-Term Treatment Controls · Control drainage erosion and sedimentation from new construction (T7) (to be implemented by developers) · Add water quality treatment to the existing drainage system, using a combination of infiltration (T5) and vegetative practices (T6), as new capital drainage facilities are designed and constructed by the City · Phase II--Priority No. 1: Long-Term Treatment Controls · Add oil/grease catch basins and/or oil/water separators (T4) where needed to improve local water quality · Phase III--Priority No. 2: Long-Term Treatment Controls · Add regional detention and wet (T1) and dry (T2) water quality treatment facilities as needed and as available land allows (future drainage basin studies and monitoring will likely be needed to correctly locate these facilities) It is recommended that treatment/structural BMPs only be used where needed after the implementation of the less expensive source control/non- structuralfBMPs have proven to be inadequate. 3.6 Maintenance: As An Effective Source Control 3.6.1 Introduction In order to assure the reliability of the stormwater infrastructure, to extend the li£e o£ £acHitles, and to obtain the full capacity of the system, an effective maintenance program is essential. In addition, maintenance activities are highly visible, and a vigorous maintenance program makes a strong statement to the community of the City's commitment to stormwater management and water quality. This section will outline performance standards and discuss maintenance equipment and labor requirements to execute a water quality-based maintenance program. It is not expected that the City will be financially capable of immediately achieving the level of ideal maintenance presented in this section; however, the maintenance standards should serve as a goal towards which to strive as priorities and resources allow. (Note: The Water Quality Assessment 3-40 following review of the use of maintenance, as an effective source control technique, is based upon the discussion presented in Chapter 4 of the City's 1990 Stormwater Management Plan.) 3.6.2 Overview Operations and maintenance management includes various planning, engineering, and arlministrative activities, and typically consists of the following steps: 1. Inventory of Facilities: Documenting the facilities the City is to maintain. The database for the trunk systems developed in the City's 1990 Stormwater Plan can be expanded by staff to include the entire drainage system as available t~me allows. A comprehensive inventory of facilities is preliminary to planning future strategies for stormwater management. 2. Needs Assessment: Determining the types of frequencies of maintenance for each class of facility (manholes, catch basins, storm sewers, culverts, ditches); and defining what maintenance is required. 3. Optimal Crew Configurations: Denning the combination of labor skills, equipment, and materials required to perform a given task most efficiently. 4. Planning Factors: These are the planning tools used to translate the data from the inventory, needs assessment, and optimal crew configurations into measurable performance units which can be scheduled and monitored. Such planning factors include resource requirements and productivity standards for different activities. 5. Scheduling: This activity entails allocating available resources to perform the maintenance at the proper time intervals, according to defined priorities in order to complete the work efficiently. 6. Reporting and Control: Monitoring actual work accomplished is essential to improving the accuracy of subsequent scheduling efforts. Through reporting feedback, discrepancies between assumptions and actual conditions are revealed and appropriate action can be taken. 7. Management and Administration: This includes staffing and workload assessments, supervision of crews, scheduling, setting O/M standards, equipment repair and replacement, record keeping, complaint response, and responding to spills and water quality problems. 3.6.3 Typical Maintenance Activity There are several criteria for establishing the desired level of maintenance: flooding prevention, nuisance attenuation, and water quality preservation. Water Quality Assessment 3-41 These three criteria are listed in order of increasing level of effort, with water quality being the most maintenance intensive. Flooding prevention is a function of the ability to route high volumes of water through natural drainage ways and/or re-route it to constructed facilities as efficiently as possible. This is achieved by maintaining clear drainage ways, free from debris and sediment, keeping flow and detention capacities current with new development, and planning development to minimize potential d~mage. The baseline level of service is the protection of lives and property, and passage of emergency vehicle traffic. Nuisance attenuation goes beyond flooding prevention and addresses localized ponding of stormwater, severe erosion problems, and basement flooding. Nuisance attenuation requires more frequent and comprehensive cleaning of facilities, particularly local storm sewers, catch basins, culverts, and ditches. This level of maintenance generally includes other periodic efforts to control erosion problems as well, such as ditch armoring and check dam placement. A water quality level of maintenance implies an even greater frequency than either of the aforementioned activities, particularly where sediments collect most rapidly. Appropriate vegetation management, retrofitting of existing facilities, and frequent inspection are needed in addition to the two other levels of maintenance in order to reduce pollutant loadings in the stormwater rurlo~f. The water quality benefits of maintaining the stormwater drainage system are numerous. Properly constructed channels and detention facilities, while routing and slowing the rate of flow, also settle out particulates and associated pollutants. Biofiltration may also be utilized in channels and detention facilities; therefore, the harvesting of vegetation prior to die-off is necessary to prevent the release of absorbed nutrients (contsminants) into receiving waters. Maintaining healthy vegetation in these facilities also prevents erosion in channels and on the sides and bottoms of detention ponds. Silt and sediment removal from pipes and catch basins will decrease metals, organics, and suspended solids concentrations in stormwater. Clear drainage ways prevent localized flooding of areas that may leach or wash contaminants into the stormwater. Removal of illicit sewer connections to storm sewers reduces fecal coliform loadings and the discharge of other toxic pollutants. Removal of stormwater infiltration and flows into sanitary sewers reduces system surcharging and sewer overflows into surface waters. To date, drainage management has focused primarily on controlling flooding problems. In contrast, this stormwater plan focuses on enhancing and maintaining water quality. Traditi(inal techniques used to maintain system Water Quality Assessment 3-42 capacity also offer opportunities to improve water quality. Operationally, the same maintenance activities are performed, under the guidance of'water quality enhancement principles. Exhibit 3-4 illustrates the applications of operations and maintenance activities in addressing stor~nwater problems. Ideal level of service standards for maintenance activities that are in use in the Puget Sound region are presented in Table 3-11 below. Table 3-11 Ideal Maintenance Activity Frequencies* Activity Frequency Clean catch basins 1.5 times/year Clean drywells 3 times/year Surface detention basins Vegetation control 2 times/year Remove sedimentation 0.5 times/year Clean oil separators 20 times/year Clean outf~]]~ 1 time/year Pump stations Inspect/check 12 times/year Routine maintenance 1 time/year Roadside ditches Vegetation control 2 times/year Reshape, remove sedimentation 0.3 times/year Clean/flush culverts 0.5 times/year Clean pipe 0.3 times/year Inspection with TV 0.1 times/year Repair, replace catch basin 0.1 times/year Repair, replace drywells 0.2 times/year Repair, replace manholes 0.02 times/year Replace pipe 0.01 times/year *From 1990 City Stormwater Management Plan 3.6.4 Annual Maintenance Work Plan: Estimating Resource Requirements The priorities and resources applied by the City to an initial operations and maintenance program will differ from those that apply to a mature stormwater management program. The City's initial level of effort may be somewhat constrained by limited finances and manpower, undeveloped policies and programs, and short-term high priority activities. This initial level of effort would be refined, after an estimated 1-2 year period, through experience and the changing priorities of the program. The resource requirements for the recommended initial operations and maintenance program should be developed annually as shown in Table 3-12. The performance standards (productivity, crew requirements) were determined from the experience of other local agencies. City staff should complete this table to develop an anhual OfM progr-m tailored to their local needs, priorities and funding level. Water Quality Assessment 3-43 Activity ~ Clean~ CatCh. Basins CleanDrF~eIls Clean underground'Detention .Basin "' R/D Basin, Vegetation Control R/D Basin, Remove Sediment Clean Oil'Separators Ditch Vegetation Control Ditch Clean, Reshape, Remove Sediment Clean/Flush Culverts Clean Pipe Inspection' with TV Complaint/Emergency Response Inspection Water Quality Monitoring Public Education Interagencyflntergovernmental Coordination Land Acquisition Ordinances/Regulations Exhibit 3-4 Maintenance and Operations Activities Problem Applications Water Quality Assessment 3.44 Water Quality Assessment 3-45 3.6.5 Key Elements of an Effective Maintenance Program Following are descriptions of key operations and maintenance program activities that will enable the City to implement an efficient and effective stormwater management program. ® Long-Term Progrsm Strategy: The City should prioritize the completion of an inventory of the City's drainage system. This activity could be easily coordinated with future drainage basin assessments and the development of a City-wide source control progrs~n. ® Development of a Seasonal Progrsm: The City's current maintenance scheduling reflects the seasonal demands of stormwater management. However, the progrnm should be further enhanced by adopting the schedule concept shown in Exhibit 3-5. Jan i~F~b~ Mar ~i~r May Jun Jul Sep i~i Nov ~i~! Description ~i~ .... i "~; vegetation mowing, : : ;::~: :. ~:; ; street sweeping Responsive :: [ :~ :[:' :[ ' Responsive !Complaint response, : : ..... :.':' ;::; debris, and grease/oil · : ~ .iii : !:: .:: i -: ' ::(: :: . removal : Structural Improvement ~ ;':' System repair, sm~ll · ' !':: works Exhibit 3-5 Annual Maintenance $chedu[ing Source: 1990 City Stormwater J~l~ano~ernent Plan. · Easement Acquisition: The City may lack the proper easements or other rights-of-access over some portions of the drainage system. This is of particular concern in the many ravines throughout the City, as they will require increased maintenance efforts as tributary areas develop. Needed easements should be reviewed and' acquired, as needed. · Personnel Training: Negative impacts to the overall stormwater system caused by poor solutions to drainage problems can be minimized by training maintenance personnel about stormwater quality and drainage issues. Maintenance staff can also be used as a valuable resource to provide feedback to the City's engineering staff regarding the effectiveness and performance of drainage designs. However, gaining an overall Water Quality Assessment 3-46 understanding of the drainage system requires time and opportunities to observe system response to storm events. Assigning responsibility for stormwater management to specific individuals could enhance the effectiveness of the City's program as these individuals would be able to better understand the system and document their observations. · Engineering, Planning, and Administration: Engineering, planning, and administrative activities are necessary for operation of a maintenance program and therefore need to be staffed and properly budgeted. This aspect of maintenance is almost always under funded. '.- · Storm Sewer System Inspection: Through the use of surface water sampling and fecal coliform testing, smoke testing, dye testing, and closed circuit television (CCTV), any illicit sanitary sewer connections to the sto~-,,, sewer can be identified. Strategically pl~nnlng such an identification progr_~m could limit the amount of smoke testing and CCTV inspection required to locate the illicit connections to under 60 percent of the total storm sewer system. Routine in_spection of the storm drain sewers pe~---,its timely and cost effective repair. To eliminate the illicit connections, an ordinance must be in place to allow the City to require the homeowner to disconnect and transfer to the sewer system, or to allow the City to disconnect and transfer. (This illicit connection identification program is assumed to occur over a 3-5 year period, but is intended to self- terminate when all sources have been located and eliminated.) · Stormwater Discharge: All stormwater discharges should be identified, prioritized, and monitored. A program of retrofitting priority discharges may need to be established where water quality problems are identified in local receiving waters. This program should be conducted in accordance with future anticipated NPDES requirements, as appropriate. (Discharges to be retrofitted should be identified in the Drainage Basin Assessment studies, recommended earlier for each of the City's major drainage basins.) · Private Detention Facility Maintenance: The proper operation of detention facilities within the City must be ensured. To achieve this, the City should regularly inspect privately maintained facilities and notify property owners by use of a field inspection O/M checklist. The City should also have the legal right to enter and maintain a facility when not adequately maintained by the owner. · Storm Sewer System Improvements: Improvements to the storm sewer system should be coordinated with those in the sanitary sewer system. Planned improvements to the sanitary system will reduce surcharging and overflows into the storm system, therefore a lesser improvement to '" Water Quality Assessment 3-47 the storm system may be required to enhance and maintain water quality where future sanitary sewer enhancements are being constructed. · Vegetation and Pest Management: Best Management Practices (BMP) for use and application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers should be keyed to the protection of water quality and the preservation of natural habitat areas. For example, the use of mechanical means of vegetation control should be advocated in lieu of herbicides; the burning of vegetation in pavement cold joints rather th~ use herbicides; and restricting the use of herbicides within a setback zone around water bodies. · Household Hazardous Waste Management Program: The City and County should enlist community support for achieving local water quality goals by developing a household hazardous waste management program to provide the proper use and disposal methods for the general public. · Roadside Ditches: The City should develop a roadside ditch maintenance program that incorporates water quality concerns. Trimming, but not eliminating, ditch vegetation allows biofiltration and reduces erosion and sedimentation. · Emergency/Complaint Response: Public Works should use a complaint fo~m to serve as both a work order and action report in order to satisfactorily document problems and prompt timely responses by the City. A copy of a complaint Investigation Report is provided as Exhibit 3-6. Modifying the fo~,,, to include a category box for storm drainage would facilitate the tracking of stormwater problems and responses. · Facility Inspection: Engineering department staff are responsible for the inspection of stormwater facilities on both private and public lands. New development in the City, particularly on slopes of moderate to severe erosion, hazard, could result in significant erosion/sedimentation during construction and afterward until the sites are fully revegetated. Inspection personnel must be trained in recognizing and correcting surface and storm drainage issues in the field. Inspectors could be given ongoing training in the importance of erosion controls at disturbed sites and the measures available for effective erosion control. Another area of inspection is for the proper maintenance of septic tank sewage systems within the watersheds. The correction of failing septic systems can reduce colifo~-m bacteria and nutrient discharges to ground and surface waters. Water Quality Assessment 3-48 Public Works Department COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT Depar~,,tent Water Sewer rq Street Garbage Park Other Date: Nature of Complaint: Manner Complaint Received: Location: Radio r-I Walk-In Phone El Other El Complainant: Phone: Details of Complaint: Complaint Received by: Time: Complaint Referred to: Date: Action Taken: Complainant advised of action possible or taken by: Phone El Letter El Personal Contact El Complaint action handled by: Name Date White copy to Administrative SecretarytYellow copy to Affected Department Exhibit 3-6 Complaint Investigation Report Form Water ,Quality Assessment 3-49 City of Port Angeles: Public Works Stormwater Maintenance Management Program Beginning in 1995 the City's Public Works Deps_~ment began to develop a Maintenance Management Program for its stormwater facilities. This progrnrn is presently characterized by the development o£ computerized spreadsheets for each major stormwater maintenance activity, as shown in Exhibit 3-7 for ditch cleaning. Each spreadsheet includes crew size, equipment, materinls, ~n~t cost, time, description of methods and procedures, frequency, rate of productivity, n~mber of units to be completed, planned budget and the desired stnnd~rd of maintenance that is to be achieved. The following eleven stormwater maintenance activities have been developed in such a mnnner: 1995 Level of Effort Alley sweeping $13,480 Flushing 1,000 Sweeping 90,270 Ditch cleaning 43,264 Culvert maintenance' 16,400 New culvert (coop) 7,000 Storm clean-up 5,000 Inspections 8,000 Inlet cleaning 38,080 Storm drain cleaning 5,000 Storm drain system repair 10,000 $237,494 Maintenance management spreadsheets for each of these stormwater activities are presented in Appendix I-G in Technical Appendix Volt,me I. The annual stormwater maintenance budget for 1995 and 1996 was developed using these new maintenance standards and management programs. Water Quality Assessment 3-50 ~ DVCL~ION CITY OF PORT ANGELES - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM:ENT MAINTENANCE MANAGEM:ENT TASK DESCRIFFION DRAINAGE DITCH CLEANING LINEAL FELT ST 400 ! Total -, S 43264 METHODS AND PROCEDURES: · kssign area to ~ · Setup traffic control · Backhoe ,~.a~ove debris and re-es~blish flow line · Clean out inlets and outlets of culvcr~ by hand · Place debris in dump Iruck and dispose at landfill Exhibit 3-7 City of Port Angeles, Department of Public Works Example Maintenance Management Activity Spreadsheet for Ditch Cleaning Water Quality Assessment 3-51 3.7 Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City of Port Angeles 3.7.1 Overview The following Water Quality Enhancement Plan is based on existing water quality data, doc-mented water quality problems, and impaired beneficial uses. Identified sources have been identified based upon national stormwater information, regional monitoring results and local pollutant source and loading information, where available. Established national and regional stormwater management practices, consistent with, and including those presented in the Ecology Technical Manual, have been selected and recommended, as appropriate, to solve both existing and future water quality problems within the City. The goal of this plan is to enhance the water quality of stormwater runoff within the older, move heavily developed areas of the City and to treat and control the runoff from new developments prior to discharge into local marine receiving waters. Short- and long-term implementation phases and priorities are presented in the recommended Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City. In general, source control and programmatic/regulatory compliance improvements are to be implemented in the short-term and capital, structural treatment facilities are proposed for the long-term. The long-term structural facilities are recommended only if the short-term enhancements alone are not able to meet the City's and the region's future water quality goals. Costs have been developed for both the short- and long-term water quality enhancements. Stormwater from combined sewer and stormwater systems in some areas of the City is proposed to be retained and sent to the sewage treatment plant thereby reducing the need for local stormwater improvements. Additional financial information relative to implementing the various programmatic and regulatory source controls (e.g., non-structural BMPs) is presented in Sections 5 and 6. (Note that the costs for the short- term source control/non-structural BMPs and water quality enhancements (with the exception of Drainage Basin Assessments) have been combined with the costs for regulatory compliance and the costs to staff and enhance the City's overall stormwater management progrsm, which are presented in Sections 5 and 6. The reader is referred to Section 6 for a more complete presentation of all future stormwater progrnm costs. Financial alternatives and funding recommendations are presented in Section 7.) 3.7.2 Recommended Water Quality Enhancement Plan The recommended Water Quality Enhancement Plan for the City of Port Angeles has two main elements. Water Quality Assessment 3-52 · Element No. 1tis the recommended Source 'Control Progr~ which includes internal progrnmmatic enhancements, such as maintenance, and regulatory compliance activities to e]iminate and/or reduce pollutant loadings. · Element No. 2--Is the recommended Treatment Control Program, which designs and builds facilities to treat urban stormwater prior to discharge. Both of these recommended progrnm elements may ultimately need to be implemented to achieve the City's water quality objectives. Element No. 1--Source Control Program The Source Control Program has been developed in terms of four elements which are to be implemented in three prioritized phases, as shown in Table 3-13. · Element 1.1tPhase I Drainage Basin Water Quality Assessments · Element 1.2~Phase I Short Term Source Controls · Element 1.3~Phase II Short Term Source Controls · Element 1.4~Phase III Long Term Source controls The recommended Drainage Basin Water Quality Assessments (Element 1.1) are future studies to be undertaken within each of the ten major urban drainage basins included in the study area. They are composed of inventorying drainage facilities, documenting water qu~Uty problems and sources and recommending appropriate solutions. The objective of each of these studies is to develop a basin-specific source control plan. If these source control plans prove over time to be effective, there may be no need to design and construct the significantly more expensive capital treatment facilities (re. structural BMPs) listed in Element No. 2 of this Water Quality Enhancement Plan. Drainage Basin Assessments are estimated to cost up to $50,000 per basin for a total cost of $500,000. They would be conducted over a three to five year period of time, or as future regulatory requirements and local funding allow. Implementation of Elements 1.2 and 1.3 allows the city to establish a city- wide source control program that achieves regulatory compliance and local programmatic enhancements. Retrofitting of problem facilities and waste reduction are included in Element 1.4 and are of a lower priority in comparison with the other source controls. Water Quality Assessment 3-53 Table 3-13 Port Angeles Water Quality Enhancement Plan Cost to City Element No. I--Source Control Program 1.1 Phase ImPriority #1 Drainage Basin Assessments $300,000-$500,000 ($30,000-$50,000foasin) 1-~ Phase ImPriority #1 Short-Term Source Controls · S3-Properly maintain public facilities Costs included in · S4-Property maintain private facilities overall stormwater · S5-Monitor and control new construction enhancements and · SS-Use sand for de-icing regulatory · S9-Educate City staff compliance · S11-Set up an effective record keeping program activities · S12-Coordinate with GMA planning process presented in · S13-Develop, adopt and enforce stormwater and Section 5. O/M ordinances and design standards (as required by Ecology) · S14-Educate public and business · S15-Propery fund and implement the City's new Stormwater Management Program 1.3 Phase II--Priority #1 Short-Term Source Controls · S1-Elminate illicit connections In City CSO program · S2-Fix and maintain septic t~nk.~ Homeowners pay 1.4 Phase III--Priority #2 Long-Term Source Controls · S6-Reduce household hazardous wastes Homeowners pay · S7-Reduce industrial and commercial wastes Businesses pay · S10-Rerrofit existin~ facilities, if needed Not estimated Element No. 2~Treatment Control Program 2.1 Phase I--Priority #1 Short-Term Treatment Controls · T7-Control drainage and erosion from new Developer pays construction · TS-Infiltration (add water quality treatment to Included in City's existing drainage system) stormwater · T6--Vegetative practices (add water quality CIP costs treatment to City's existing drainage system) 2~2 Phase II--Priority #1 Long-Term Treatment Controls* · T4-Add oil/grease catch basins and/or oil/water Not estimated separators, if needed 2.3 Phase ]TI~Priority #2 Long-Term Treatment Controls* · T1-Add wet detention ponds, if needed Not estimated · T2-Add dr,/detention ponds, if needed Not estimated * Future drainage basin assessments and monitoring will be needed to correctly locate, size and estimate costs for these facilities. Water Quality Assessment 3-54 The City-wide Source Control Program, listed in Elements. 1.2-1.4 of Table 3-13, would include each of the f~een source controls (non-structural BMPs) listed in Table 3-9. Activities, costs, and staffing to meet the needs of the City's present stormwater program, as well as address existing and future regulatory compliance requirements, are presented in Section 5, entitled "Existing Sto.~mwater Program and Regulatory Compliance." In general, the City-wide Source Control Program addresses local drainage needs and ensures compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Progr-m, as defined in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. It does not, however, achieve full compliance with all of the anticipated conditions of a future Stormwater NPDES permit. The conditions of the City's future stormwater NPDES permit (if issued by the State) are presently thought to be similar to the requirements of the State's Comprehensive StoA-aiwater Progr-m, according to Dr. P. Birch, Ecology Stormwater Progr-m Supervisor (personal comm, mication). Element No. 2--Treatment Control Program The T,ong-Term ~reatment Control Program (~reatment Control Program) is subdivided into three prioritized elements to be implemented in the three phases, as shown in Table 3-13. · Element 2.1--Phase I Short-Term Treatment Controls · Element 2.2--Phase II Long-Term Treatment Controls · Element 2.3 Phase HI Long-Term Treatment Controls The Construction Treatment Controls (Element 2.1) include both temporary and permanent water quality and drainage facilities that developers of new construction design and build. They are required by the City through the permit review process and are legally required in the City's various construction, drainage, and envirommental related ordinances. There should be no cost to the City for such facilities other than the cost of plan review, construction inspection, and enforcement. The Long-Term Treatment Controls (Elements 2.2 and 2.3) consist of various water quality treatment facilities designed and constructed by the City, as needed, to complement the above Source Control Program. They would be required only if the above Source Control Progrzm, as defined by the Drainage Basin Assessments, does not achieve adequate levels of pollutant reduction within the various stormwater discharges being emitted by the City. The intent of these Treatment Controls is to treat and remove pollutants prior to discharge into local receiving waters. Treatment controls are expensive_ to design, construct, and maintain. Because the urban areas of the City are so highly developed, there are only a few of the more expensive treatment controls that could be used. No,really Water Quality Assessment 3-55 treatment controls'are relatively inexpensive to build and maintain because they usually consist of shallow ponds, constructed wetlands, and vegetated drainage swales. These facilities use natural processes for water quality treatment and require considerable areas of land to provide adequate treatment. For Port Angeles, adequate open areas for these types of facilities are not available due to the City's dense development, which significantly increases the costs of these types of treatment controls. The strategy, to treat stormwater runoff within Port Angeles by detaining and treating it in large .underground tsnlr~ or vaults just prior to its discharge into local marine waters, may be necessary at some time in the future if the above controls are not adequate. This approach is very expensive and is not recommended at this time. Due to such a high cost of providing water quality enhancement through the use of' constructed treatment controls, this Stormwater Management Plan has recommended the use of Drainage Basin Assessment studies to first develop effective source controls for each basin. The development of effective source controls may be able to eliminate the need to construct any of the additional capital structural controls listed above in this section. 3.7.3 Summary of Port Angeles Water Quality Enhancement Plan and Costs Presented below in Table 3-14 is a summary of the major elements of the Water Quality Enhancement Plan prepared for the City and the recommended 10-year implementation schedule. The plan is composed of four source control activities (Elements 1.1-1.4) and three treatment control activities (Elements 2.1-2.3). If the elements of the Source Control Program are effective, there may be no need for the more expensive treatment controls listed in Elements 2.2 and 2.3. It is anticipated that Elements 1.1-1.4 and 2.1 would be funded and implemented over the next five years and be completed by the end of the year 2000. The primary costs to the City for implementing this recommended Water Quality Enhancement Plan are for the initial drainage basin assessments (Element 1.1) costing $300,000-$500,000, and the twelve programmatic stormwater improvements listed in Elements 1.2 and 1.3 of Table 3-14. The costs of the programmatic improvements are included in the recommended stormwater program enhancements presented in Section 7. Water Quality Assessment 3-56 Table 3-14 Port Angeles Water Quality Enhancement Plan Suggested Implementation Schedule Schedule (yes.rs) Water ~,~lity Enhancement pl=,~ Element I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Element ~V~ 1--Souroe Control Program 1.1 AssessmentsPhase I--Priority #1 Drainage Ba~n ($30,000-$50,000/basin) 1.2 Phase I--Priority #1 Short-Term Source Controls · S3-ProperIy mainta~ pubUc fac~ities · S4-Property ma~ta/n private faciUties · SS-Mozfitor and control new construction · S8-Use sand for de-icing · sg-Educate City staff ·Sll-~et up an effective record keeping program ·S12--Coord~ate with GM.~ process · $13-DeueIop, adopt and enforce storm water and O/M orcUnances and design scandaz~Ls (as reqt~ed by Ecology) · $14-Educate public and business ·$15-Propery fund and implement the City's new Stermwater Management Program 1.3ControlsPhase H--Priority #1 Short-Term Source ~ · Si-Eliminate illicit connections · S2-Fix and maintain septic 1.4 Phase III--Priority #2 Long-Term Source Controls I · $6-Reduce household hazardous wastes · $?-Reduce industrial and commercial wastes · SlO-Retrofit existin~ fac~lities~ if needed E~ement No, 2--T~e~tment Contro~ Program Treatment Controls · TT-Control drainage and erosion from new ......- construction ·TS-Infiltration (add water quality treat- ment to City's existing drainage system) · T6-Vegetative practices (add water quality treatment to City's existing drainage system) Treatment Controls* ·T4-Add oil/grease catch basins and/or oil/water separators, if needed 2.3 Phase n~--Priority #2 Long-Term Treatment Controls* · Ti-Add wet detention ponds, if needed ' · T2-Add dr~ detention ponds~ if needed Water Quality Assessment 3-57 The elements of this proposed Water Quality Enhancement Plan are to be implemented collectively with the capital facilities proposed in the City's Flood and Drainage Control Plan presented in Section 4. If water quality and flood control projects are simultaneously developed and implemented over the next ten years, the water quality and drainage problems throughout the City will be substsnti~lly reduced. Many of the City's historical drainage and water quality problems will be permanently ellmiuated. (Note: Total stormwater program costs will be presented in Section 7 along with a discussion of funding sources and alternatives.) Water Quality Assessment 3-58 Section4 Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4.1 Introduction The sto~-~water drainage system of the City of Port Angeles (City) was analyzed through a field inventory to assess structural facilities and confirm existing problems. The analysis of existing conditions included a site visit, as well as creation of facility maps and a review of design records. The field inventory identified problem area locations from a water quantity (flooding and property damage) perspective. The engineering analysis, site visit, mapping, and field inventory allowed the identification of existing problem areas and future potential "hot spots." Capital facilities and a list of prioritized maintenance needs have been presented to address both existing and future water quantity and system capacity problems. The methodology, system evaluations and recommended capital improvement projects (CIP) are presented below. (Note: The modeling and engineering analysis performed in the 1990 Stormwater Management Plan was used to identify drainage problem areas. City staff identified the size and cost of needed capital improvements. The CIP list developed in the 1990 Stormwater Management Plan has been updated and expanded to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the 1995-2000 Capital Facilities Plan. A conceptual schematic of the above drainage and flood control engineering assessments is presented in Exhibit 4-1.) 4.2 Data Collection, Mapping, and Field Investigation 4.2.1 Data Collection' Drainage reports, ordinances, maps, annual budgets and related drainage progr-m information were obtained from the City's Public Works Department. Considerable coordination and input was also received from the City's planners as part of the City's Growth Management Act (GMA) planning process. The site visit conducted of the study area confirmed the accuracy of existing data and allowed a visual inspection of the various elements of the City's present drainage system. Drainage patterns and problems were confirmed and the status of the operation and maintenance of the existing drainage Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-1 facilities was examined. This site visit helped to create a visual inventory of the City's drainage facilities and was also used to confirm the computerized mapping of the drainage system which was developed as part of this study. 4.2.2 Mapping Maps of the Port Angeles storm water system and sensitive land use areas were provided by the City's Public Works and Planning Departments. For the City's stormwater facilities, this information was converted into a digitized .AutoCAD system .of drawings showing locations of major conveyance pipes and facilities. The drainage basin boundaries along with other drainage and land use information were also mapped digitally on an .AutoCAD database. Each of these "layers" of digitized data were merged onto one .AutoCAD map for use in characterizing and assessing the City's drainage basins. Digitized maps developed as part of this study include the following:* · Streams and Watersheds, as presented in Exhibit 2-13 · Wetlands, as presented in Exhibit 2-12 · Constructed Stormwater Facilities, as presented in Exhibit 4-2 · Priority Habitats (presented to the City's Planning Department) · Solid and Hazardous Waste Sites, as presented in Exhibit 3-3 *Technical Appendix, Volume VI contains a portfolio of the various basin and facility maps prepared as part of this planning study. 4.2.3 Site Visit and Field Inventory A site visit and field inventory of existing drainage facilities was conducted in November of 1994. This timing allowed a visual inspection of the facilities after a series of fall storm events. 4.3 Field Investigation of Existing Drainage Facilities and Problems 4.3.1 Overview of the City's Existing Drainage System Existing Drainage Facilities The older portions of the Port Angeles drainage system were constructed around 1900 as a combined system of sewer/sto~mwater collection, conveyance and discharge facilities which was a common and accepted practice at that time. The sewers originally discharged into local receiving waters without treatment, and, consequently, there was no need to construct separate stormwater systems. The_practice of constructing combined sewer Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-3 systems has since been prohibited for many years and the City is presently in the process of eliminating many of its existing combined sewer overflows. All ss_uitsry sewage must now be separated from storm drainage and sent to a centralized treatment plat prior to discharge. Storm sewers have subsequently been constructed in some portions of the City which already had combined sewers. The primary design criteria for these drainage systems was the ellm~nation of flooding in order to protect roads, property, and public welfare. There was little emphasis on detention and/or storage and 2]most no concern about water quality when these older drainage systems were built. Wherever possible, facilities were sized large enough to convey local drainage as quickly as possible to the nearest receiving water body. These projects were completed prior to the City's recent efforts to reduce CSOs. As a result the City has a sto,--, drainage system with partial sewage separation. The City's newly adopted CSO Reduction Plan will separate stor-,water from the existing sewage collection system and limit CSOs to no more than one per year. With the exception of a few more recent developments, the existing drainage system within the City can be characterized as a conveyance system of surface drainage swales and a series of pipes which collect and route drainage away from homes and businesses, as shown is Exhibit 4-2. In most of the commercial and business areas of the City, these drainage systems carry the drainage directly into Port Angeles Harbor and/or into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Because of the topography of the City, most of the urban drainage basins and catchment areas are rather small and consist of a network of pipes which drain directly into nearby freshwater streams, just prior to their discharge into local marine waters. Natural Drainage System A number of natural drainage facilities exist in the Port Angeles drainage system. The study area contains fourteen major natural drainage basins, as shown in Exhibit 4-3. These natural systems include swales, channels, creeks, ravines, and natural drainage ways that discharge directly to local streams and marine waters. With the exception of Basin #3, which has no visible surface discharge, all of the basins drain directly into Port Angeles Harbor or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Eight basins (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #15) are relatively small and have few well defined drainage channels. Seven other basins (#8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14) contain permanent streams which flow year-round in well defined V-shaped drainage corridors that pass directly through the City to their point of discharge into Port Angeles Harbor. Basin #15 has been developed for this report to include Port Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-5 Angeles Harbor and Ediz Hook areas. The above stream basins and drainage areas, ranging in size from 2.2 to 46 square miles, are briefly described in the following section. Drainage System Related Issues Other elements of the City's drainage system include: · The Port Angeles Marina, operated by the Port of Port Angeles, discharges stormwater directly into Port Angeles Harbor. · The U.S. Coast Guard base located on Ediz Hook operates, refuels and maintains a number of large vessels and facilities whose drainage and runoff are likely to contribute significant loadings of pollutants into Port Angeles Harbor. Proper source controls, water quality BlVIPs, and spill containment and response need to be in place along with properly trained personnel in order to limit pollutant discharges from the facility. · The W.R. Fairchild International Airport, located west of the City's central area, is a major facility with numerous opportunities for hazardous material spills and the discharge and/or release of a myriad of airport related pollutants, including jet fuels and maintenance and washdown (e.g., deicing) by-products. Drainage from the airport has historically been a problem for the City due to its large volumes ofnmoff and fiat topography. · The City sewer collection and conveyance system, which has had significant stormwater inflow/infiltration problems and has experienced numerous combined sewer overflows (CSOs), olden discharges directly into Port Angeles Harbor during larger storm events. The discharge from the City's sewage treatment facility is conveyed in a pipe from the plant to the mouth of the harbor for discharge via a deepwater outfall into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. (The City has recently completed an upgrade to secondary treatment which improves the level of sewage treatment at the plant. A 20-year program to reduce CSOs to no more than one per out[all per year has also been adopted). · Three large wood product industries (Daishowa Mill, K-Ply Plywood Mill, and the Rayonier Mill) are located on Ediz Hook and Port Angeles Harbor. Daishowa and Rayonier collect on-site stormwater and process it through primary and secondary treatment equipment prior to discharge via submerged outfall diffusers. Spill containment, proper facility maintenance and source controls, along with continued strict compliance with their individual NPDES discharge requirements, are critical to the health of the Port Angeles Harbor Existing Drainage System and Engineering ~lnatysis 4- 7 · The Boat Haven Marina, log export terminal, ferry terminal, city pier ~d n,,merous public and private boat launches provide significant ..... challenges for the City from the perspective of water quality management and unwanted pollutant loadf~gs. · There are a number of rapidly growing areas, in the County within the proposed GMA boundary and adjacent to the existing city limits, that have few drainage controls and are already creating local capacity and water quality problems for the City's drainage system. The County presently has no stormwater ordinance, limited design criteria and few ":'" ordinances for water quality, erosion control, maintenance, inspection or enforcement. Special coordination and design review criteria are needed between the County and the City to control stormwater in these areas, particularly as future growth and annexation to the City occurs. · The upstream areas of many of the City's drainage basins are outside of the City limits and are not within the stormwater study area for this Plan. Coordination with the County will likely be needed to control sto~cawater in these areas in the future. · The Port of Port Angeles is under a separate State NPDES permit and is directly responsible to the State Department of Ecology for all drainage and water quality problems associated with the presence and operation of the Port Angeles Harbor. In a similar manner, all businesses within the City are also under State NPDES permits and are equally accountable to the State for the treatment and discharge of their stormwater runoff. The City needs to establish a partnership in the future with the Port and local businesses to enhance water quality and control the City's stormwater discharges. 4.3.2 Description of the City's Drainage System by Basin Background . ? In this section of the report, the results of the site visit have been combined with the vi~al field inventory and used to characterize the various drainage systems within the City. Fifteen major drainage basins have been identified in the City, as shown in Exhibit 4-3. The basin boundaries were delineated using USGS topographical maps, and natural and man-made drainage features. These sto,-mwater drainage basins are very similar to, but not exactly the same as those basins presented in the City's 1990 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Within each drainage basin, drainage flow patterns and facilities are discussed along with predominant land uses. Major drainage facilities and problems are also presented. A list of outstanding Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-8 drainage related issues and concerns is presented at the end of the various basin descriptions which are presented below. For the purposes of this study, the City's 15 drainage basins, including the Port Angeles Harbor, have been divided into eleven major drainage management areas listed below in Table 4-1 and graphically displayed in Exhibit 4-4. Table 4-1 Port Angeles Drainage Management Areas Drainage Management Includes Drainage # Area NAme Basin N,,,nbering i Airport #1 2 West Port Angeles #2 3 Big Boy's Pond #3 4 Dry Creek #8 5 Tumwater Creek #9 6 Valley/Mill Creeks #10 7 Peabody Creek #11 and #4 (Francis Street Basin) 8 Ennis/White's Creek #12 and #5 (Third Avenue Basin) 9 Lee's Creek #13 and #6 (Bay Street Basin) i0 Morse Creek #14 and #7 (Unnamed Basin) 11 Port Angeles Harbor Ediz Hook and marina and industrial areas at the western end of the hook to the eastern edge of the City's proposed GMA boundary Drainage Management Area #1: Airport The Airport subbasin, Drainage Management Area (DMA) #1, is about I to 1.5 square miles in area and drains the northeastern half of the Fairchild International Airport and its adjacent industrial and commercial land areas. It is located between the Dry Creek and West Port Angeles subbasins, directly west of the City and drains directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca over steep, sheer sea cliffs. Topography is fairly fiat for the Port Angeles area, gently sloping from about 350 feet in the south end of the basin to about 250 feet in elevation at its northern boundary. The northern boundary ends abruptly along the top of sea cliffs that drop 100 to 150 feet into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Soils in the basin are shallow (20-40~) gravelly, sandy lo~rn (Clall~m and Hoypus), overlying compacted glacial till (or hardpan) with low permeability, high seasonal groundwater levels and moderate rates of runoff depending on prestorm event saturation conditions. There are presently few residential homes in the area, except along the sea bluffs, although the area Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-9 is anticipated to experience additional resident growth in the future. Some additional commercial development associated with the airport is also expected as de6ned in the City's Comprehensive Plan. There are few well-deflned drainage features in this subbasin and only limited piping provided by the City to date. As a result, there are n~merous drainage complaints and substantial drainage problems, including localized flooding in the areas north of 18th Street. There are few wetlands on this plateau and the soils are not suitable for infiltration. The biggest drainage challenge is safely routing runoff flows to and over the steep sea bluffs at the end of McDonald, P, 4th and 10th Streets. There is little maintenance of existing facilities, including roadside ditches and natural drainage swales and depressions, and no water quality treatment prior to discharge. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities of DMA #1 A n,,mber of capital facilities are needed to detain and store runoff, reduce localized flooding and convey runoff over the sheer sea cliffs. · Regular maintenance of natural and constructed facilities is needed to minimize local flooding. · Land is available and sites need to be identified to provide water quality treatment. · New development will substantially increase the vol~mes of runoff in this area; on-site detention and BMPs will be needed along with appropriate land use designations and permit review design criteria . and on-site inspection/enforcement practices. · Groundwater protection and fish habitat protection and restoration are not of major concern in this subbasin. · A special drainage subbasin study ($50,000) is needed to solve existing problems and guide the development of drainage structures needed to support future development. Drainage Management Area ~2: West Port Angeles The subbasin of West Port Angeles, Drainage Management Area #2, is about 1.5-2 square miles in area. It lies between the Airport drainage area (DMA #1) and the Tumwater Creek basin (DMA #5). The West Port Angeles basin is relatively fiat and gently slopes naturally to the north with an elevation ranging from 250 to 150 feet. An extensive network of piping intercepts most natural drainage flows and conveys them northerly to their point of discharge Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-11 at the ends of 10th, N and 4th Streets where they go over steep sea bluffs and flow directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. A small amount of local drainage has been piped to the edge of the sea bluffs where it drains directly onto the base of Ediz Hook and eventually into Port Angeles Harbor. Soils are uniform in nature and are primarily Clal]~m/Hoypus gravely sandy loam upon a hardpan of glacial t/Il. As a result there is only shallow infiltration and low permeability, with moderate to high rates of runoff depending on soil conditions. Land use in the area is older and well established in the eastern areas of the watershed and less, but rapidly developing in the western areas of the watershed. Future growth is expected to be almost exclusively residential in nature with a fair 9mount of in-filling occurring in and around present residential neighborhoods. The drainage system is well established and consists of an interconnected network of pipes. There are a host of drainage problems. Problem areas include lack of capacity along 10th Street, the need for regional storage at the gravel pit at the corner of 10th and N Streets and the lack of capacity to convey runoff to and over the sea bluffs along and at the end of N Street, 10th Street, P Street, McDonald and the northern reaches of Milwaukee Drive. The area contains at least four wetland areas, located in the vicinities of loth and N Streets, 10th and M Streets, 18th Street and about M Street, and 16th Street and G/II Streets. Due to the shallow soils on top of glacial till and the relatively fiat topography, local drainage tends to collect in the many natural depressions throughout the basin and form the numerous wetland features that characterize the area. The network of piped drainage facilities throughout the area carries runoff both into and around the area's numerous natural depressions and wetlands. There are many localized flooding problems and a general lack of both storage and adequate conveyance throughout many parts of the basin. Again, conveying the water safely into the Strait over the steep sea cliffs is presenting a challenge for the City. Like other basins, there is little maintenance and almost no treatment to improve water quality prior to discharge. Special Drainage Issues, Needs, and Opportunities in DMA · A n-tuber of capital facilities are needed to add Conveyance capacity along loth and 4th Streets and allow the safe discharge of runoff at the ends of 10th Street, N Street and along Milwaukee Drive over the sea bluffs. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-12 · Storage is needed in the drainage system at 10th and N Streets and possibly also at 10th and M Streets, 18th and M Streets and 16th and G/H Streets. · Regular annual maintenance of both the natural and constructed facilities is needed to rnln~mlze local flooding. · Some land appears to be still available to provide water quo!ity treatment. Sites and facilities to enhance water quality need to be identified. · New developments will continue to overload the existing drainage system. On-site BMPs will be needed to minimize the impacts of this new development. · The preservation of wetland features in this basin is of high priority. · The protection of groundwater and fish habitat areas is not a priority in this basin. · A special drainage subbasin study is needed to reduce existing drainage problems and guide the proper design and construction of future growth-related drainage facilities. Drainage Management Area #3: Big Boy's Pond The Big Boy's Pond drainage basin, Drainage Management Area #3, is one of the smallest basins within the City. It occupies about I square mile in area and also appears to be the only basin with no obvious surface water outlet to convey drainage out of the basin. Most drainage within this basin collects at the low spots in the basin and flows into the two small lakes located in Lincoln Park or into one of the basin's many wetland areas. Drainage Management Area #3 is located west of Tumwater Creek (DMA #5), south of the West Port Angeles basin (DMA #2) and east of Dry Creek (DMA #4) and the northern portions of Airport (DMA #1). Topography drops steeply from almost 500 feet at its southern limit, to about 300 feet at its northern boundary. In the middle, it forms a fiat area or "shelf that covers almost half of the basin. The basin's lowest spot, which contains the two Lincoln Park ponds and. a number of wetlands, is located in a small natural depression on this fiat, self-like topographic feature. Soils are primarily Clallam, sandy, gravely loam with organically enriched soils underlying the region's wetland areas. Development in this drainage area is relatively sparse at this time. There are some residential homes in the more northern areas of the basin. Due to Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-13 its close prwdmlty to the airport, future land use in this basin is expected to be a mix of both commercial and industrial, as well as residential development. The presence of' extensive wetland areas and seasonally high groundwater throughout the area will likely limit much of the future development potential of this enclosed watershed. At this time that portion of DMA #3, north of Lauridson Boulevard, is within the existing City limits. Generally, those areas south of Lauridson Boulevard are within the new urban growth area (UGA) boundary currently being proposed for the City. There are few constructed drainage facilities in this basin. Most drainage collects locally and is conveyed to the Lincoln Park ponds and local wetlands via natural depressions, drainage ways, and roadside ditches and culverts. Extensive natural wetland areas occur throughout this drainage area. There is a large wetland area north of Highway 101 and southeast of the Lincoln Park ponds. There is also a wetland area north of Lauridson Boulevard and south of Cemetery Road at about I Street. A third wetland area is present just west of Bean Road and South of Lauridson Boulevard. Although there is little development in this basin at this time, it already has substantial drainage problems which have proven to date to be a major challenge for the City to be able to resolve. Localized drainage problems can be expected to increase in the future as this area continues to develop. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities of DMA #3 · A special drainage subbasin study is recommended to guide future development, protect existing wetland areas and resolve existing drainage problems. · No capital facilities are proposed for construction in this basin at this time.. · Regular maintenance may help to improve localized flooding. · Land is available ~nd water qu_s_]~ty treatment needs to be added to the existing drainage system. · Any new development will have a significant impact on the drainage needs of this basin. Future development should be carefully monitored and permitted only with carefully designed drainage improvements. · Historically, the Lincoln Park ponds have drained through a 24-inch pipe into Big Boy's Pond. In an effort to restore the wetland areas in and around Big Boy's Pond, excess drainage from the pond is no longer allowed to drain into Big Boy's Pond and localized flooding within the park occurs. A solution is needed to reduce seasonal flooding within the park. i. i Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis ' '4-14 · Shallow groundwater of this basin could be easily contum;nated by urban development. · There are no fisheries habitat issues in this basin. Drainage Management Area ~1: Dry Creek Dry Creek, Drainage Management Area #4, drains appro~mately 6.5 square miles and discharges into the Strait of Jusn de Fuca immediately west of the City of Port Angeles. Most of the creek's drainage presently lies outside the City limits; that portion of the City which does drain to Dry Creek includes part of the industrial growth area surrounding the airport and the City's landfill. Topography, in places, is very steep, and there are one or more waterfalls on Dry Creek that block natural fish use of potential upstream spawning areas. The southern areas of the basin are relatively steep, raising to more than 500 feet, while the lower reaches, where the airport and landt~]l are located, are relatively fiat varying from 325 feet to 200 feet in elevation. Development is sparse in the drainage area at this time. That portion of the basin proposed to be in the City's future UGA boundary will likely be developed primarily as commercial or industrial, due to its proximity to the airport. At this time there are few drainage facilities in this basin. Some piping associated with the drainage from the airport flows to the west into Dry Creek. The City operates a solid waste landfill facility near the airport which detains and treats stormwater runoff draining from the site prior to its discharge to the west into Dry Creek. There are few drainage problems at this time. Numerous wetlands are presented on the fiat shelf-like topographic feature just west of the airport. These areas will need to be carefully protected as growth occurs and will likely limit the potential of the area to accommodate future development densities. Special Drainage Issues, Needs, and Opportunities of DMA #4 · At this time, this basin has few existing problems or existing drainage needs. · Future growth, however, will need to be carefully permitted to reduce the impacts of development on local wetlands and the water quality of Dry Creek. · Land should be identified at this time for drainage and water quality facilities that will be needed to support future growth. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-15 Drainage Management Area #5: Tumwater Creek Drainage Management Area #5 is the Tumwater Creek watershed, which comprises 5.6 square miles of residential ~T~d industrial development. T~mwater Creek passes through the City of Port Angeles and alongside the Tumwater Access Road (truck route) before discharging directly into Port Angeles Harbor. The Tl]mwater Creek basin, parallels and is located just west of the Valley Creek watershed (DMA #6). It is also contiguous with the eastern boundaries of the basins of Big Boy's Pond (DMA #3) and West Port Angeles (DMA #2), as shown in Exhibit 4-4. The topography of the basin throughout the City is steep, dropping quickly from 350 feet to sea level, in a lineal distance of only a couple of miles. The sides of the basin and stream channel are steep. The stream has cut a pronounced V-shaped channel at the bottom of its drainage course to the north with little fiat adjacent flood plain areas. Much of the upper drainage areas of the creek are located in the County or even at higher elevations within the Olympic National Park. Soils are primarily shallow Elwha and Clallam gravely sandy losms on top of glacial till. The bottom and sides of the steep valley cut by the stream are underlain by till soils of a much higher gravelly content. The upper reaches of the basin have a diversity of other similar soil types. Those portions of the basin within the City are intensely developed. Development within the upper areas of the basin is characterized by older residential developments. Commercial and industrial developments are located near the mouth of the creek, adjacent to Port Angeles Harbor. The proposed GMA boundary for the City shows little new growth being added within this watershed. Much of the area within the City is presently covered with a well-established close network of roads and land uses. The upper reaches, within the County, are relatively undeveloped. With its well-established and dense land uses, the area is serviced by an equally well-established network of pipes and drainage facilities. Many of the pipes within this network directly discharge into the stresm. Other than the stream channel itself, there are few natural features remaining in those areas of the basin within the City. In contrast, the upper reaches of the basin are almost undeveloped, largely rural, and'contain much of the original natural drainage systems in an unaltered state. Just south of where Highway 101 crosses the basin, just outside the City limits, there is an extensive system of wetlands that appear to be shared geographically with the basin of Big Boy's Pond (DMA #3). Other than a few pipe capacity problems along 12th Street and downstream just prior to its point of discharge into Port Angeles Harbor, there are few drainage problems in this watershed. Elevated coliform concentrations have been detected in the Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-16 limited ~mount of water quality monitoring that has occurred to date. There is little water quaU'ty treatment prior to discharge. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #5 · A few capital pipe conveyance improvements are needed. · Dredging is needed at the mouth of the creek at its point of confluence with Port Angeles Harbor. · Regular annual maintenance of constructed drainage facilities would improve water quality and reduce any localized flooding which may be occurring. · New development will have little impact on this watershed. · Few wetlands occur within the City's portion of the watershed. · There is little land available to add water quality treatment, therefore, source controls must be particularly effective in this basin to achieve local water quality goals. · Groundwater protection is not a major issue. · Reestablishing fish migration and habitat areas is of special concern. There appears to be significant opportunities to increase fish populations by reducing the impacts of urban runoff and allowing returning fish to reach the extensive, relatively undisturbed upstream spawning areas that still remain within the basin. Drainage Management Area #6: Valley~Mill Creeks Valley Creek drains 4.21 square miles from the south, through the City along Valley Street into Port Angeles Harbor. Most development in the watershed is residential, with industrial areas near the mouth of the creek. Tributary to Valley Creek are East Valley Creek and Mill Creek. Valley/Mill Creek (DMA #6) is located between two parallel and adjacent watershed systems. The Valley Creek watershed is just west of the Peabody Creek Watershed (DMA #7) and due east of the qh~mwater Creek Watershed (DMA #5). Topography of that portion of the basin within the City drops quickly from 675 feet to sea level within a linear distance of about four miles. The upper reaches within the City are steep and level out to form a gently sloping topographic "bench" on which most of the developed areas of the City are located. Soils are predominately Clallam and Hoypus gravelly and sandy Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-17 lonms on top of glacial till. Coarser more gravelly lonm soils are located at the bottom of the V-shaped strenm channels formed by the stream flows. Soils in the upper reaches of the watershed are similar but more varied. Land use in the basin is primarily dense, older residential home sites with some commercial areas along, major transportation routes. Limited industrial areas ~1_~o exist along the waterfront area near the mouth of the creek, where it flows into Port Angeles Harbor. The most upper areas of the watershed are developed in a cul-de-sac style and are less densely developed. A sm-l] nmount of new growth on the east side of the basin just north of Lauridson Boulevard, is expected to occur in an upper portion of' the basin, as defined by the City' proposed UGA boundary. There is a well-established network of drainage pipes throughout those areas of the basin within the City Hm~ts. Many of these systems drain directly into the creek where streets cross or end at the edge of the steep slopes of the stream channel. Little of the naturally drainage system remains. The lower 600 to 800 feet of the stream has been straightened and placed in a large culvert prior to its direct discharge into Port Angeles Harbor. One wetland has been iden~6ed just west of the intersection of Old Mill and Schrivner Roads. There are a couple small capacity problems of tributary pipe systems near the point of discharge into the harbor. Many of the residential neighborhoods located in the upper reaches of the watershed have significant drainage problems. The area bounded by Schrivner Read, Old Mill Road, Rhodes Road, and Rose and Thistle Streets is particularly problematic. This area needs a special subbasin drainage study. There is little maintenance of existing facilities and no water quality treatment prior to discharge. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #6 · Dredging is needed at the mouth of the creek. · A special drainage study is needed in the Schrivner, Rhodes, Thistle area. · A couple of tributary pipes need to be enlarged in the lower reaches of the basin. · New development will have little effect on the existing drainage system of the basin but should be carefully permitted on the steep slopes of the upper reaches of the basin. · Regular annual maintenance is needed of the constructed drainage facilities within the basin. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-18 · Little land is available for water qu-1;ty improvements; this will require future source controls to be especially effective at eUminating urban pollutants. · Groundwater protection is not a major issue. · Few wetlands occur in the City's portion of the watershed. · Re-establishing and enhancing naturally occurring fisheries is a major concern within this watershed. The natural channel needs to be re- established in the lower reaches and the cbgnnel enhanced for migration and spawning. Substantial spawni~§ opportunities remain in the upper reaches of this drainage basin. Drainage Management Area #7: Peabody Creek Peabody Creek has a dr-;nage area of 2.6 square ,miles, extending from Olympic National Park to the central business district of Port Angeles and discharging into the harbor. The lower reaches, north of the park boundary, are we]] established and occupied by some of the older and denser residential and commercial areas of the City. The Peabody Creek Drainage Management Area (DMA #7) lies parallel and directly in between the drainage basin_~ of Ennis/White's Creek (DMA #8) and Valley/Mill Creek (DMA #6), as shown in Exhibit 4-4. The upper reaches of the basin within the City go up as high as 650 feet in elevation and drop quickly to sea level about four miles downstream. Most of the development within the City is below 325 feet, just north of the entrance into the park. Soils are similar to other areas of the City and are primarily Clall~m and Elwha, consisting of thin layers of sandy, gravelly loam over glacial till. The bottoms of the stream channels and adjacent slopes are similar but have a greater presence of larger, gravelly materials. Soils in the upper reaches of the basin are a bit more varied, but are still similar and contain the underlying layer of glacial till. Land use in Peabody Creek is very similar to that of Valley Creek in that in its lower reaches it consists primarily of the older, dense residential and commercial areas of the City. The industrial and commercial land uses are primarily along the waterfront. The upper areas of the watershed, above Lauridson Boulevard, are primarily undeveloped and are located in the park. The most upper reaches of the watershed are within the Olympic National Park. A small amount of new growth is expected to occur in the basin, according to the proposed GMA boundary. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-19 The areas of the basin within the City are drained by a grid of drainage piping and facilities that follow the road corridors. Many pipes discharge directly into Peabody Creek. The lowest 600 feet of the stream have been placed in a culvert that discharges directly into Port Angeles Harbor at Lincoln Street. There are a number of pipe capacity problems in the lower reaches of the piped drainage system. One large wetland area is located near the most southeast boundary of the new proposed GMA boundary. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #7 · Dredging at the mouth of Peabody Creek is needed. · A w,mber of capital improvement projects have been proposed by the City to improve drainage in the lower reaches of the piped drainage system. · New develop will have little impact on this basin. · Regular annual maintenance is needed of the basin's drainage system. · Sim;lar to the City's other urban streams, there is little land available to provide water quality treatment. As a result, the City needs to develop an especially effective source control program to improve the water quality of the stream. · Groundwater protection is not an issue. · Few wetlands occur within this basin. · Again, restoring and enhancing the remaining fisheries of this watershed is a primary goal of the City. Substantial hydraulic reconstruction of the natural channel within this basin will be needed to achieve this goal. There is also a need to in,tall a series of baffles in the outlet culvert to allow for fish entry into the Peabody Creek drainage system. ' Drainage Management Area #8: Ennis/White's Creek White's Creek, with a drainage area of 2.2 square miles, is tributary to Enni~ Creek, which has a total watershed area of 10.5 square miles. Both watersheds contain primarily residential areas and national park lands. Below its confluence with White's Creek, Ennis Creek receives discharges from the I~r Rayonier paper mill. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-20 This Ennis/White's drainage management area (DMA #8) is parallel to the two adjacent basins of Lee's Creek (DMA #9) to the east and Peabody Creek (DMA #7) to the west. The origin of the Ennls/White's drainage is in the Olympic National Park, similar to many of the stre~m~ that flow northerly ~t~rectly off of the foothills of the Olympic Mount~n~ through the City of Port Angeles and into Port Angeles Harbor. Topography of this basin within the City limits goes from about 650 feet in elevation to sea level in a short 3-4 mile distance downstream. Soils are typical of the area, primarily thin Clal]Am and Elwha soils over glacial till, however, there is the presence of more silts, clays, sandy loam and gravel materials. The Ennis/White's basin is only sparsely developed, with most of the development being located north of Highway 101. There are only ]~m~ted commercial land uses at the present time. The primary industrial use is that of the Rayonier Mill And that of the City's sewage treatment plant along the wate,Lf~ont of Port Angeles Harbor. The proposed GMA boundary adds a small Amount of new residential land use area to the developed portions of this basin. Constructed stormwater facilities are limited to a few piped systems that drain localized residential areas and discharge directly into the lower reaches of White's Creek. There are no identified wetlands within the City ]im~ts or proposed GMA boundary. No major flooding problems occur within this drainage basin at this time. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #8 · New development could have a significant impact on these streams. Special development standards may be needed. · Regular annual maintenance is needed. · Adequate land exists to provide water quality treatment prior to discharge; water quality enhancement is needed. Water quality sites and techniques should be established now for future development. · Neither groundwater nor wetlands proteCtion are major issues at this time. · The major chzllenge within this basin will be to preserve and enhance existing fisheries and habitat areas as development occurs. Additional habitat preservation and stream setbacks may be needed. A special drainage and water quality plan should be developed for this watershed prior to its development that supports future land uses. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-21 Drainage Management Area ~9: Lee's Creek Lee's Creek, containing 4.8 square rn;]es of watershed area, is comprised of park land and residential areas immediately east of Port Angeles. Lee's Creek discharges into Port Angeles Harbor near the entrance to the harbor. At this time, the Lee's Creek watershed lies entirely outside the City Urnits; however, this area is experiencing rapid growth and is included within the proposed City GMA boundary. This drainage management area is located to the west of the Morse Creek Watershed (DMA #10) and east of the ]~nnls/White's watershed (DMA #8). The drainage for this basin originates within the Olympic National Park. Topography is steep in the upper reaches of' the basin and rapidly drops to sea level at the point of discharge into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Soils are more variable than in other bas~n_s within the City. There is a greater presence of somewhat deeper sandy, silt-clay, and gravelly materials overlying the dornlnant Clallam glacial till. Land use is primarily rural and only sparsely developed at the present t/me. Most development occurs along or near Highway 101. The proposed GMA boundary adds the lower 4-5 miles of this watershed into the City limits. There are few constructed drainage facilities within this basin at this t/me. Much of the natural drainage system remains unaltered. There are extensive wetlands present in the watershed south of Highway 101 and also along its most southern GMA boundary adjacent to the park. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #9 · New development will have a significant impact on this watershed. A special land use/drainage plan should be developed to rnlnlrnize these impacts. · Land exists now to provide for adequate water quality treatment in the future. Sites and techniques should be established now to support future development. · Wetlands are a major concern and need.to be preserved and protected. · Groundwater should be protected from the impacts of development. · Adequate land use controls need to be put in place to preserve existing fisheries and enhance future fishery populations. Special buffer setbacks and on-site controls are recommended to preserve existing natural fish habitat areas. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-22 Drainage Management Area #10: Morse Creek The drainage area of Morse Creek is about 46 square miles with most of the watershed lying within the Olympic National Park. The Morse Creek drainage management area (DM_A_ #10) drains directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. At this time the watershed, including its lower reaches through which Highway 101 passes, is relatively undeveloped. The basin lies just east of the Lee's Creek Watershed (DMA #9) and includes the most eastern boundary of the City's proposed GMA boundary. Topography is steep within the park and rapidly decreases as the stream makes its way out of the park to sea level where it discharges into the Strait. Soils are similar to other areas within the City and are relatively thin, sandy gravelly loams underlain by glacial till. Land use is primarily rural at this time. As time goes on, this area will likely develop as a mixed residential/commercial area. The revised GMA boundary removes much of this area from within the future City limits. Presently, the most eastern boundary of the City's GMA boundary lies along the western crest of Morse Creek Canyon. There are few constructed drainage systems and the entire area is primarily in its unaltered natural state. There are few known drainage, water quality, wetland or fish habitat problems at this time. Special Drainage Issues, Needs, and Opportunities in DMA #10 · The needs of this watershed are similar to those of other undeveloped watersheds within the City's proposed GMA boundary. · New development will have a signiScant impact on this watershed. A special basin-specific land use drainage plan should be developed to minimize the impacts of urbanization. This plan should address: · Water quality--land exists now to provide for adequate water quality treatment in the future. Sites and techniques should be established now to support future development · Wetlands--are a major concern in this basin and need to be preserved and protected. · Groundwater--should be protected from future development, along with protecting the City's municipal surface water supplies. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-23 · Fisheries--adequate ]~nd use controls need to be put into place to preserve existing fisheries and enhance future fish populations. · Natural drainage systems--needs adequate design standards for development to ensure its protection and maintain its various qualities, including water quality enhancement. Drainage Management Ares #11: Port Angeles Harbor The Port Angeles Harbor area is probably the City's more significant source of pollution ~nd cont~rn~ated stormwater runoff. Ediz Hook is much less than 1 square mile in area, but the entire harbor area, as shown in Exhibit 4-4, is about 6-8 square miles and includes all the industrial and commercial establisbr~ents along the waterfront. The Port Angeles Harbor Drainage Management Area (DMA #11) is located just north of the City's central district and extends from west to east along the City's most northern marine waterfront boundary. Drainage from Ediz Hook and Port Angeles Harbor discharges directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Topography of this area is fiat and is no more than about 10 feet above sea level. Soils are pr/marily sand deposited from the Elwha River by tidal action along the northern shore of the Olympic Peninsula. Land use is commercial and industrial. Due to natural space llm{tations, this area is not expected to grow significantly in the future. It lies entirely within the present limits of the City. Drainage facilities are primarily relatively short lengths of pipe that discharge directly into the strait or harbor with little, if any, water quality treatment prior to discharge. There is likely to be signi6cant loadings of non- point runoff and waste discharges from this area. The City's sewage treatment plant discharges into this drainage area. Only a few of the larger industrial sites are under State NPDES discharge permits. The large public marina may be contributing pollutants into the harbor. The United States Coast Guard facility utilizes a local drainfield to treat and discharge its sanitary wastes and is not on the City's centralized sewer system. The Port Angeles Pilots Association utilizes holding tanks and pumps its sanitary wastes into the City's wastewater treatment system. There is substantial recreational use of the Port Angeles Harbor area. In addition to the large public marina, there is also the Hollywood Beach boat launch and park area, the Sail and Paddle Park and the Waterf,-ont Trail. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-24 Environmental degradation in the harbor has been signiScant. The h_u~bor is a "prohibited" area for the harvesting of commercial or recreational shellfish. It was and still is an important rearing and nursery area and once supported an extensive bed of eel grass throughout the entire harbor area. Special Drainage Issues, Needs and Opportunities in DMA #11 · A special water quality enhancement plan needs to be developed for the Port Angeles Harbor. · Each business within DMA #11 should develop a source control plan to limit the discharge of wastes, by-products, and polluted runoff from entering the harbor. Special drainage and spill control plans should be established for each business. · Successfully controlling the pollutant loadings into the harbor area is critical to the City's goals of improving urban water quality and restoring fish populations in its urban streams. .. Summary of Field Investigation Based on the field investigation of the City's drainage system and the above analysis of each of the major drainage basins within the City, there are a n-tuber of important drainage related issues and challenges to be faced by the City and addressed in this stormwater management plan. These issues include the need for the City to: · Reduce localized flooding throughout the City by constructing needed capital facilities. · Improve water quality treatment throughout the City (as discussed in Section 3). · Complete p~mping stations for the force main to provide sewage service to facilities on Ediz Hook. · Enhance annual maintenance. · Continue to protect and preserve sensitive areas. · Improve drainage standards for new development and redevelopment. · Improve inspection and enforcement of drainage standards on new development and redevelopment. · Continue to reduce sewage discharges and combined sewer overflows. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-25 · Sewer those areas within the City that are still on septic tanks. · Require source controls and water quality treatment of runoff prior to discharge for manufacturers and industries, as well as on-site spill containment, as appropriate. · Work with businesses and homeowners to reduce the use and discharge of pollutants into the dra_ inage systems of the City. · Provide for groundwater and wellhead protection, as needed. · Develop an appropriate spill response program for road, highway, rail, marina, and harbor areas within the City. · Conduct water quality monitoring to evaluate treatment effectiveness and loadings, as appropriate. · Restore urban stream habitat areas to enhance remaining fish populations. 4.4 Storm Drainage Engineering Analysis 4.4.1 Overview The engineering analysis to identify current and future storm drainage facilities within the Port Angeles study area utilized existing ~formation and documentation developed by the City. City records of flooding complaints and the engineering assessments presented in the 1990 Stormwater Management Plan (SWM Plan) and the 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan (CSO Plan) provided the basis for the following evaluation and recommendations for improvements to the City's stor,,, drainage system. Presented below are the pertinent findings of the engineering analysis and a discussion of the recommended capital facilities and their relative priorities s~d costs. Major maintenance improvement's have been discussed in Section 3 and identified along with their relative priority for implementation in Section 7. The recommended stormwater management plan, presented in Section 8, presents program costs and financial alternatives for the City's entire stormwater management program, including the capital improvement projects identified in this section. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-26 4.4.2 Previous Stormwater Engineering Analyses 1990 Stormwater Management Plan As part of the development of the 1990 Stormwater Management Plan, the City mapped the major trunk lines of its drainage system and conducted a hydraulic/hydrologic ~nalysis using a continuous simulation HYDIL~ program. The HYDRA model was calibrated to the Port Angeles area by selecting the 2-, 25- and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events from 40 years of storm records that included over 3,300 individual storm events. Results of this modeling and engineering analysis, as s]]mmarized in Table 4-2, identified 29 different problem.~ within the City's existing drainage system. The identified problem areas were consistent with the City's drainage records of public complaints, areas of localized floods due to inadequate pipe capacity (i.e., surcharging) and legal claims brought against the City for drainage related property drainage. During larger storm events, such as those occurring on 8-21-89 and 11-30-95, as many as 20 to 30 citizen complaints of localized flooding were received by the City's Public Works Department. (Note: Specific solutions and capital projects to reduce and/or eliminate these drainage problems are presented in the following Sections 4.5 and 4.6. Drainage problem areas, complaints and claims are visually summarized in Exhibit 4-5. Seven of the City's 11 drainage areas have moderate to high levels of drainage related problems, as shown in Table 4-2. Listed below in 'order of priority are the basins within the City with the worst drainage problems with the west Port Angeles drslnage area being the worst. Drainage Mana[~ement Area/Watershed DMA# Priorit~ West Port Angeles 2 #1 Valley/Mill Creeks 6 #2 Big Boy's Pond 3 #3 Ennis/White's Creek (including 3rd Avenue subbasin) 8 #4 Port Angeles Harbor 11 #5 Peabody Creek (including Francis Street subbasin) 7 #6 Tumwater Creek 5 #7 The other drainage areas within the City, including the Airport (DMA #1), Dry Creek (DMA #4), Lee's Creek (DMA ~/9), which includes the Bay Street subbasin, and Morse Creek (DMA #10), have relatively few drainage problems at this time in comparison to the City's other seven drainage management areas listed above. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-27 I Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-28 I . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~1/ ~ .......... ~.L~ ~ : ~,~-_ · p~.~_~ ~--~...~ .., ~ · ,.N~ ' ..,~'.~/ ' :~ "' 2 ~ ~ ;., ~ ~ ~ '? i%4"~:/' ~.'~ ',/./: g: --. / ~ .,,,. ::,,: ,~e >.,,.,..-::.~.,.~/~ ~ . ~ ~ ':,''~ p.. :,3k o < ~{ '~. ' ~`' ..'-~ ,, ..... I I ~'--' ' - ~_~ .... _ ~- ~ , ~: ~ -" ." : ' ~ ~', ~ ~ ':2 '-"~ ~ ~ " , o ~ ~ .::~ ",. '-. :: ~.~ .. ,~ ~ ~ -. --~-, ~. o ~ ,.. Z.~ , '..' .~ :. .,..,, ~ .... ,~ ~s~ '~ ~ - ~ / .'~.:. : ~.~2 ,~: ' :~:~ ~ :'..: ;',. ~ ..... ' ~ 'w---- %-, / ~ ~ :,' ,~'~ ./'-: : &. -~ ! x, ~ '"'-- ....... . ...... ' l~,~ - :'-, ~..-:'7 :~ · ~ Z ~: .-.'~..-..1 ' .,.~ ,'- ~ ' :. / ' /' .' ' ~ I a?:.,:....... ;t/'"?h....: ' ~ ~ '-. ~ , ~ :, ~. ?: :, ...... · .... / [ : ..... '/{'2 :-' ~...} ~ ~ ~ . . ' , , a ~ '-' " ~ ~ : , I .. , .-'":~ 004 ~ + : 1-' ~ / ~ ' 2o I ~ The areas of' the City that are presently at greatest .risk of' increased drainage problems in the near future are those drainage areas that already have" significant drainage problems and that are also presently experiencing high rates of' development. Such drainage areas include West Port Angeles (DMA #2), Valley/Mill Creeks (DMA #6), Ennis/White's Creek (DMA #8), and Port Angeles Harbor, (DMA #11). Recommended engineering studies of' these drainage problem areas created by new development are discussed below. Preliminary Engineering Analyses of Drainage Problem Areas The City is presently experiencing serious drainage problems in six of its most rapidly growing urban areas, as shown in Exhibit 4-6. Each area has unique topographic, soils, drainage and wetland features that make the proper management of drainage on-site very difficult. The City's existing stormwater design criteria are proving to be inadequate for these steeper areas of the City because they look at only the drainage impacts from the single individual development. They do not require each new developer to look at the region's drainage conditions and the net cumulative affects of each new development. What is needed is a broader regional drainage analysis within each of these problem areas. These broader studies would define the limits of the affected subbasins, develop small hydrologic/hydraulic models of each area and use these models along with existing and future land use conditions to define the appropriate type and size of drainage facilities needed to solve existing local problems and also support the drainage needs of future development. With the results of these studies the City could tell each new developer how to size and locate drainage facilities so that existing drainage problems would not get any worse. The developers would size, build, and pay for their true drainage contribution to the newly developing area and the City would not have to come in afterwards and upgrade and rebuild these regional drainage systems, as is currently occurring. 1994 CSO Reduction Plan As part of a comprehensive effort to improve the performance of its wastewater conveyance and treatment system, the City of Port Angeles undertook a study in 1993/1994 to locate and control the discharge of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into Port Angeles Harbor. The goal of the study was to reduce each CSO discharge to no more than one per year, as required by the City's NPDES wastewater discharge permit. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-30 - Results of the CSO study, released in January of 1994, recorded the location of seven combined sewer overflows. These seven CSOs overflowed over 58 times per year and discharged an estimated 100 million gallons of sewage - ~nd stormwater into local marine waters. Analysis of the system, along with the results of the 1989 Sewer System Evaluation Study and 1989 Wastewater Facilities Plan, showed that most of the CSO discharges were caused by the inflow and infil~ation (I/I) of stormwater and groundwater into the City's wastewater conveyance system. Due to the steep topography of the area, the _ age of the system and the internal plumbing of the conveyance system, overflows were significantly influenced by storm events. - Control of the City's CSO over the next 20 years, is to be achieved through the combined effects of rehabilitation of the sewer system (e.g., correcting the 1,100 known sites of Ill), upgrading the size and performance of key pumping facilities, equalizing in-line storage, and constructing a CSO holding tank. The CSO holding tank is to treat (50% TSS reduction) and disinfect the CSO flows that were prohibited from discharge and retained within the system. The management of the City's storm drainage is directly linked to and is an integral part of the City's CSO Reduction Plan, as described in the City's broader, comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan (1989). Generally, stormwater management projects: · Help to control localized flooding and surcharging · Allow for the in-line storage of greater volumes of sewage · Reduce the need for additional pumping · Reduce the volumes and frequency of CSO discharges · Allow for additional treatment capacity of sewage to be realized at the treatment plant · May eliminate the future need for the large CSO holding tank, recommended in the CSO Reduction Plan Stormwater projects that assist in optimizing the conveyance and treatment of the City's wastewater include: · Small works projects to improve catchments and inlets, such as at West 4th Street and other locations through the City · Enhanced storage and treatment of storrnwater flows, such as improvements planned at the comer of 10th and N Streets · Developing ordinances to properly manage stormwater on-site and eliminate illicit connections (e.g., roof runoff) Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-32 · Rehabilitating stox-~u water culverts at various locations throughout the City · Developing and adopting a comprehensive stormwater management p]~n for the City (i.e., this storn~water management plan) · Constructing new storm sewers, such as in East First Street (from Chambers to Francis) and Francis Street (from First to Georgiana Streets) (Note: these projects have already been completed) 4.4.3 Drainage Problems, Alternatives, and Solutions Results of the Engineering Analysis Generally, the drainage facilities with the City of Port Angeles consist of a network of storm sewer collection and conveyance pipes that have been located throughout the City to alleviate or prevent localized flooding problems. In some areas the drainage system is discontinuous, which creates loc~lfzed capacity and flooding problems. A minimal w~mber of stormwater detention facilities (seven) exist within the City. Flooding problems have been observed by City staff at a n,~mber of locations throughout the City, as shown earlier in Exhibit 4-5. Soils suitable for in6ltration are located in only a few localized areas of the City. Also, due to the significant level of development in most of the basins, infiltration and/or regional detention facilities are difficult to site within the existing study area. Increased annual inspections and preventative maintenance of the City's sto~water facilities are vital for their long-term performance. Stormwater treatment facilities to enhance water quality are nearly non-existent within the City's existing drainage system. In general, the City's existing storm drainage system is considered to be functional, but not adequate. Drainage problems occur where new developments are being constructed, combined sewers need to be separated and there are many localized flooding problems within the system that continue to persist, such as those that occurred during this last stoL-~ that came through the area on November 30, 1995. The City's CSO Plan has identified pipe improvements for the collection of stormwater runoff in four drainage basins where storm sewers do not have adequate capacity. For these basins, the recommended CSO control projects will reduce and in some cases eliminate localized sto~mwater flooding. For the remaining basins, flood control capital facilities have been identified based on the City's record of drainage problems and complaints and the previous engineering analyses discussed in Section 4.4.2. In many of these developed basins, the capital projects that have been recommended to address the City's flooding problems will accommodate drainage from both existing and future land use Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-33 conditions. The reason for this is that in signi~csntly developed basins there will be little difference in the peak vol~mes of runoff under either existing or future land use conditions. In the developed basins, such as the Tumwater, Valley/Mill and Peabody Creek drainage areas, little additional runoff is anticipated due to the large amount of existing impervious surfaces ~nd the small amounts of land available for new construction. For those basin~ where additional development will occur in the future, such as the West Port Angles, Airport, ]~--is/White's Creek, Lee's Creek, and Morse Creek drainage areas, the City will need to rely on development standards to control discharges from new development sites in order to maintain pre-developed rates of stormwater runoff. 4.4.4 List and Location of Drainage Problems The above engineering analysis identified the existence of over 29 different storm drainage problems occurring throughout the City, as was shown in Exhibit 4-5. The engineering analysis allowed the problem areas to be characterized and solutions to be identified and prioritized. The following section presents alternatives to control urban runoff and presents a list of storm drainage capital projects which have been proposed to address the City's drainage problems identified above. 4.5 Alternatives to Reduce and/or Control Non-Point Drainage 4.5.1 Background Technical Perspective Alternatives to reduce and/or control non-point drainage (i.e., localized flooding) within the City of Port Angeles include both structural and non- structural alternatives. Non-structural approaches include many of the various source controls or non-structural water quality BMPs presented in Section 3. Many of the source controls discussed in Section 3 to enhance water quality can also help reduce localized flooding. Examples of selected source controls that can also assist in reducing flooding include: · Properly inspecting and maintaining the existing drainage system to realize its full capacity (Source Control S-3) · Properly inspecting and maintaining private drainage facilities (Source Control S-4) · Properly controlling new construction and designing and sizing new drainage facilities (Source Control S-5) Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-34 - · Retrofitting existing damaged or malfunctioning drainage facilities (Source Control S-10) · Developing and enforcing effective stormwater related ordinances and design standards (Source Control S-13) · Establishing adequate funding and StAting to realize An effective City- wide Sto~L~awater Management Program Structural alternatives to address non-point drainage can include both the Treatment Controls (structural water quality BMPs presented in Section 3), as well as and the more traditional flood control techniques of storage and enhanced conveyance. Structural water quality treatment facilities (Treatment Controls) that can also provide some localized storage and alteration of flow rates (i.e., flood control) include: · wet pond detention basins · dry pond detention basins · artificial wetlands · infiltration practices · some vegetative practices · selected erosion and sediment control practices It is important to realize that Source Controls (non-structural water quality BMPs) and Treatment Controls (structural water quality BMPs) are normally designed for the six month design storm. They are developed to by- pass the flows of the larger storm events and are usually not effective for flow and/or volt, me control. Because of the way they are designed to operate, these types of facilities normally provide only a limited ~mount of on-site flow control capability and should not be considered viable ~stand alone" solutions to control existing or future flooding problems. Flood controls typically consist of larger structural facilities which are capable of providing larger Amounts of storage and/or conveyance capacity. They are often the only stormwater facilities that are able to adequately control localized flooding and provide for the detention of regional drainages. Flood control facilities are usually required to be constructed when the natural drainage system and the natural hydraulic/hydrologic controls consisting of soils and vegetation, have been eliminated or significantly altered through development. Historically, past development practices have done little to replace or reconstruct the natural drainage controls of the original site that existed prior to the development of the site. An effective stormwater program usually consists of all three types of non- point drainage controls. Source controls should be used to eliminate the sources of pollution and provide some flow control. Treatment controls to Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-35 treat stormwater once it has become cont~m;uated with pollutants, often involve storage and detention, which can further control the rates and volumes of runoff. And finally, flood controls should be used to e]imlnate localized flooding and help restore the natural hydrologic/hydraulic features within the original undeveloped drainage basin. Cost Perspective From a cost perspective, it is always easier and more cost-effective to perform maintenance and to fix local drainage problems than it is to fund and build large regional facilities. However, if needed, adding regional detention can be an effective way to upgrade ~- older drainage system. Retrofitting an existing drainage system is almost always cost prohibitive. To control future flooding problems, the best approach is to adequately control future development. To do this appropriate design standards need to be developed and enforced, and all new construction closely inspected. Providing adequate on-site detention and proper routine maintenance by the developer are also required. If new development is designed and constructed properly, adding regional detention and/or retrofitting the existing drainage system should not be needed in the future. If the City assumes ownership of these facilities, proper routine maintenance is critical for assuring their long- term performance. 4.5.2 Alternatives to Reduce and/or Control Non-Point Drainage Potential alternatives to reduce and/or control non-point urban drainage include both the structural and non-structural approaches, discussed above. Effective non-structural approaches include: ® Inspecting and maintaining the existing drainage system to realize its full capacity · Controlling new construction by properly designing and sizing new drainage facilities ® Additional flow reductions occurring through the implementation of the source controls (non structural BMPs), as.presented in Section 3 - Water Quality Assessment of this report Structural approaches include: ® Fixing small local ponding problems by adding additional capacity and/or removing constrictions, discontinuities, and blockages, · Adding regional detention to the existing drainage system, where needed, Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-36 · Retrofitting and upgrading downstream facilities to add additional storage and conveyance capacity, and . · Reducing flows through the drainage flow reductions that may occur when treatment controls (i.e., structural BMPs) are added to an existing or new drainage system, as discussed in Section 3 - Water Quality Assessment. 4.5.3 Alternative Analysis: General Approach for Solving Drainage Problems Presented in Table 4-3 is a listing of commonly used alternatives to reduce or eliminate urban drainage problems. Alternatives are listed to address both existing and future flooding problems. Each alternative has been evaluated according to seven criteria; including cost efficiency, environmental impact, practicality, effectiveness, redundancy, political feasibility, and agency willingness to implement. For Ex/sting Problems "..,~ To reduce or eliminate existing drainage problems, it is usually best to first repair and adequately maintain the existing drainage infrastructure system in order to realize its full design capability. The next investment should be in source controls. After installation, source controls should be monitored for their effectiveness. And finally, if source controls are not adequate, treatment controls and regional detention should be provided (as needed). This will add additional storage capacity to the drainage system and reduce peak flow rates, as well as enhance water quality. Often treatment controls for water quality and regional flood control needs can be included in the design of a common regional stormwater facility. Adding storage to provide detention is almost always less expensive and easier to implement than removing and/or upgrading downstream drainage facilities, as shown in Table 4-3. (Note: If adequate land area is not available, as is the case of the City of Port Angeles, underground storage ta~lr~ can be used to achieve similar results. Unfortunately, tanlr.~ are more expensive than surface facilities to both build and maintain.) Small facility improvements should be used whenever possible to solve or reduce the more localized drainage and flooding problems. For Future Problems The above activities should prove adequate to solve existing drainage problems and meet the drainage needs of existing land uses. However, to prevent the drainage from future developments from contributing to existing Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-37 Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-38 drainage problems or creating new problems, adequate on-site detention and treatment may be required. Additional future regional detention may also be added on an as needed basis if future on-site controls are not adequate. If the City properly controls the development process, new developments will pay for and m~nage their own drainage problems on-site. This approach elimiuates the need as well as the future costs to the City of adding additional regional detention or retrofitting inadequately designed downstream facilities, as listed in Table 4-3. If done correctly, the only cost to the City to address the drainage fi~om future developments is to provide an adequate level of annual maintenance to keep the facilities operating properly and as designed. 4.6 Facilities, Solutions, and Costs of Drainage Control 4.6.1 Overview The above engineering evaluation of the City's drainage system has identified a number of different flooding problems. Where needed, structural solutions and costs have been proposed. The various capital projects have been prioritized and scheduled for construction over a 10-year period of time. Total capital costs have been estimated to be $9,325,000. It is important to realize that these structural flood controls are needed in addition to the source and treatment controls presented in Section 3. A five year capital improvement program totaling $4,325,000 has been proposed to resolve the City's highest priority drainage problems. 4.6.2 Summary of Flooding Problems and Proposed Solutions The preceding engineering ana]ysis identified over 29 existing drainage and localized flooding problems, as shown earlier in Exhibit 4-5 and described in Section 4.4.3. Presented in Table 4-4 are the twenty five capital improvement projects that have been recommended to address the City's drainage problems. The cost of the recommended stormwater capital improvement program (CIP) program is $9,325,000. The following capital facilities are recommended to alleviate the drainage problems identified in the engineering analysis and observed by City staff. The general location of the proposed capital projects is presented in Exhibit 4-7. A ten year construction schedule has been identified in Table 4-5 that sets the capital priorities and direction for the City's new stormwater management program. A five year CIP program totaling $4,325,000 has been identified that presents solutions to the City's highest priority drainage Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-39 Table 4-4 List of Flooding Problems and Proposed Capital Solutions and Costs Within the City of Port Angeles Dt-ah~ge Project Project Name/Location M~nagement Number and Description Ax~a Priority Cost CIP-1 Creek Outlet Dredging: Peabody, Valley and 5, 6, & 7 High $150,000 Tumwa~er Creeks CIP-2 Peabody Creek/Lincoln Street Culvert 7 High $350,000 Rehabilitation CIP-3 Francis Street Storm Sewer and Sewer Separation 7 Low $500,000 and Outfall Improvements (#009-1) Stormwater Discharges Over Blu~ CIP-4 · At 4th Street and N Street 2 High $100,000 CIP-5 · At End of 10th Street 2 $100,000 CIP-6 · At End of P Street 2 $100,000 CIP-7 · At End of McDonald Street 1 $100,000 CIP-8 10th Street and N Street Regional Detention 2 High $250,000 Facility (#018-16) CIP-9 Cronauer Property Acquisition (Part of CSO 7 Medium $400,000 Detention Facility on Eastside of Francis Street) CIP-10 City-wide Catch Basin Modifications City-wide Low $1.250~000 CIP-11 Milwaukee Drive Stormwater Improvement I Low $1.000~000 CIP-12 City-wide GIS System/City Imaging System City-wide Medium $375.000 CIP-13 CSO Storm Pro}ects City-wide Medium $1~000r000 CIP-14 10th Street/llth Street Alley (stormwater 7 Medium $100,000 interceptor from L Street to Seabreeze Place) (wetland issue?) CIP-15 Lincoln Park Stormwater Interceptor 3 High $250~000 CIP-16 City-wide End of Street Discharges into Urban City-wide Low $1,250,000 Streams Drnlnage Problem Area Preliminary High Engineering Studies--Projects CIP#17- CIP #22: CIP-17 · Milwaukee/Bufler/P Street Area 1 $50,000 CIP-18 · Rhodes/Schrivner, Rosefrhistle Area 7 $50,000 CIP-19 · Penn ParkArea 5 $25,000 CIP-20 · Porter/McDougal Area 7 $50,000 CIP-21 · Upper Golf Course Road Area 8 $50,000 CIP-22 · 10th StreetfM Street Area 2 $50~000 CIP-23 Storm Sewer to Separate Sanitary Flows in Lincoln 7 Medium $500,000 Street (from 7th Street to First Street (#006-2/007- (wetland 1) issue?) CIP-24 Small Works Projects, Including:. City-wide Medium $25,000 per · 5th Street and Liberty Street--·9,300 year · Inlets and Drains at Alder and 4th Street~ ($250,000 $27,100 over 10 years) CIP-25 Projects from Preliminary Engineering Studies of City-wide Medium $100,000 Drainage Problem Areas (CIP #17-CIP#22) Total Cost of Stormwater $9,325,000 Capital Facilities Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-40 Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-42 problems. The average annual CIP funding level is about $800,000-$900,000 per year. This is a level of funding that the City may be able to sustain over an extended period of time from both an internal management and debt financing perspective. 4.6.3 Recommended Drainage Facilities and Costs The conclusion of this engineering analysis is that the City needs to implement a series of capital storm drainage improvements over a multi-year plsnn, lng period to meet the drainage needs of the City. The priority and costs of the recommended stormwater improvements have been presented above in Table 4-4. Generally, the projects listed in the 5-year CIP plan are the highest priority and should be constructed first. It is important to realize that although initially expensive, the proposed stormwater CIP program is an integral part of the City's overall CSO reduction and wastewater facility improvement program. Effectively, managing the City's stormwater, including the separation of stormwater from the City's extensive combined sewer collection system, is financially much more cost-effective than attempting to build additional conveyance and treatment capacity within the City's present wastewater system. This approach attempts to take into account the various infrastructure needs and financial priorities of the City by extending the stormwater capital needs of the City over a 10-year implementation schedule. Existing Drainage System and Engineering Analysis 4-43 Section 5 Existing Stormwater Program 5.1 Overview The evaluation of the City's stormwater management program has been divided into three parts. A description of the existing stormwater program is presented in Section 5; the review of regulatory compliance requirements is presented in Section 6; and a progr-mmatic analysis and recommended improvements are presented in Section 7. Section 5 describes the need and evolution of stormwater management within the City of Port Angeles. The City's existing program is presented in terms of its existing authority and scope of services. Recent accomplishments and deficiencies of the program are reviewed along with a discussion of present staffing, organization, and funding levels. 5.2 Description of the City's Existing Stormwater Program' 5.2.1 Introduction The following section discusses the need for and evolution of stormwater management within the City. The existing authority and present scope of services of the City's Stormwater Program are reviewed. Stormwater goals and objectives are presented with a listing of activities for their effective implementation. A summary of the program's current funding, organization, and staffing is presented along with a list of the program's recent accomplishments. 5.2.2 Need and Role of the City's Stormwater Program The City of Port Angeles, like most local governments in the Northwest, was first introduced to the need for stormwater management in order to control flooding, protect roads and structures, and generally provide for public safety and welfare. In the 1960's and 1970's, the scope of stormwater management began to expand to control the increasing impacts of urban development. The increased runoff from developments throughout the region, caused erosion, scoured streams, collected and transported pollutants, and deposited contaminated sediments into our local streams, wetlands, and estuaries. To control the impacts of urbanization, most larger cities and counties developed design standards to reduce the runoff from new development and protect urban streams. Some governments, including the Cities of Seattle, Existing Stormwater Program 5-1 Bellevue, and Olympia and the Counties of King, Snohomish, and Thurston, set up separate divisions and dedicated funding for stormwater management, usually within their engineering or public works departments. As a result of the Amendments to the federal Clean Water Act in 1985, and the formation of the Puget Sound Water quality Authority (PSWQA) by the State legislature in 1986, the scope of the City's stormwater management services has expanded from traditional flood control and development control activities, to non-point source pollution control, public education, water quality monitoring, wetland preservation, and groundwater/wellhead protection. The many local governments around Puget sound that have established stormwater utilities, which now n~mber over 70 of the 115 Puget Sound governments, are using these utilities to fund and form comprehensive and integrated water resource management programs to meet the requirements of the PSWQA Management Plan and comply with the new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permits. Those governments, that are also water supply purveyors, are beginning to realize the direct relationship between stormwater management, wellhead protection~ and the preservation and usage of local groundwater aquifers. The needs and services of comprehensive stormwater management for these agencies has evolved into integrated water resource management programs. Today, most local governments could not effectively oversee the area's water resources without dedicated funding sources, technically qualified staff, and an integrated water resource management program. The services provided by most of these comprehensive stormwater/water resource programs include: · Developing design standards for new developments, · Conducting plan reviews of new building permits, · Maintaining existing drainage and related infrastructure facilities, ® Performing basin watershed studies, · Designing, funding, and building needed capital facilities, · Undertaking wellhead plans and protecting groundwater resources, · Protecting and enhancing water quality, wetlands, streams, lakes, and habitat areas through comprehensive basin and watershed planning and public education and involvement, · Establishing appropriate legal authority, and developing and enforcing ordinances, design standards, and policies, Existing Stormwater Program 5-2 · Providing for public education and information to businesses and residents to reduce pollutants and facilitate maintenance of private stormwater facilities, · Complying with all relevant regulatory standards, and · Coordinating effectively with other local governments to develop the common use of regional water resources. The City of Port Angeles is faced with the same obligations and responsibilities as the other local governments around Puget Sound. Stormwater and water resource management have become a service of considerable prominence and importance, expected by local citizens and required by a host of federal, State, and local regulations. Clearly, there is a need for an integrated stormwater management program within the City. The City has responded to this need by recently establishing a stormwater program who's mission it is to solve local drainage problems and preserve the area's natural resources, as well as meet stormwater, groundwater, and water quality requirements. The focus of these services, sources of revenue and level of funding are determined by the public, City Council, and City staff. It is the intent of this analysis and the following recommended stormwater plan to assist the City in this process in order to develop an effective stormwater management program for the City. 5.2.3 Background and History of the Program Historically, the City of Port Angeles has been fortunate regarding the cost and level of effort needed to manage surface water runoff. Because of the topography of the City and its proximity to Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, local drainage has been traditionally collected, put into pipes and discharged directly into local streams and marine receiving waters. In older sections of the City built prior to 1965, the stormwater runoff and sewage were collected and discharged together within the some pipe. An elaborate storm drainage system of collection and conveyance facilities was not needed. Drainage has historically not been a major problem for the City. As the City has grown, development has extended to the slopes and valleys that drain into Port Angeles Harbor and localized flooding has increased due to increased runoff. In addition, the fi-equency of combined sewer overflows into the harbor (CSO's) has increased. The City addressed these problems by the construction of a primary sewage treatment plant and interceptor system in 1965. In 1994, the level of treatment at the plant was improved to provide secondary sewage treatment to further improve water quality. Existing Stormwater Program 5-3 The City is now in the process of reducing the frequency of CSO's. Reducing the CSO's throughout the City is primarily being achieved by separating sewer and stormwater discharges. In areas of the City that have combined systems, projects are currently underway or proposed to achieve the separation of stormwater from the sewage. The enhanced stormwater program proposed in this document is needed to effectively manage the City's stormwater discharges into Port Angeles Harbor. It is intended to reduce localized flooding, improve water quality in local urban streams, protect groundwater aquifers, restore habitat areas and enhance the water quality of Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 5.2.4 The City's Existing Stormwater Program Historically, the stormwater obligations of the City, have consisted almost exclusively of drainage facility design and flood control. These obligations were the responsibility of the City's Public Works Engineering Department. No special staffing or operating unit was required. Generally, the same engineers that reviewed building permits and designed roads, also addressed drainage design needs as part of the City's review process for proposed projects or building permits. This level of priority and staffing has been typical of most of the local governments in the Northwest throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Prompted by the 1987 Consent Decree with the State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to enhance the City's wastewater activities, the City began actively fox-ming its stormwater program in 1988. In early 1990, the City's first stormwater drainage plan was established and shortly therea~er, a clearing, grading and erosion control ordinance was established. Later in 1993, the City received a Centennial Clean Water Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology to review the City's existing stormwater program and expand its scope of services and responsibilities to achieve regulatory compliance and develop a permanent future funding source. The City is about to establish its first comprehensive stormwater management program with the adoption of the stormwater plan presented in this document. The City is also considering establishing permanent funding for the new program through the formation of a new City-wide stormwater utility. Today, the City's stormwater program is staffed by the equivalent of about 4.2 full-time staff positions (FTE's), including the City Engineer's time for supervision. Most of the policy, planning, capital and technical decisions are made by the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. Annual stormwater maintenance, equivalent to about 6,000 hours per year (3.0 FTE at 2,000 hours/year/FTE), is annually provided from within the existing six to Existing Stormwater Program 5-4 eight person crew of the Street Maintenance Division. Annu~_maintenance, consisting primarily of sweeping, ditch cleaning, inlet cleaning, culvert repair and maintenance, and storm drain system cleaning and repair uses equipment and vehicles from the Street Maintenance Division. The equivalent of 1.2 FTE currently manage the City's stormwater program and provide the needed technical support and direction (0.9 FTE from the Engineering Division, 0.2 FTE from the Planning Department and 0.1 FTE from the Office of the Public Works Director. Funding for the program was $290,000 in 1995 and is anticipated to be about $650,000 or more per year in the future, depending on grants and outside funding for capital projects. The financial resources for stormwater come primarily from the City's General Fund ($55,000) and Street Fund ($235,000). Future funding for the program is expected to come from a new City-wide stormwater utility to be formed in 1996. The proposed 1996 budget request is for $650,000. Annual stormwater utility revenues may be supplemented in a small part by grants, permit fees, and a limited annual appropriation from the City's General Fund and/or Street Fund. 5.2.5 Authority and Scope of Services Authority The authority for stormwater management lies within the City's general responsibilities to protect and provide for the lives and properties within the City by controlling flooding, providing for public welfare, and preserving and protecting the areas natural environment and resources, including the various elements of the natural drainage system, (i.e., streams, drainage swales, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, wellhead recharge areas, flood plains, and local fresh and marine receiving waters). The City implements this authority in the stormwater and drainage related services, activities, and programs initiated by the Department of Public Works. The Stormwater Program is carried out under the direction of the director of Public Worlcs, who reports directly to the City Manager, and ultimately to the City Council. Presented below in Table 5-1 is a listing of six of the major City codes and ordinances that have been developed by the City to form, fund, implement, and enforce the various aspects of the City's existing Stormwater Program. Existing Stormwater Program 5-5 Table 5-1 City Codes and Ordinances Related to the Authority and Implementation of the City's Stormwater Program City Ordinance/ Last Municipal Code Resolution Description/ Amended N,,mber Nnmber Title of Code/Ordinance Date Chapter 13.63 -- * Stormwater Regulations 1986 Chapter 15.12 2616 * Flood Drsin~ge Prevention 1990 Chapter 15.20 2656 · Environmentally Sensitive 1991 Areas (Interim) Chapter 15.24 2655 * Wetlands Protection (Interim) 1991 Chapter 15.28 2734 · Clearing, Grading, Filling, and 1993 Drsinage Regulations Chapter 16.08 2880 * Subdivision Requirements 1995 Chapter 18.04 2858 · City Comprehensive Plan 1995 Chapter 15.08 2869 · Shoreline Management 1995 In Process 2857 * Urban Services 1995 Chapter 17 2861 · Zoning 1995 Chapter 15.04 2847 · Environmental Policy 1994 Scope of Services The range of services and responsibilities of the City's existing Stormwater Program has substantially expanded from its original mission of primarily providing flood control. Today, in addition to its historical drainage design responsibilities, the City's Stormwater Program performs a host of planning, maintenance, construction, public education, and response services, including: · Review of drainage plans for new development · Development and update of drainage design standards · Design and construction of capital facilities · Implementation of the City's watershed, stormwater, and groundwater management related plans, in cooperation with the City's Planning Division · Maintenance of drainage facilities in cooperation with the City's Street . Division Existing Stormwater Program 5-6 ® Groundwater management through wellhead protection of groundwater aquifers, and implementation of the City's ~Comprehensive Water Supply Plan (1995), in cooperation with the City's Water Utility Division · Water quality monitoring and source control programs (as funding allows), in cooperation with the City's Water and Sewer utilities · Regulatory compliance as defined by the · Puget Sound Management Plan · State NPDES Stormwater Permit (when applicable) · Wetland and habitat protection and fisheries enhancement/restoration · Formation and administration of stormwater, water quality, and water resource policies · Program and financial management, administration, and implementation · Public education and involvement, as needed · Complaint and emergency response services · Intergovernmental coordination and agreements 5.2.6 Goals and Objectives of the City's Stormwater Program Water Resource Goals The goal of the stormwater section of the PSWQA Management Plan, as described in Ecology's Puget Sound Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (p. 10, July 1992) is: "To protect shellfish beds, fish habitat, and other resources to prevent the contamination of sediments from urban runoff, and to achieve standards £or water and sediment quality by reducing and eventually eliminating harm from pollution discharges from stormwater throughout Puget Sound.' Consistent with Ecology's stated stormwater goal, the City of Port Angeles has established the stated goal to: "Enhance the Community's Quality of Life through Responsible Development of the Land and Stewardship of the National Environment." 1995, State of the City, City of Port Angeles Existing Stormwater Program 5- 7 Klso consistent with Ecology's stormwater goal, the City and its Departments of Public Works and Pls~niug have adopted the following water resource related goals, ss reflected in the Elements of the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 28, 1994. Note: The purpose of extracting and reprinting the following statements directly from the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan is to demonstrate how fundamental the management of stormwater and the preservation of the natural drainage system is to the City's goals for enhancing the quality of life of its residents. Stormwater management is one of the City's expected services and established utilities, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is a critical se~ice and cornerstone to the City's existing and future prosperity. It is also a utility service area within the City that is largely undeveloped and as a result, is both under funded and understaffed. Many of the following goals, policies and objectives are not being achieved now and will not be able to be achieved without a financially enhanced sto~-mwater management program. Element IV--Growth Management Goal A. To manage growth in a responsible manner. ® Policy li---Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of open space..., conserve fish and wildlife habitat... · Policy lj--Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality and the availability of water. Goal B. To ensure the orderly transition of land within the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area (PAUGA) into the City of Port Angeles. · Policy 8--No annexation of land should be allowed which results in decreased minim~rn standards for City...stormwater management progrsms .... provided to existing residents of the City Element V--Lancl Use Residential Goal B. To have a community where residential development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment..., and the desired urban design of the City. · Policy 4--All residential developments should be encouraged to preserve and capitalize on existing unusual, unique, and interesting natural .... and/or cultural features, should preserve and utilize natural vegetation .... Existing Storrnwater Program 5-8 Commercial Goal E. To provide shopping opportunities which meet the needs of all City residents and visitors in safe, usable shopping areas that are compatible with the surrounding area and uses, the environment and the desired urban design of the City. · Policy Fl--Commercial development..., and should provide maximum enjoyment of the environment and .... Industrial Goal H. To provide opportunities for industrial development in a manner which efficiently uses the community's various attributes and natural resources, has minimal impact on the environment, and contributes to the City's quality of life. · Policy 3--Industrial uses should...mitigate nuisance and hazardous characteristics such as .... , water or odor pollution ..... Open Space Goal I. To create open space for relief within the urban landscape, to retain natural landscapes, to preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and to provide natural corridors which connect wildlife habitats. · Policy 1--The City should further public interest by designating open spaces to preserve unique ..... features, such as marine shorelines, bluffs, ravines, streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas .... Element VII--Utilities and Public Services Goal B. To support services and facilities through different levels of participation in cooperation with other public or private agencies. · Policy 1--The City should be the "primary responsible agency" and should take the lead in cooperation with other government entities to provide: utility and emergency services e.g., water, sewer, electrical, storrawater. Goal C. To provide safe, clean, usable, and attractive public facilities which enhance the cultural .... and environmental attributes of the City. Goal D. To provide utility services in an efficient and cost-effective manner among adjacent planning jurisdictions to encourage consistency between each jurisdiction's utility plans and standards and the development of a coordinated process for siting utility facilities. · Policy 9--The City should identify lands useful for public purposes, such as utility corridors .... and other public uses. Existing Stormwater Program 5-9 ® Policy 10--Planning for utility services shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the Capital Facilities Element (of the City's Comprehensive Plan) Objective · The City will work with the County on the development of a regional watershed management plan for the Port Angeles Regional Watershed. Element IX--Conservation The Conservation Element establishes the importance of quality of life to the people of Port Angeles. A clean, healthy, and diverse natural environment along with a variety of historical and cultural ~menities are critical elements of a high quality community. Goal A. To create and maintain a community with a high quality of life where the land is used in a manner that is compatible with the area's unique physical features, its natural, historical, archaeological and cultural amenities and the overall environment. Goal B. To protect and enhance the area's unique physical features, its natural, historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment. · Policy 1--The City should further the public interest by protecting and enhancing the area's unique physical features, valuable natural historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment, while recognizing the rights of private ownership. · Policy 2--The City should maintain and preserve its unique physical features and natural amenities, such as creeks, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, ravines, bluffs, shorelines, and fish and wildlife habitats. · Policy 3~Building density should decrease as natural constraints increase. · Policy 4---The City shall establish minimum standards for development of properties which contain or adjoin critical areas for the purpose of protecting such areas and enhancing their natural functions. · Policy 5--The City should regulate site design, preparation, and development to avoid or m~nimize d~mage to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. Existing Stormwater Program 5-10 · Policy 6 ,, Recognizing the functions and values of wetlands, the City should strive to achieve no net loss of wetlands. · Policy 7--The City should preserve uniquely featured lands which still exist in their natural states and which are notable for their aesthetic, scenic, historic, or ecological features and should prohibit any private or public development which would destroy such qualities, while recognizing the rights of private ownership. · Policy 8tThe City should promote public access to the shoreline, while preserving a healthy shoreline environment. · Policy 9--The City should enhance and preserve the quality of its air and water as two of its unique physical features. · Policy 10tThe City should protect its air and water quality by minimizing potential new pollution from new and existing sources. · Policy Il--The City shall develop and implement a (wastewater treatment) plant to improve water quality which includes measures to reduce and minimize stormwater pollutants and combined sewer overflow pollutant discharges. · Policy 12--The City should use regionally consistent requirements for industrial and commercial sewer discharge pretreatment and require new indirect dischargers to locate where appropriate sewer service can be made available. · Policy 13~The City should maintain and enhance the quality of water resources through the regulation of clearing, grading, dumping, discharging, and draining and the provision of flood and erosion control measures and regulations to protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. · Policy 14--Through the retention of existing vegetation, the City should protect water quality and prevent erosion. · Policy 15--The City should designate open space areas to preserve major or unique physical features and/or to serve as natural greenbelts and wildlife corridors. · Policy 16--The City should identify and preserve significant public scenic view corridors. Existing Stormwater Program 5-11 · Policy 17--The City should give precedence :':'to long-term environmental impacts and benefits over short-tern~ environmental impacts and benefits. · Policy 18 The City should promote and utilize environment enhancing conservation practices, such as waste recycling and energy conservation, and should encourage the development and use of alternative forms of energy and transportation. · Policy 19~The City should coordinate its environmental regulations with County, State and Federal regulations to simplify the permitting process and to reduce associated costs to the land user. Objectives · The City will adopt and enforce adequate regulations designed to maintain and enhance water quality. · The City will identify and implement site specific requirements for individual development proposals to mitigate any negative impacts created by the development, particularly to an area identified as an environmentally sensitive area. · The City will adopt and enforce regulations which require all new development to provide adequate stormwater retention/detention facilities necessary to protect water quality. · The City will complete an inventory and identification of areas identified as Habitats of Local Importance to assure that important habitat connections are not severed. · The City will complete an inventory and identification of wetlands. · The City will encourage clustering of residential development where necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas, or to avoid hazardous areas, or to preserve open space areas. · The City will develop a stormwater management plan. · The City will develop guidelines to evaluate new development that occurs near scenic resources. · The City will establish regulations that allow the preservation of identified historically significant buildings/sites. Existing Storrnwater Program 5-12 Goal C. To promote community awareness of the importance of environmental historical, and cultural amenities, the responsible use of such resources, and the use of the land with minimal impact on its unique physical features, its natural, historical and cultural amenities, and the overall environment. Goal D. To preserve and enhance the City's shoreline, its natural landscape, and flora and fauna and to minimize conflicts with present and planned uses in a manner consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act. Element XmCapital Facilities Goal A. To provide and maintain safe and financially feasible urban services and capital facilities at or above stated levels of service to all City residents and the general public. Goal B. To provide urban streets and utilities at minimum levels of service for all City residents and the general public. · Policy 6--The City should not approve any development that increases a site's post-development stormwater runoff beyond that allowed by the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin as adopted by the City. Objective · The City will develop and adopt design standards for street, water, sewer and stormwater facilities. Goal C. To provide urban services at minimum levels of service for all City residents and the general public. Goal D. To participate with the County, state, and federal governments as well as other republic agencies to provide adequate regional public services. Element Xl--Economic Development Goal A~ To create and maintain a balanced and stable local economy with full employment and emphasis on strengthening the community's traditional natural resource related industries as well as diversifying the overall economic base. Existing Storrnwater Program 5-13 Objective · The City should develop sufficient utilities, improve traffic circulation, and identify environmental constraints in the airport industrial area in cooperation with other governmental agencies. Goal B. To have a healthy local economy that coexists with the community's high quality of life through the protection, enhancement, and use of the community's natural, historical, and cultural amenities. Objectives · The City should promote the region's qua!fty of environment and available natural resources as factors in attracting and retaining business, industry, and individual enterprises. · The City should promote development of planned office, business, and industrial parks, while conserving unique physical features of the land and maintaining compatibility with other land uses in the surrounding areas. Water Iqesource Implernentztion Policies From a management perspective, the City's Stormwater Program effectively uses its existing resources and attempts to achieve the above goals by routinely striving toward the following five main implementation policies: · Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater management program, as mandated under the federal Clean Water Act, the State Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, and the State Growth Management Act, and as needed to be consistent with the future requirements of the municipal stormwater NPDES permit program. · Continue to work cooperatively with other local governments through joint basin planning in shared drainage basins in order to provide regionally coordinated planning, construction, and maintenance for regional stormwater facilities and stormwater management. · Continue to encourage public involvement in and support for the City's water resource management program activities. · Continue to utilize a variety of funding sources for planning, acquisition, and construction projects, in order to minimize program expenditures. Existing Stormwater Program 5-14 · Continue to achieve the City's Stormwater Progrsm goals in a manner that makes efficient use of 'limited resources so that the most critical problems are addressed first. Local Stormwater Program Objectives On a daily basis, the staff of the City's Stormwater Program strive to: · Protect and conserve the City's water resources, preserve, and enhance surface and groundwater quality and in so doing, protect the uses of water, the pleasures it provides, and the livelihoods that it supports; · Eliminate or reduce chronic flooding and erosion to ensure the protection of the public's safety, health, and property; · Protect, preserve, and enhance shellfish beds, wildlife, and fish habitat, and other natural resources; and, · Achieve federal and State standards for water and sediment quality by reducing and eventually eliminating harmful pollutant discharges from stor~:uwater. 5.2.7 Funding, Organization, and Staffing Funding The financial support for the City's Stormwater Program presently comes from both the General Fund and the Street Fund. Of the $290,000 appropriated in 1995, $235,000 and $55,000 were allocated from the Street Fund and General Fund, respectively Additional stormwater revenues from grants, loans, permit fees, outside funding for capital projects (such as the CSO Reduction Program), and other intra-fund transfers from within the City to the stormwater program, cause the program's annual budget to vary from year to year. The expenditures of the City's stormwater program also vary annually based upon equipment needs, maintenance and repair needs, grants, capital projects, and the use of outside services. Table 5-2 presents the 1995 and 1996 stormwater budgets. In 1995 and 1996, 100% of the budget was spent on operating costs. Of this amount, stormwater maintenance consumed about 81% or $235,000 of the total $290,000 annual stormwater budget. As shown in Table 5-3, the appropriation for stormwater maintenance was retained in the funding for the Street Division. No funding was available for allocation to any of the needed capital stormwater projects. Historically, little funding has been available for capital stormwater improvement projects. As a result, few stormwater capital improvements have ever been built within the City. Existing S tormwater Program 5-15 Table 5-2 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Program Expenditures for 1995 and 1996 1995 and 1996 Expenditure Expenditures % of Budget Operating Labor 180,000 62 Professional Services 0 0 Equipment 110.000 38 Operating Subtotal 290,000 100 Capital CIP Program~ 0 0 Small Works Projects 0 0 Capital Subtotal ~) 0 Total Annual Budget $290,000 100% (1) There is no annual appropriation for capital improvements. Table 5-3 Intra-City Distribution of Stormwater Operating and Capital Funds 1995 and 1996 Stormwater Operating Fund Expenditures Office of Public Works Director Labor $6,000 0.1 Services 0 0 Engineering Division Labor 41,000 0.9 Services 0 0 Street Division (Maintenance) Labor 125,000 3.0 Equipment 110,000 Services Planning Department 8.000 0.2 Subtotal $290,000 4.2 Stormwater Capital Fund Expenditures in Public Works CIP Program ($1M) 0 0 Small Works Projects 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 Grand Total $290,000 49. (1) Annual Staffing and expenditure are estimates. Existing Stormwater Program 5-16 In 1996, the annual budget proposal from City staffto the City Council included a suggestion to form a stormwater fund within the City's existing wastewater utility. This suggestion was presented to the Council in the form of a 1996 budget memorandum, which is presented in Appendix IC of Technical Appendix Volume I. The purpose of restructuring the wastewater utility to include a stormwater fee was to create an independent funding source to address the City's growing stormwater management problems and responsibilities. Under a combined wastewater- stormwater billing system, statements would be sent out using the City's current billing system. Three different levels or options of stormwater funding were proposed, ranging from $2 to $4 per month, for residential homeowners. Businesses and industries, not covered under a separate NPDES permit, would pay proportionately more, based on the amount of impervious area on their individual lots. Projected annual revenues generated by such a fee varied from $620,000 to $450,000, to $310,000 per year depending on whether the residential rate was $4.00, $3.00, or $2.00 per month, respectively. The concept of forming a stormwater related fee was presented to the City's Utility Advisory Committee on August 14, 1995, but was not approved by the City Council as part of the 1996 budget process. (The financial feasibility study, describing the proposed stormwater rate structure, is presented in Technical Appendix, Volume V of the Final Report of this StormWater Management Plan. A discussion of the proposed stormwater fee is presented in greater detail in Section 8.) With an annual budget of $290,000 from the City's General Fund and Street Fund, the Public Works Department does not have adequate funding to meet the City's existing stormwater management needs. An increase in annual appropriations would allow the City's stormwater program to improve maintenance and begin to construct its first capital improvement projects. Funding and program needs are discussed in greater detail in Sections 7 and 8. Organization The City's Stormwater Program is one of the many services provided by the Public Works Department. Under the responsibility of the Director of Public Works, the Stormwater Program is directed primarily by the City Engineer. There is no stormwater section or unit within the Public Works, as shown in Exhibit 5-1. On a daily basis the Stormwater Program is supervised and implemented by the City Engineer under the guidance of the Public Works Director. Existing Stormwater Program 5-17 Existing Stormwater Program 5-18 Implementation of the annual work plan of the City's Stormwater Program is also undertaken primarily by the engineers located in the Engineering and Pe~-mitting Division of the Public Works Department. The maintenance activities are performed by the Street Maintenance crew of the Street Division, also within Public Works. Some water quality and planning support is provided bY the Planning Department. Within the City Engineers' Office, the City Engineer, or his designee, performs drainage plan reviews and conducts construction site inspections, enforcements~ capital construction project supervision and regulatory compliance responsibilities for the City's stormwater program. Through intra-fund transfers, the City's Sto~--,water Program supports stormwater related services in two to three different divisions/departments within the City, as was shown earlier in Table 5-3. Staffing Staffing dedicated to the City's Sto~-,,,water Program total the equivalent of 4.2 full-time staff positions (FTE), as listed in Table 5-4. Day-to-day supervision is provided by Gary Kenworthy, the City Engineer. As time allows, technical direction is provided by the Public Works Director, Jack Pittis. Management of the City's Sto,--,water Program is a cooperative effort shared between the Public Works Director, City Engineer and the Manager of the Street Division. Table 5-4 Summary of Responsibilities and Staffing for the City's Stormwater Program Stormwater Activity Responsible Responsible Dedicated Level of Staff Division Manager Staff Position Effort Management- Public Works Public Works Within Assigned 0.1 FTE Billing/Accounting Department Director Duties Capital Improvements Engineering City Engineer Engineer 0.5 Division Maintenance Street Division Street Division O/M Laborers 3.0 Manager Development Review Engineering City Engineer Engineer 0~2 Division Inspection Enforcement Engineenng City Engineer Engineer/Planner 0.2/0.1 Division (with Planning) Compliant and Engineering City Engineer Engineer As Needed Emergency Response Division Basin and Watershed Engineering City Engineer Engineer As Needed Planning Division Groundwater and Engineering City Engineer Engineer As Needed Wellhead Protection Division (with Water Utility) Water Quality, Wetlands, Engineering ' City Engineer Engineer/Planner As Needed/0.1 and Habitats Division (with Planning) Existing Stormwater Program 5-19 Table 5-4 (continued) Summary of Responsibilities and Staffing for the City's Stormwater Program Stormwater Activity Responsible Responsible Dedicated Level of Staff Division Manager Staff Position Effort Engineering Support; to Engineering City Engineer Within Assigned As Needed Other City Progr~m.~ Division Duties Regional Coordination Planning Planning Planner As Needed Department Director Public Involvement Engineering City Engineer Within Assigned As Needed Division (with Planmng) Duties Regulatory Compliance Engineering City Engineer Within Assigned As Needed Division Duties Total Stormwater 4.2 FTE Program Staffing Within the Engineer's Office, the plan review efforts are carried out by a Civil Engineer position within the Engineering Division. Construction Inspection is provided by an Engineering Technician within the Engineering Division. Maintenance is performed by 3.0 staff positions with the Maintenance Section of the Street Division. The 3.0 FTE member crew is supervised on a daily basis by a maintenance foreman. 5.2.8 Accomplishments The assigned staff of the Stormwater Program have routinely accomplished all the drainage needs of the City with a very nominal amount of annual expenditure. Although the City's Stormwater Program is relatively new, the staff should be complimented for their work and dedication in developing and implementing such a complex program within such a short period of time. Accomplishments to date include: · Securing state resources and undertaking the formation of a City-wide stormwater management program and alternative funding analysis. · Developing and adopting drainage design standards for the construction of roads and new development throughout the City. · Directing the development and adoption of new wetland, erosion control and sensitive areas criteria and design standards for the City. · Completing an earlier Stormwater Facilities Assessment and Capital Improvement Plan for the City (i.e., the 1990 City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan). Existing Stormwater Program 5-20 ® Reviewing and approving all drainage plans and inspecting the construction sites of new developments. · Completing the development of the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan. · Completing the development of the City's 1995-2000 Capital Facilities Plan, including needed stormwater capital facilities. · Providing input and guidance in the development of the Port Angeles Regional Watershed Plan. · Protecting the City's groundwater resources. · Undertaking inflow/infiltration studies and major sewer construction projects resulting in reduced combined sewer overflows and enhanced level of treatment for improved water quality in Port Angeles Harbor. · Continuing to undertake illicit and cross-connection studies and reduce illicit stormwater discharges. · Annually constructing needed sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO) and stormwater capital projects. · Developing comprehensive wastewater facility plans and effectively operating and expanding the City's sewage treatment plant, including compliance with its associated NPDES discharge permit. · Participating in local and regional water quality monitoring. · Initiating needed regulatory compliance and enforcement activities. · Undertaking special drainage studies with developers in areas with known drainage problems. · Establishing effective working relationships and agreements with local and regional agencies to protect the region's water resources. 5.2.8 Overview of the Effectiveness of the City's Existing Stormwater Program The City has historically had only a few major flooding problems. The locations and magnitude of these major flooding problems were identified in the City's 1990 Stormwater Management Plan report. In recent history, most of the significant flooding problems have been localized with a minimum of property damage. This type of flooding is usually caused by lack of adequate capacity, the conveyance needs associated with new development and/or the lack of adequate maintenance. Generally, the capacity and Existing Storrnwater Program 5-21 effectiveness of the entire City system could be significantly increased by an upgraded, annual maintenance program. The City's drainage system also has a number of irregularities and inconsistencies (i.e., discontinuities) that either block drainage or reduce capacity and create localized ponding. This is especially true in the more rapidly developing western and eastern upland drainage basins within the City. Water quality treatment does not exist for most stormwater drainage basins within the City. Recent road and sewer utility CSO projects have added additional storage capacity and treatment for a few of the City's discharges into local marine waters. When completed, the City's CSO sewer separation projects will significantly reduce.combined sewer overflows into Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Biotreatment is being added when projects and opportunities allow, however, much of the drainage within the City currently receives little if any treatment prior to discharge. 5.2.9 Problems and Deficiencies Overall Sto~mwater Program deficiencies include: · Lack of maintenance throughout the City. · Little treatment of runoff prior to discharge to remove pollutants and enhance water quality. · Pollution of outfall areas from urban discharges and polluted sediment accumulations. · Localized flooding in many areas of the City due to discontinuities in the drainage system. · The identification of a large number of expensive capital facilities with the availability of only small amounts of capital funding. · Limited site inspection and enforcement of the City's clearing and erosion control ordinance to control pollution from new construction sites. · Limited inspection of construction sites and enforcement of construction related drainage criteria and ordinances. · Limited stormwater program authority, funding and enforcement to ensure the proper maintenance of private drainage facilities. · Failing septic tanks in some unserviced areas contributing to high coliform and nutrient levels. · Combined sewer overflows discharges into marine waters. Existing Stormwater Program 5-22 · Limited basin hydraulic/hydrologic studies and data to support land use, development review and permitting decisions. · Lack of an appropriate level of staffing to routinely carry out the various functions of the Stormwater Progrsm. · Lack of funding for many of the activities and capital needs within the program. · Lack of an organizational unit within the City to direct, staff, fund and implement the City's annual stormwater progrsm. 5.2.10 Neecled Improvements Enhancements to the City's Stormwater Program that would improve both its effectiveness and efficiency include: · Adoption of a comprehensive stormwater management plan. · Creation of a stormwater unit within Public Works to be directly accountable for the Stormwater Program. · Creation of dedicated, long-term funding of stormwater activities for effective program implementation. · Development of an enhanced annual inspection and maintenance program of City owned facilities. · Undertaking the design and construction of needed major stormwater capital improvements. ® Repairing and upgrading the drainage system to remove discontinuities and limit localized flooding. · Studies of critical drainage problem areas to support new development. · Undertaking source control studies (i.e., drainage basin assessments) within each drainage basin to reduce pollutant loadings. ® The addition of water quality treatment facilities to the existing City- wide drainage system, based on the results of the source control studies to improve water quality. · New ordinances for stormwater management, facility design, water quality and maintenance of public drainage facilities. · New ordinances for the inspection and enforcement of the maintenance of private drainage facilities. · Appropriate program funding and staffing to ensure proper maintenance of public and private facilities. Existing Stormwater Program 5-23 · Upgraded and enhanced drainage design standards for new construction. · Additional experienced stormwater staff. · Continuation of sewer ~mprovement and CSO reduction projects. · Additional fi~ancial resources, especially to address the unfunded capital needs of the stormwater progrsm and meet regulatory requirement obligations. Existing Stormwater Program 5-24 Section 6 Regulatory Compliance 6.1 Introduction This section presents the stormwater requirements for the City of Port Angeles. It includes requirements at the State, federal, and local/regional levels of government. Background information on the various requirements is presented and discussed. The most important stormwater regulations that the City is presently facing are those at the State level, as defined in the Puget Sound Water Quality (PSWQ) MAnagement Plan. The City needs to immediately respond to the requirements of' the State's PSWQ Management Plan. It may also be required to have a federal Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit within the next 3 to 5 years. 6.2 Background Information The City of Port Angeles is affected by State and federal stormwater management requirements, as well as local and regional requirements as defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. At the present time, the City is required to comply with the elements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program delineated in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The Basic Stormwater Program emphasizes the establishment of appropriate legal authority, standards for new development and redevelopment, and maintenance of the existing drainage system. Compliance with the State's Basic Sto~mwater Program was to be achieved by January 1, 1995. The City is not required to comply with the State's comprehensive stormwater program at this time due to its relatively small urban population. In the future, the City could be issued a Stormwater NPDES by Ecology. An NPDES permit has currently been issued to about eight of the larger urban areas within the State with populations of 100,000 or more. NPDES Stormwater Permits, for moderate and even small cities, are being considered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Although the City is smaller than 100,000, Ecology may elect to issue future NPDES Stormwater Permits based on either a watershed or "urban center" approach. If the later approach is used, the City and adjacent urban areas within Clall~m County (County) could be issued a joint permit. Discussions to-date with Ecology indicate that if an NPDES Stormwater Permit is issued to the City in the future, the terms and conditions of the permit would be very .similar to the conditions of compliance required in the State's present Comprehensive Stormwater Management ProgrAm. The State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program requires monitoring, source controls and the elimination of water quality problems. Because Regulatory Compliance 6-1 Ecology does not currently have adequate authority under State law to enforce the PSWQ Management Plan, they will likely be using the enforcement powers granted to them under the federal NPDES permitting progr-m to ensure compliance. 6.3 Federal, State, Regional, and Local Stormwater Requirements The regulation of stormwater within the City is governed by seven federal laws, 12 State laws, and 11 different local and regional regulations, ordinances, basin plans and guidance doc-ments as shown in Table 6-1. There are many more water regulations related to water rights, groundwater, water supplies, disinfection, and drinking water qu~Hty. While all these regulations are important to the City, the intent of this management ~nalysis is to review the most pressing stormwater regulations, assess the City's present water resources program in terms of compliance, and recommend program changes needed to achieve compliance. Table 6-1 Water Resource Related Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Technical Guidance for Stormwater and Land Use Stormwater Land Use Federal ~ Federal · National Flood Insurance Act (1968) · Clean Water Act - 404(b)(1) (discharge · Flood Disaster Protection Act (1973) of dredge or fill mater/als) · Clean Water Act (1972, amended 1987) · Rivers and Harbor Act - Section 10 · National Pollution Discharge · Clean Water Act - 401 (water quality Elimination System (1987) permit) State ~ State · Flood Control Assistance Program · State Environmental Policy Act (86.26RCW) · Shoreline Permits under the State · State Floodplain Management Act Shoreline Management Act (86.16RCW) · Hydraulic Project Approval Permits · Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (for fisheries) (90.70 RCW) ~1 Local · State Planning Enabling Act · City Environmental Ordinances (36.70 RCW) · City Zoning Ordinances · Forest Practices Act (76.09 RCW) · City Land Use Plan · Growth Management Act (ES HB 2929) and as amended in SB HB 1025) · Washington State Shoreline Management Act (90.58 RCW) ·State Environmental Policy ACt (43.21c RCW) ·Washington State Hydraulic Code (75.2O RCW) Regulatory Compliance 6-2 Table 6-1 (continued) Water Resource Related Regulatory Requirements, Policies, and Technical Guidance for Stormwater and Land Use Stormwater Land Use ~ Local and Regional · Flood Emergency Zone Districts (86.15 RCW) · Flood Emergency Operations Plan · Clallam County Comprehensive Plan · City Comprehensive Plan · City's Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinances · City's Building Codes and Drainage Design Standards · City's Wetlands and Sensitive Areas Ordinances · Port Angeles Watershed Plan The two most important stormwater regulations the City is presently facing are: 1) those of the State's Puget Sound Stormwater Management Program, as defined by the State Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and 2) those associated with the pending federal/State NPDES Stormwater Permit, as administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as delegated to them by the United States Environmental Protection Agency). At the local level, the City also needs to comply with the policies and recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. 6.4 State of Washington Stormwater Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin The Washington State Legislature Formed the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) in 1985 to "restore and protect the biological and health and diversity of Puget Sound; by: · Preserving and restoring wetlands and aquatic habitats, · Preventing increases in the introduction of pollUtants to the Sound, and · Reducing and ultimately eliminating harm from the entry of pollutants to the water, sediments, and shorelines of Puget Sound." The first Management Plan for Puget Sound was established in 1987, which has subsequently been updated in 1991, 1992, and 1994. The Plan has just undergone its third update which was completed and released in May 1994. This management analysis is consistent with the 1991 Plan and the adopted 1991, 1992, and 1994 amendments. Regulatory Compliance 6-3 The proposed 1994 ~mendments to the 1991 PSWQA Management Plan were made public February 14, 1994, and do not propose major changes to the stormwater program presented and approved in the 1991 Plan. As a result, this management analysis is based primarily on the 1991 Plan and its 1994 amendments, and the Technical and Program Guidance Doc~ments (Volumes I and H) issued by Ecology in February and July of 1992, respectively, for the implementation of the PSWQ Management Plan. The updated 1994 PSWQA Management Plan for stormwater and CSO controls is presented in Appendix IV-L. (See Technical Appendix Volume The Puget Sound Stormwater Management Program is divided into the Basic Stormwater Program which applies to all cities and counties in the Puget Sound Basin, and the Comprehensive Stormwater Program which applies to designated urban areas based on population. The City needs to comply with the Basic Program, but not the Comprehensive Stormwater Programs which was developed for larger urban cities. (See page 13-1 of Appendix B ofVob~me I entitled Program Implementation Guidance of the Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, July 1992, Ecology Publication N,~mber 92-32.) All cities and counties in the Puget Sound Basin, including the City of Port Angeles, were to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Program by January 1, 1995, as required by the 1994 PSWQA Plan approved on May 26, 1994. Large urban areas within Puget Sound are also to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Stormwater Program by the year 2000. The 2000 date may be moved up to 1997 or 1998, because Ecology has chosen to implement the Comprehensive Plan requirements as part of the Phase I NPDES Stormwater Permit process. An NPDES permit could be implemented as soon as 1996-1998 for the larger urban areas around the Puget Sound Basin. 6.4.1 The State's Basic Stormwater Program The City of Port Angeles was required to comply with the terms of the State's Basic Sto~:mwater Program by January 1, 1995. The goals and conditions for compli~nce with the State's Basic Stormwater Program are discussed below. Conditions of Compliance The goal of the State's Basic Stormwater Program is to prevent increases in stormwater pollution. This goal is to be met by: · Controlling stormwater quality from all new development and redevelopment, and · Developing and operating maintenance programs for all new and existing public and private stormwater facilities. Regulatory Compliance 6-4 The Basic Stormwater Program requires the City to: ® BI--Develop and adopt local ordinances for all new development and redevelopment which address: · The control of off-site water quality, · The use of source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), · The effective treatment of the water quality design storm, · The use of infiltration (where appropriate), · The protection of stream channels and wetlands, and · The prevention of erosion and sedimentation control. · B2mDevelop and enforce the proper operation and maintenance program for all new and existing public and private stormwater systems (minim,~m standards are defined in Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual). · B3--Develop and maintain a record keeping program for all new public and private drainage systems and facilities. · B4--Adopt Ecology's Technical Manual or develop a manual with substantially equivalent technical standards (manuals other than the Ecology manual were to be pre-approved by Ecology by January 1, 1995). · B5--Develop and implement education programs to educate citizens about stormwater and its effects on water quality, flooding, and fish/wildlife habitat, and to discourage illicit dumping into storm drains. · B6--Coordinate the City's Stormwater Program with the provisions of the GMA, where appropriate. The Ecology Stormwater Program Guidance Manual Volumes I and II (July 1992) contains additional explanation and clarification of the above six requirements and had been appended for your information. (See Technical Appendix IV-M in Technical Appendix Volume rv-2.) A seventh enforcement element was also added in the 1994 amendments to the 1991 Puget Sound Stormwater Management Plan that the City will also need to comply with. · B7--Local enforcement of these (the above six) stormwater controls. The main elements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program include the stormwater ordinance, technical manual, the maintenance ordinance, and the maintenance program. Each of these elements are summarized below. · The stormwater ordinance and stormwater management manual that are to be adopted by the City as part of the State's Basic Stormwater Program must: Regulatory Compliance 6-5 · Control off-site water quality and water quantity, · Use both source controls and treatment controls, · Provide effective treatment using BMPs for the storm size and frequency as de~ed in the manual for the proposed development, · Use infiltration wherever possible, and · Control erosion and sedimentation for both new developments and redevelopment. · The maintenance ordinance that needs to be adopted by the City to comply with the required maintenance program must: · Provide for inspection (including right of entry) for all public and private stormwater facilities, · Define inspection procedures (and criteria), · Identify the parties responsible for maintenance, · Include enforcement provisions, and · Provide for the proper dispose of maintenance wastes. · The City's maintenance program, as defined in the Ecology Progrnm Manual, requires: · Annual inspections and the removal of debris from within the collection system, · Regular inspection, cleaning, and mowing of all grassy swales and biofilters, · The immediate correction of water quality criteria violations, · The creation and use of an annual Master Maintenance Program and schedule (the maintenance program standards, frequencies, and technologies should ultimately be tailored to each type of stormwater facility, their location, the nature of'discharge/runoff and its water quality), and · Adequate record keeping, which should include as-built drawings, location maps, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements/standards, r. ecords of inspections, any citizen Regulatory Compliance 6-6 '- complaints, O&M activities and their frequency and any engineering reports. The State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program The City of Port Angeles does not need to comply with the conditions of the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program at this time. Because the Washington State Department of Ecology is only requiring the most highly urbanized areas around Puget Sound to comply with these requirements, the City may never be expected by state regulators to control stormwater beyond the Basic Stormwater Program, which was described above. The only exception to this guidance would be if the State were ever to issue the City an NPDES permit for sto,-mwater. Then, the City would be required to enhance their sto,:mwater program, beyond the Basic Stormwater Program, and the City would likely need to comply with conditions similar to those defined in the State's Comprehensive Stoxmwater Program. Because the City may be issued an NPDES stormwater permit in the future, a discussion of the requirements of the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program are presented below. The goal of the Comprehensive Stormwater Progrsm is to identify and correct the sources of stormwater pollution. The Comprehensive Stormwater Program includes the elements of the Basic Stoi-mwater Program in addition to the nine additional requirements listed below. Conditions of Compliance The goal of identifying and eliminating the sources of stormwater pollution is to be met by: ® C1--The identification and ra~k~ng of significant pollutant sources and their relationship to the drainage system and water bodies through an ongoing assessment program (i.e., identify water quality problems associated with urban sto~:mwater runoff by mapping the drainage system using existing data and performing visual inspections). · C2--Investigations and corrective actions of problem storm drains, including ssmpling and identifying illicit connections. · C3 :A water quality response program, to investigate sources of pollutants, spills, fish kills, illegal hook-ups, dumping, and other water quality problems. These investigations should be used to support compliance and enforcement efforts. · C4--Assurance of adequate local funding for the stormwater program through the formation of surface water utilities, sewer charges, fees, or other revenue generating sources. Regulatory Compliance 6- 7 · C5 Local coordination arrangements, such ss interlocal agreements, joint programs, consistent standards, and/or regional boards or committees. · C6 An ongoing stormwater public education program aimed at residents, businesses, and industries in the urban area. · C7--Inspection, compliance, and enforcement measures for stormwater facility inspections, elimination of illicit connections and investigation/ verification of corrective actions. · CS~An implementation schedule delineating the phasing in of required Comprehensive Stormwater Program elements over a five year period from the starting date assigned by Ecology. (Note: This schedule may change if Ecology chooses to write the compliance schedule for the Comprehensive Stormwater Plan into the City's future Phase I NPDES Sto~mwater Permit. Full implementation is expected by year 2000. · C9--If aider implementing the eight Comprehensive Stormwater Program elements listed above, there are still discharges that cause sig~i6cant environmental problems, retrofitting of existing developments and/or treatment of discharges from new and existing development may be required. 6.4.2 Federal NPDI/S Stormwater Permits Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permits are usually issued by Ecology as a two part permitting process. The Part I is the application process where an agency describes their current stormwater program, its authorities, and sources of funding, along with any existing water quality data or planning doc~,ments that have been developed to date. Ecology reviews this information and wr/tes the agency a Part II permit which usually requires monitoring and the identification and/or correction of water quality problems. Additional program enhancements, required ordinances, public education, ma/ntenance, interlocal coordination, inspection/enforcement may also be required as part of the Part II NPDES Stormwater Permit. The first round of NPDES permitting has already been completed by Ecology. Large agencies with a population of 100,000 or greater have already been issued Part I permits and are well into the Part II process. There are about eight of these agencies within the State of Washington. The smaller municipalities, of less than 100,000, are to be issued their NPDES pek-mits based on size, location, and known water quality problems. How or when the NPDES process may work for small municipalities is not known at this time. Ecology may elect to combine the smaller urban areas and issue one single permit to each of the participating agencies collectively. Alternatively, Regulatory Compliance 6.8 Ecology is also considering a watershed approach where all agencies, including both big and small jurisdictions, would be issued a permit on the basis of watershed boundaries. In the latter approach, all agencies within a common watershed would be issued a single collective permit. Either approach, although unlikely at this point in time, could include the City of Port Angeles. A Sto~-~water NPDES permit could be issued to the City as early as 1998-2000. Fortunately, whichever process Ecology chooses (within one to three years or longer), will not affect the technical requirements of compliance. The technical requirements of the NPDES permit will be similar to the technical requirements of the State's Comprehensive Sto~mwater Program, as described by Ecology in the PSWQA Management Plan. This should give the City adequate time to plan for, anticipate, and fund the needed elements of the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Water Resource Management Program, should it ever be required in the future. 6.4.3 Ecology Review(s), Non-Compliance, Enforcement, and Penalties The City's responses to the elements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program are to be submitted to Ecology for review and a determination of compliance. This review is to include the City's stormwater and maintenance ordinances and a description of the City's overall Stormwater Program. Many local governments around the Puget Sound have asked how Ecology plans to enforce these stormwater requirements and what the penalties there would be for non-compliance. An opinion issued last year by the State Attorney General stated that Ecology has little enforcement authority for sto,-mwater and must rely on the PSWQA's powers of enforcement, granted directly to the agency by the State legislature when the Authority was formed. It is for this reason that Ecology has combined the requirements for compliance of the State's Comprehensive Plan with that of the federal NPDES Stormwater Per~uits, and may do the s~rne to ensure compliance with the State's Basic and Comprehensive Stormwater Programs as well. The effects of non-compliance with the State's Basic and Comprehensive Stormwater Programs of the PSWQA Management Plan are unclear at this time. A formal public accounting to the PSWQA would be the first result of non-compliance. Other penalties could include denial of future grant funds, daily fines of up to $10,000 per day, and potential legal action brought against the City by the State. Non-compliance also may make the City vulnerable to third party lawsuits. These penalties are similar to those to be put in effect if an agency chooses not to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act. Regulatory Compliance 6-9 A recent letter to the City of Ly~nwood from Ecology's Stormwater Program Supervisor, Dr. Peter Birch, clarifies the follow-up review and enforcement processes outlined above. This letter has been included as Technical Appendi~ IV-O in Technical Appendix Volume IV-2 to this report. 6.4.4 Preliminary Assessment of the City's Stormwater Program in Regard to Regulatory Compliance Assessment of Compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program According to the 1994 PSWQA Management Plan, all cities and counties within the Puget Sound Basin were to be in compliance with the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program by January 1, 1995. The City has met some, but not all, of the requirements of' the Basic Stormwater Program. To be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program, the City will need to undertake additional stormwater related activities. Each of the seven elements (No. B1-B7) of the State's Basic Stormwater Program are presented below along with an assessment of the City's present status of compliance and recommended enhancements needed to achieve full compliance. Element #B1 (SWI. 1, as referenced in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, 1994) Adopt local drainage ordinances for all new development and re-development that address the seven technical requirements listed in the Ecology Manual, Volume I, p. 18 and on p. 126 of the 1994 Draft Amendments to the Puget Sound Stormwater Management Plan published on February 14, 1994. Assessment The City has a set of stormwater design criteria described in Chapter 5 of the Public Works Operation Manual. The City also has an existing clearing, grading, filling and drainage ordinance that addresses the control of construction site drainage and contains requirements for the control of sedimentation and erosion (Ordinance 2734). These existing ordinances meet the intent but not the entire content of this first requirement of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. The City's ordinance needs to be modified to add a section on enforcement and on water quality which emphasizes the use of source controls, best management practices (BMPs), and on-site infiltration. A new separate stormwater ordinance is recommended. Regulatory Compliance 6-10 Recommendations The City should: · Make a detailed comparison of the City's existing drainage ordinance to the Ecology model stormwater ordinance in order to ensure consistency with the ordinance. (This has been completed as part of this plavniug study.) · Draft new language, as needed, particularly for inspection/enforcement and water quality related issues. (A draft stormwater ordinance has been included in Appendix IV-H of Technical Appendix Volume IV-I.) · Review the City's clearing, grading, filling and drainage ordinance for consistency with the City's new, proposed stormwater ordinance. · Receive City Attorney review and approval of new sto~-mwater ordinance. · Present a draft of the new stormwater ordinance to the City Council and send an adopted version of the ordinance to Ecology to demonstrate compliance with state law and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Element #B2 Develop and enforce a proper operation and maintenance program for all new and existing public and private stormwater systems. Assessment The City operates an annual maintenance program for its public stormwater facilities which is funded through the Street Fund. · Each year the maintenance of some of the City's catch basins, pipes, ditches, retention/detention facilities, underground storage facilities and other drainage facilities is routinely performed. · For new facilities, either commercial or residential the owner and/or developer (e.g., homeowners' association) is required to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement with the City, which is officially recorded with the City's approval of the new development. Regulatory Compliance 6-11 · All major public and private drainage facilities within the City have been mapped with operational and design information stored in the City's GIS/CADD system. New facilities are to be added to this record keeping system and to the City's annual maintenance progrgm as the new drainage facilities are approved and accepted by the City. Generally, the City is in compliance with the intent but not all of the conditions of' Requirement #2. To be in fun compliance, the City needs to formally adopt a maintenance ordinance, the inspection and enforcement elements need to be enhanced and the frequency of the various O/M activities need to be increased in order to keep the City's drainage system at an optimism level of performance. The existing 0/M program, priorities, and activities should also be doc~mented and sent to Ecology to demonstrate regulatory compliance. Recommendation The City should: · Do a final comparison of the City's maintenance program with the maintenance criteria proposed by Ecology. Ensure consistency with the model Ecology maintenance ordinance and the recommended types and level of maintenance suggested in the Ecology Stormwater Program Guidance Manual (Vol-roes I and II). (This has been completed as part of this study.) · Write and adopt a new maintenance ordinance so that the City has the authority needed for site inspections, enforcement, emergency response and cost reimbursement. (This has been completed and a new revised maintenance ordinance is presented in Appendix IV-I of Technical Appendix Volume IV-1.) · Increase the level of funding to the City's annual maintenance program to increase the level and frequency of service as recommended by City's maintenance crew and required by the State's Basic Stormwater Program. (An increase in budget and staffing have been included in the 1996 proposed stormwater budget.) Element #B3 (SW1.2B) Develop and maintain a record keeping program for all new public and private drainage systems and facilities. Regulatory Compliance 6-12 Assessment The City has an existing inventory of stormwater facilities and record keeping system, as well as an established process to add new drainage facilities to the system. This process appears to meet the Ecology requirements of' Element #B3 and should be doc,,mented in order to respond to Ecology and demonstrate regulatory compliance. The City's maintenance management system needs to be updated and computerized on a City-wide database. Recommendation The City should: · Document its existing drainage record keeping program and send it to Ecology to demonstrate compliance. · Enhance its drainage system, as needed, through regular facility maintenance in order to achieve optimum performance. Element #B4 (SWl.3) Adopt Ecology's Technical Manual or develop a manual with substantially equivalent technical standards. Assessment The City has been actively using a set of drainage design standards which are similar to those recommended by Ecology. The adoption of all of the required Ecology standards is not expected to change the City's drainage policies or substantially increase the cost of new construction within the City. Recommendations The City should: · Review and adopt the drainage design standards as described in the Ecology Technical Manual (Volumes III and IV). · The City's standard handouts to developers (i.e., Chapter 5 (5.010- 5.250) of the Public Works Operations Manual) will need to be revised to be consistent with the newly adopted Ecology design standards. Regulatory Compliance 6-13 Element #B5 (SW1.4) Develop and implement education programs to educate the citizens about stormwater and its effects on water quality, flooding, and fish/wildlife habitat, and to discourage dumping into storm drains. Assessment The City has historically complied with the intent of this requirement, but has not established an ongoing dedicated stormwater public awareness/education progrsm, funded on an annual basis and implemented over a longer period of time toward stated goals. The City has recently developed and published its first stormwater brochure as part of this stormwater planning study. Recommendations The City should: · Develop a long-term public education/awareness program with the input from the City's stormwater advisory committee. · Annually fund public awareness activities related to sto,mwater and water qu2]ity. Element #B6 (S W1.5) Coordinate the City's stormwater program with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, where appropriate. Assessment Generally, the City has complied with the planning aspects of this requirement, as described in the Ecology's Guidance Manual. Port Angeles has coordinated regionally on water resources management issues and has established an approved Growth Management (GMA) Plan. Effective implementation of the GMA Plan will require annual funding and the continued dedication of staff resources. Regulatory Compliance 6-14 Recommendation The City should: · Appropriately fund, staff and implement the elements of the City's Comprehensive PlAn and the Port Angeles Watershed Plan that relate to stormwater management and water quality enhancement. · Continue regional coord;~ation with the County to ;mplement its Growth Management Plan and this Stormwater Management Plan. The use of common drainage design standards for new development would be particularly beneficial to both the City and the County. Element #B7 (SW 1.6) Ecology will monitor the status of the City's stormwater program every two years. The City should internally monitor the effectiveness of its stormwater program and the schedule needed to achieve and complete regulatory compliance. Assessment The City has considerable local flexibility to identify, prioritize and resolve site-specific sto~-~water problems in accordance with City land uses and polices. Ecology's role is to be only one of "oversight' to insure consistent and adequate implementation. Historically, the City has never needed to access its stormwater program from the perspective of regulatory compliance. Recommendations The City should: · Establish an internal monitoring process to assess and report on the status of regulatory compliance and the overall effectiveness of the City's stormwater program. Report to Ecology on a regular basis to document progress and to update the schedule for achieving complete regulatory compliance. · Adopt and fund a comprehensive, City-wide stormwater management plan. Regulatory Compliance 6-15 Element #B8 ($W 1.7) ~, The City should provide local enforcement of its stormwater controls. Assessment The City may have the legal authority for in.~pection and enforcement of its various drainage related ordinances, but has not historically been very active in this area of stormwater management due to resource and funding limitations. The City should review its legal authority for inspections and enforcement and enhance enforcement activities as resources allow. Recommendations The City should: · Enhance the City's existing inspection/enforcement procedures. · Review existing ordinances to ensure the City has appropriate legal authority and rights of access for effective inspection of stormwater facilities and enforcement of non-compliance. · Elevate the priority of enforcement in order to ensure adequate annual funding and staffing. 6.4.5 Summary and Conclusions Regarding the City's Compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program Because the January 1, 1995, due date was to pass before the City would have an opportunity to comply with all of the required elements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program, the City of Port Angeles wrote a "Letter of Compliance' to Ms. Nancy McKay, Executive Director of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA), describing the City's existing Stormwater Program and presenting a proposed schedule for full compliance. This letter was written by the City and sent to the PSWQA on December 30, 1994. This letter demonstrates the City's intent of making a 'good faith' effort to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Program. The letter should also help reduce or eliminate any future penalties, enforcement actions, or legal challenges. A copy of this letter to the PSWQA is presented in Exhibit 6-1. A number of activities will need to be undertaken by the staff of Public Works to ensure future compliance with the State's Basic Stor~water Program including: Regulatory Compliance 6-16 " CITY OF PORT ANGEL~ C'~ of'Pon .4~setes Exhibit 6-1 City of Port Angeles "Letter of Compliance" to the Washington State Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Regulatory Compliance 6-17 · Review and rewriting of the City's stormwater ordinance to ensure compliance with Ecology's model stormwater ordinance. (Recommendation R1) (Completed as part of this study. See Appendi~ IV-H of Technical Appendix Volt,me IV-1.) · Review and rewriting of the City's sto~-,,,water maintenance ordinance to ensure compliance with Ecology's model maintenance ordinance. (Recommendation R2) (Completed as part of this study. See Appendi~ IV-I of Technical Append~ Volt,me IV-1.) · Enhancement of the maintenance program, including increased annual staffing and funding; the development of an annual maintenance management plan, biannual inventory of public ~nd private drainage facilities, improved maintenance field data and record keeping, and the enforcement of the annual maintenance of private facilities. (Recommendation R3) · Review of City drainage design criteria ~nd adoption of the Ecology design manual. (Recommendation R4) · Development and implementation of a public long-te~m awareness/education program. (Recommendation R5) · Continued regional GMA coordination with the County and other agencies. (Recommendation R6) · Enhancement of appropriate inspection and enforcement procedures for sto~-mwater facilities. (Recommendation R7). · Continued efforts to secure adequate staffing and funding for the program and regularly monitoring the program's effectiveness and status in achieving all aspects of regulatory compliance. (Recommendation R8) Because these activities were to have been completed by January 1, 1995, the City should make every effort to complete as many of these as practicable within the next I to 2 years. The cost for the City to be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater ProgrAm has been included in the short-term enhancements of the City's Stormwater ProgrAm presented in Section 7. If the short-term recommendations to enhance the City's Sto~mwater ProgrAm are adopted, as presented in Section 7, no additional staff and few additional costs will be needed in order for the City to comply with the various requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Management Plan. Regulatory Compliance 6-18 6.4.6 Preliminary Assessment of Compliance with the State's ' Comprehensive Stormwater Program Compliance with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan is not required at this time. If it were required the City would need to become much more knowledgeable about the sources of pollution within the City and take corrective actions to reduce and]or eliminate these sources. Oenerally, the City would have a lot of future activities to perform, data to collect, and knowledge of their land use and drainage system to acquire before it would be in compliance with these regulations. The City can expect the requirements of the Comprehensive Stormwater Program, or similar requirements, to be written into any NPDES stormwater permit which may be initiated by Ecology at some time in the future. Each of the nine future requirements (#C1-~C9) of the Comprehensive Plan are listed below. The City is well on the way to complying with a number of these regulations. Typical activities, that may be expected or required to be undertaken as part of a future compliance process, are listed below under each of the nine requirements. Progress that the City has made on each requirement has been indicated and possible future needed activities are listed. Element #Cl Identification and ranking of pollutant sources and their relationship to the drainage system. Assessment The City has very little information about the quality of its stormwater runoff or the sources of the pollutants within the City's runoff. Recommendations The City should: · Fund and conduct Drainage Basin Assessments within each of its major urban drainage basins. · Use the results from the Drainage Basin Assessments to develop effective source control programs for each basin. · Conduct limited monitoring to correlate pollutants with their respective sources, estimate loadings and develop effective control programs. Regulatory Compliance 6-19 Element #C2 Investigations and corrective actions of problem storm drains. Assessment The City has begun to comply .with this requirement. Major problem areas are known; however, little effort to date has been made to take corrective actions. Additional data and efforts may be needed on identifying and reducing illicit connections. Recommendations The City should: · Update prior smoke testing in older commercial areas where not previously tested to identify illicit connections, where practicable, and · Begin to take corrective action by identifying major sources of urban pollution within problem drainages and developing pollution control plans, as needed. Element #C3 Water Quality Response Program to investigate sources of pollutants and spills. Assessment The City presently has little emergency response capabilities or training. Maintenance sta~ currently respond to incidences, as time allows. The fire department is the primary response unit for the City at this time. The Port of Port Angeles, major industries along the waterfront, and the major boat marinas should also have effective spill and emergency response programs. Recommendation The City should: · Review its need for a response program, evaluate its alternatives, and develop a short- and long-term plan to provide emergency response services. Coordinate as needed with the Port of Port Angeles, major businesses and marina operators. · In the short-term, the City may wish to assign the maintenance crew some of the responsibility and authority for water quality response and provide them the appropriate funding, equipment, supplies, and training. Regulatory Compliance 6-20 '- · In the long-term, ~n increase in laborer sta~ng to as much as an additional 0.5 FTE may be needed to prepare for, train staff, and coordinate with local businesses. Element #C4 Assurance of adequate local funding for the stormwater program through the formation of surface water utilities, sewer charges, fees, and other revenue generating sources. Assessment The City does not have assured, adequate local funding for its stormwater program. On the expenditure side, the Public Works Department currently (1995) spends $290,000 for staff and operations; $235,000 for maintenance; $55,000 on operations. There is no funding available for capital improvements. All revenues are annually allocated from the Street Fund and the City's General Fund. The City does not have a sto~'mwater utility. In 1996, expenditures are proposed to be $650,000 with $145,000, $330,000 and $175,000 allocated for operations, maintenance, and capital projects, respectively. In general, even though some annual revenue sources have been established, the program is underfunded and future efforts need to be focused on increasing existing sources of revenue and acquiring new sources. It would be of considerable help to the program if a stormwater utility fee could be established from $4 to $6 a month in the future, and outside bonding could be secured for capital projects. Additional revenues from developer fees and inspection fees could be established to pay for the true cost of services and a maintenance inspection fee established for private facilities. Each of these types of stormwater program funding will likely be needed at some time in the future. Recommendations The City should: · Explore and evaluate revenue options and alternatives on an annual basis. · Implement new or increase existing funding options within the next 1-2 years. Element #C5 Local coordination arrangements, such as interlocal agreements, joint programs, consistent standards, and/or regional boards or committees. Regulatory Compliance 6-21 Assessment The City has begun to comply with the intent of this future requirement. The close working relationship the City has begun to establish with Clallam County will help the City's water resources programs in the future. Many opportunities will present themselves if the region and its local governments are issued NPDES stormwater permit(s) and local agencies begin to implement the Port Angeles ~Vatershed Plan. Recommendations The City should: · Continue to work cooperatively in protecting and managing the region's water resources, building upon established cooperative working relationships. · Identify and secure additional funding for the water resources program, so the City can continue to be an active regional player and not "lose out" on future cooperative, cost-effective opportunities. Element #C6 An ongoing stormwater public education program aimed at residents, businesses, and industries in the urban area. Assessment The City will need to develop an ongoing public awareness program for the citizens of Port Angeles. Elements of this program should be specifically tailored, as required above, to residents, businesses, and industries. The City has done a good job to date in informing and involving the public; however, similar to the technical aspects of the program, the public education effort needs to be much more focused to address and eliminate specific sources and classes of pollutants. Recommendations The City should: · Develop an ongoing, dedicated public awareness effort, as discussed in the Basic Stormwater requirements. · Annually support and fund elements of this long-term public education program. Regulatory Compliance 6-22 Element #C7 Inspection, compliance, and enforcement measures for stormwater facility inspections, elimination of illicit connections and investigation verification of corrective actions. Assessment Of all the stormwater activities currently provided by the City, little effort has been able to be placed upon inspection, compliance, and enforcement. This is one area of the overall stormwater program that will need to be enhanced to have an effective management program. Fortunately for the City, many of these activities can be set up to be fee supported. Although, perhaps initially challenging to develop, a good inspection/enforcement progr2m will Almost immediately pay for itself in terms of reduced maintenance and public complaints, and overall improved drainage system performance. In the long-term, inspection/enforcement programs will more than pay for their initial start-up and annual operating costs. Recommendations The City should: · Enhance the inspection of new public and private drainage facilities. · Establish a self-supporting fee system for the maintenance/inspection of private stormwater facilities and for the inspection/enforcement of the construction of new drainage facilities. · Support and annually fund stormwater inspection/enforcement activities and initiatives. Note: A system of inspection/enforcement should be initially established for the maintenance of drainage facilities on private property, as required in the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Element #C8 An implementation schedule delineating the phasing-in of required Comprehensive Storrnwater Program elements over a ten-year period from the starting date assigned by Ecology. (Note: According to the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, full compliance with the Comprehensive Stormwater Plan is expected by the year 2000 for larger urban municipalities.) Regulatory Compliance 6-23 Assessment stor,~water pro~ects. '~'~e development of ~T~ overs~ stormwater program sched~e shoed be pe~ormed as p~-'t of the annu~ b~dget process. "~'~e an~ys~/repo~ co~d be modi~ed by st~ff to become the City's ~t Ten Recommendstions · Establish a long-term Stormwater/Water Resources Master Plan beginning in 1996 along with the creation of the 1996 budget. · Update and fund the elements and activities of the Stormwater Master Plan annually, as needed to comply with regulatory requirements and address local drainage problems/issues. Element #C9 If after implementing the eight Comprehensive Storrnwater Program elements listed above, there are still discharges that cause significant environmental problems, retrofitting of existing development and/or treatment of discharges from new and existing development may be required. Assessment The Comprehensive Stormwater Plan states that retrofitting of existing facilities may be required if significant environmental problems persist. At this point in time, it is difficult to assess if this requirement will ever apply to the City, or even if an NPDES permit will ever be required. Drainage Basin Assessments and the development of source control progrsms have been recommended to reduce or possibly eliminate the need to retrofit any existing facilities in order to enhance water quality. Because of the expense, Ecology sees the retrofitting option as a last alternative. It is likely, that if the City is conscientious about implementing the other requirements of the Basic Plan and, when applicable, the NPDES permit and Comprehensive Plan, that retrofitting of existing facilities may not ever be required. Regulatory Compliance 6-24 Recommendation The City should: · Continue to develop and fund the Stormwater ProgrAm, as needed, in order to reduce local drainage problems and property drainage, protect and enhance the natural drainage system, achieve compliance with the requirements of the State's Basic Sto~mwater ProgrAm and prepare for possible future I~rPDES stormwater permits. Conclusion Regarding Compliance with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan The City is beginning to establish a sound, well run water resources management progr~r~, as implemented on an annual basis by the Public Works Department. The City will, however, need to make an additional commitment to stormwater management over the next I to 2 years in order to continue to comp]y with the State's Basic Stormwater Plan. Adoption of additional initiatives, as would be required for compliance with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan and possible future stormwater NPDES permit, are not needed at this time and may never be needed by the City. The City has already made a good start on completing many of the requirements of the Basic Stormwater Plan. Some new additional activities will need to be undertaken in the future to fully meet these requirements. Undertaking these new initiatives will not be difficult, but will require adequate staffing and funding on an annual basis. Costs for compliance with these requirements have been included in the staffing and funding estimates for the stormwater program presented in the next section. 6.4.7 Detailed Review and Analysis of the Status of the City's Stormwater Program and Activities Needed for Compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program Following the above initial assessment of the various state and federal regulatory compliance requirements for stormwater management, a more detailed analysis of what was specifically needed for full compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program was initiated. The results of this analysis, entitled Regulatory Overview of the City's Existing Stormwater Management Program, is presented in Appendix IV-F of Technical Appendix Volume IV-i. This document lists what is required, what the City has accomplished to date, what remains for the City to complete and when the remaining activities are scheduled to be completed. Regulatory Compliance 6-25 RegulaWry Compliance Activities Performed in this Study Ordinances and Legal Authority Doc~ments needed by the City to be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program, as described above and in Section 6.4.1, were developed as part of this effort. They included: ® The review, comparison and rewriting of the City's existing stormwater ordinance. A new draft ordinance, presented in Appendix IV-H of Technical Appendix Volt, me IV-l, allows the City to achieve "equivalency" with the Ecology model stormwater ordinance. · The review of existing City ordinances and writing of the City's first draft stormwater maintenance orrl~nance that achieves "equivalency" with the Ecology model maintenance ordinance. The draft maintenance ordinance is presented in Appendix IV-I of Technical Appendix Volume IV-1. Design Criteria for New Development and Redevelopment As part of the review of the City's stormwater design criteria, an engineering analysis was undertaken in order to determine the technical equivalency of the City's design criteria. The City's design criteria were compared with the design criteria presented in the State's Stormwater Technical Manuals. This analysis concluded that, although there were some similarities within certain areas between the two sets of criteria, there were enough major deficiencies within the City's existing criteria, that the Ecology's technical criteria, as described in the Ecology model stormwater ordinance and the Ecology Technical Manuals, should be adopted verbatim by the City. This analysis is presented in the form of a technical memorandum in Appendix IV-G. Other Regulatory Compliance Documents The following doc~ments, including the above three documents, were prepared as part of this detailed regulatory compliance analysis and are presented in Technical Appendix Volt,me IVol, entitled Regulatory Compliance. · Appendix IV-A Summary of the General Provisions for the Formation of Local Stormwater Programs, from Vol~]me I, 1992 Ecology Manual, pp. 32-46. · Appendi~ IV-B--S~mmary of Requirements for the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Regulatory Compliance 6-26 · Appendix IV-C--Draf~ Letter and Outline for a ~Letter of Regulatory Compliance" to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. · Appendix IV-D--Guidance to the City for writing the City's "Letter of Compliance~. · Appendix IV-E--Port ~ Angeles Stormwater Plan: Technical Requirements for Stormwater M~agement, 10-11-94. · Appendix IV-F--Overview of the City's Stormwater Management Program in Regard to Compliance with the State's Basic Sto,-,,,water Progr-m. · Appendix IV-G--Engineering Analysis of the City's existing stormwater design criteria and a comparison of the City's criteria to those required by the State's Basic Stormwater Program. · Appendix IV-H~Proposed enhanced stormwater ordinance for the City, equivalent with the Ecology Model Stormwater Ordinance. · Appendix IV-I--New proposed stormwater maintenance ordinance for the City, equivalent with the Ecology Model Maintenance Ordinance. · Appendix IV-J1--Listing of Watershed Enhancement Activities presented in the 1995 Port Angeles Watershed Plan. · Appendix IV-J2---Letter of Concurrence from City of Port Angeles to Clall~m County regarding Adoption of Port Angeles Watershed Plan, April 28, 1995. · Appendix IV-K--Memorand-m to Clall~m County for the Port Angeles Watershed Plan "Overview of the City of Port Angeles Stormwater Program', 1993. Additional documents that were used as a reference document for the above regulatory analysis are also presented in Technical Appendix Volume IV-2 and include: · Appendix IV-L---Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program, 1994, Stormwater Program Elements, SW-1 through SW-7. (Including 1994 amendments to the 1991 PSWQM Plan.) · Appendix IV-M--Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Volumes 1 and 2, pp. 17-24, Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992. (Including description of Local Stormwater Programs.) · Appendix IV-N~Letter dated 5-19-94 from Ecology, Water Quality Program, Puget Sound Stormwater Program, "Answers to Some Commonly Asked Questi0nsf (Including documents entitled, Regulatory Compliance 6-27 'Guidance for Local Governments when Submitted, Manuals and Associated Ordinances for Equivalency Review".) · Appendix IV-OgLetter dated 7-19-93 from Dr. P. Birch of Ecology's Water Quality ProgrAm to M. J. Elekes of the City of Lynnwood regarding Compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. · Appendix IV-PgEcology's Model Stormwater Management Ordinance, 1992. · Appendix IV-Q~Ecology's Model Stormwater Maintenance Ordinance, 1992. 6.4.8 Regional and Local Stormwater Requirements At the regional and local level, the stormwater requirements that need to be addressed by the City are described in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Implementation of these regional requirements is to be based upon available local funding and is to be done in a coordinated manner with the County and other local agencies. These plans have been adopted by the Port Angeles City Council through letters of concurrence to Clall~m County, as shown in Appendix IV-J2 of Technical Appendix Volume IV-I. In the letter to the City dated January 11, 1995, Clallam County outlined a listing of over 90 discrete activities that needed to be accomplished to successfully implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Of the activities listed, about 43 of the watershed improvements involved the direct participation of the City and another 44 involved the City's support. Twelve of the 43 involving the City are to be implemented solely by the City. These watershed enhancement activities are presented in Appendix IV-J1 of Technical Appendix Volt,me IV-I. The twelve implementation activities in which the City is the lead agency include: · #1~Manage Port Angeles Harbor · #2~Identify pollution problems in the harbor and take corrective action, as needed. · #3~Establish urban wildlife programs. · #~. Conduct studies to characterize marine contamination problems and their sources. · #5 Construct development-such that the City's natural drainage system is protected. Regulatory Compliance 6-28 ® #6---Eliminate ~l! on-site wastewater system within the City. · #7--Develop and implement a commercial source control program. · #8--Manage urban stream corridors as "greenways'. · #9--Monitor, identify sources and eliminate stormwater inputs. · #10~Revegetate urban riparian corridors and buffers. · #11--Replace culverts in urban areas to allow fish passage. · #12--Educate and involve the local commxmity in preserving enhancing each of the City's major urban stresms. There is a significant correlation between having an effective, well-run stormwater management program and the ability of the City to implement its responsibilities for local and regional stormwater management, as described in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Presented below in Table 6-2 is a matrix of the various elements of the City's new sto~-mwater progrsm with the 43 different watershed actions to be led by or participated in by the City of Port Angeles. Table 6-2 City's Local and Regional Stormwater Responsibilities, as Defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan Element of the City's City's Stormwater Responsibilities: New Stormwater Management Recommended Activities of the Port Program Angeles Watershed Plan 1. Management PF22, IMP9, NE1, UR9 2. Capital Improvements PFll, UR20 3. Maintenance PF13, PF15, PF17, PF16 4. Development Review PF9, PF14, PF16, NE1, UR8, UR11, PF2, PF10, PF13, PF17 5. Inspection/Enforcement PF17, PF18, PF19, NE1, UR8, UR9 6. Basin Planning NE6, NE7, NE19, IMP7, PF1, PF2, PF12, ED10, NE2 7. Groundwater NE1 8. Water Quality, Streams and Habitat PF1, FP2, PF3, PF7, PF10, NE7, NE10, NE17, NE17, NE23, UR10, UR11, UR15, G7, M8, UR19, PF4, NE2, NE6, NE19, UR8 9. Engineering Support None Listed 10. Complaint Response PF5 11. Regional Coordination NE2, IMP1, PF12, ED10, NE8 12. PubLic Education PF7, PF12, ED7, ED8, ED10, NE5, PIE19, PIE25, PIE27, UR10, G5, G6 13. Regulatory Compliance PF22 Regulatory Compliance 6-29 6.4.9 Recommended Approach to Achieve State, Federal, and Regional Regulatory Compliance It is recommended that the City respond to the regulatory requirements for the sto~-,,,water in four phases. The first phase (Phase I) should occur over the next 1-2 years and address the requirements of the State's Basic Sto~-n~water Program, as described in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality M~agement Plan. The second phase (Phase H) of compliance should occur over the next i to 5 years and address the substantial local drainage needs of' the Port Angeles area, including adopting this Stormwater Management Plan, adopting needed ordinances and design criteria, securing operating program funding and financing the capital improvement program. This second phase will allow the City to meet many of the requirements of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and prepare the City to work with Ecology in the future on Phase I of a federal stor-,water NPDES permit. Phase IH allows the City to comply with the various responsibilities it has to implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The various recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan are very similar and in many cases, identical to the State's Basic or Comprehensive Stormwater Program regulatory requirements. These regional stormwater requirements should be incorporated into the above Phase I and Phase II activities listed above. No special or separate program is recommended at this time to accelerate compliance with the regional sto~-,,,water recommendations listed in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Unless an NPDES permit is issued to the City or the greater Port Angeles urban area, Phase IV of the recommended regulatory compliance program may never be needed. The City was to be in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program by January 1, 1995. This schedule allows the city to achieve compliance by January 1, 1998, as shown in Table 6-3. Regulatory Compliance 6-30 Regulatory Compliance 6-31 Section 7 Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7.1 Background The responsibilities of the City's Stormwater Program have expanded continuously over the last ten years. Formed initially to respond to local drainage problems, the City has been an active participant in regional watershed planning with the County, the Conservation District, the local Public Health Authority, and other agencies. As the impacts of urbanization have increased, so have the region~ and state regulatory requirements. Most recently, the critical interrelationships between sto~mwater, groundwater, and water supply are beginning to be realized in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, and the City's recent work on the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan and CSO Reduction Plan. These studies are requiring the City to take a comprehensive look at all of the City's wastewater and water resource programs. The purpose of this section is to review the City's present Stormwater program and present a management analysis of the City's programmatic stormwater obligations in order to define responsibilities, set priorities, and allocate available resources. It also identifies what resources the City needs in order to meet State and regulatory compliance requirements presented in the preceding section. 7.2 Overview of the Programmatic Analysis Process The following programmatic analysis of the City's Stormwater Program has been divided into three parts: assessment, analysis, and recommendations. The first part includes an assessment of the function and role of the various activities within an effective Sto~,,,water Program. An analysis is provided in the second part that reviews the existing program and staffing levels, presents regulatory and planning issues, and comments on management and financial alternatives. Recommendations are provided where needed within the third part to enhance staffing and/or funding within each of the major responsibilities of the City's Stormwater Program. From a programmatic perspective, the operation of the City's Sto~-,-water Program involves at least thirteen different activities as listed below. 1. Management and Technical Direction 2. Basin and Watershed Planning 3. Capital Improvements Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-1 4. M~intenance 5. Development Review 6. Engineering Support to Other City Progr~m.~ - 7. Water Quality, Wetlands, and Habitat Protection 8. Groundwater and Wellhead Protection 9. Inspection and Enforcement 10. Complaint and Emergency Response 11. Public Education ~nd Involvement 12. Regional Coordination 13. Regulatory Compliance Each of these elements within the City's existing Stormwater Program are discussed below. 7.3 Programmatic Analysis 7.3.1Element No. l tManagement and Technical Direction of the City's Stormwater Program Assessment. Any City program must have direction and administrative support if it is to accomplish its assigned responsibilities. This is especially true of today's stormwater and water resource progrsms. The City's Stormwater Progrsm is responsible for managing the City's stormwater, initiating water quality protection activities and integrating their common planning, capital, and maintenance responsibilities. All three of these functions are closely related. Their coordination within a common management structure is both logical and efficient. Program Management and Technical Direction also includes such activities as: · Development of the annual capital and operating budgets · Assessment of workload and staffing levels and assignments · Development of needed ordinances, policies, and design standards for new development · Overseeing inspection and enforcement activities and proceedings · Overseeing regulatory compliance and permit negotiations · Identifying and securing needed funding, including grants, loans, developer fees, bonds, and utility service fees Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-2 · Setting priorities and defining performance standards (design, permit review, O&M, etc.) for the Progr-m Directing regional coordination with other agencies · Providing inter-departmental coordination and technical assistance within the City for roads, water, sewer, water resources, and land use · Developing programs and management practices to protect the City's water resources · Developing and leading public education and involvement programs · Reviewing regulatory compliance Analysis. Management of the City's existing program is a shared responsibility between the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Day-to- day supervision and technical direction is provided by the City Engineer who also supervises the Engineering and Permitting Division. The current level of staffing is estimated to be about 200 hours per year: · 150 hours for the City Engineer · 50 hours for the Public Works Director Required for Regulatory Compliance. The State's Basic Stormwater Program regulations state that the City have an established, well run, effectively managed and adequately staffed and funded stormwater management program. There is, however, no specific regulatory requirement that the City's Stormwater Progrsm have a program manager. How the Program is managed and directed, and to what level the program is staffed are to be determined by the City. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. There is no specific requirements in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan for the City to increase the management or technical direction of its Stormwater Program. However, recommendations PF22, IMP9, NE1, and UR9 will require the presence of a stormwater manager to implement. (Both the City's Departments of Public Works and Planning have been performing as the lead for the City in developing regional watershed action plans.) Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to manage the City's Stormwater Program. · Maintain existing organizational structure, staffing level, and funding level of about 200 hours per year. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-3 · Increase program management and technical direction on an as-needed basis using existing staff and existing levels of funding, i.e., change internal priorities to "free-up" existing staff, as needed to a level of about 400 hours per year. · Increase staffing as the program grows, this will likely involve securing additional funding. · Use outside contract services to direct the program on an as needed basis. Recommendations Program An increased level of both management and technical direction is needed now and in the near future to implement the City's new Stormwater program and direct regulatory compliance activities. It is recommended that organizationally a stormwater unit be formed in the Engineering Division within Public Works. Implementation of the annual program would still be performed by the two existing divisions (Engineering and Streets) within Public Works. No new stormwater unit is needed in the short term. In the long-term, the formation of a separate stormwater section or division within Public Works may be appropriate. Staffing Level In the Short-term, it is recommended that the existing staffing level be increased to about 400 hours/year for the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The cost of this level of staffing would increase from $6,000 to $12,000 per year, but would not require the hiring of any new staff. Additional labor time would be realized by adjusting priorities and absorbing new stormwater tasks within existing assigned duties. In the long-term, as the program continues to grow, additional staffing may be needed. Adding a half of one full- time position (1,000 hours 0.51FTE) at a cost of $30,000 per year may be needed to manage the stormwater program, especially if a separate Stormwater Unit is formed in Public Works. Management Continue to use existing staff, double their level of effort on Alternative stormwater by reprioritizing their other activities and responsibilities. Begin to identify future internal City resources to develop and support the City's Stormwater Program in the long- term. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-4 Use outside contract services, as needed, until additional internal City resources can be realized. Costs/Funding Costs: Sources Short-term costs will stay the same since no new management staff are being hired and the existing work load of the City Engineer and Public Works Director are being reprioritized. Long-term costs will increase to $30,000 when 0.5 FTE of a full time manager is hired to properly direct the City's new stormwater utility program. (Note: An annual administrative cost of $15,000 is needed in both the short and long term if a Stormwater Utility is formed as payment to the City's' Finance Department for sending out bills and collecting revenues.) Funding Sources: New funding source(s) will likely be needed in the future such as creating a stormwater utility and/or increasing annual appropriations from the City's Street Fund or General Funds. Legal The City has the needed legal authority to manage and Authority direct its Sto.-,,,water Progr~ra. No new legal authority is required. 7.3.2 Element No. 2--Capital Facilities Assessment. Based on years of observing localized flooding and responding to n~raerous localized flooding problems around the City, the capital needs of the City's Stormwater Program have been well defined. (The City's major flooding problems have been presented earlier in Section 4, see Table 4-4.) The list of prioritized CIP projects, presented in Section 4, has been developed to respond to these flooding problems and totals $9,325,000. Short-term (1-5 years) CIP projects total $4,325,000. The top priority short- term projects are listed below and include the following: ® Peabody Creek/Lincoln Street Culvert Rehabilitation $350,000 · Bluff Discharges at 4th and N Streets, P Street, 10th $400,000 Street and McDonald Street · Regional Detention at 10th and N Streets $250,000 · Cronauer Property Acquisition $400,000 Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-5 · Creek Outlet Dredging (T~,mwater, Valley ~_n_d Peabody $150,000 Creeks) · Francis St. Storm Sewer Separation $500,000 · Preliminary Engineering Studies in Critical Drainage $300,000 Areas · Lincoln Street Sewer Separation $500,000 · Lincoln Park Stormwater Interceptor $250,000 A n~mber of smaller capital projects are proposed to be addressed as part of the program's small works program which the City's maintenance crew would perform on an annual basis. These projects are required to enhance, repair, replace, or retrofit segments of the City's existing drainage system, as needed, in order to keep the system functioning properly and at full design capacity. The small works projects list, totaling $250,000 ($25,000 for 10 years annually), is presented below. · Remove Discontinuities in Drainage System ~® Install, Upgrade, Replace, Retrofit Pipes and Culverts $25,000 ® Upgrade RetentionfDetention Systems, as needed annually · Regrade Swales and Ditches · Rehabilitate Culverts Blocking Fish Migrations It is important to realize that many of the City's largest drainage problems are being resolved as part of the City's CSO Reduction Program. It is also important to realize that there is an additional $4-5 million in larger drainage capital improvement projects that are presently unfunded including: · City-wide Catch Basin Modi~cations $1,250,000 · Milwaukee Dr. Sto~,-water Improvements $1,000,000 · CSO Sto~-,,, Projects $1,000,000 · City-wide End of Street Drainages $1,000,000 Analysis. To accomplish the City's Stormwater capital improvement projects (CIP), it is necessary to have staff engineers work with design consultants to design, construct, and inspect new CIP projects. The ~mount of staff effort that will be required is directly related to the number of projects that are undertaken, the timing of construction, and how the projects are funded. Fewer staff are needed if the projects are designed and built over a longer period of time and funded by the City internally. If the City decides to use revenue bonds to fund the CIP program, more staff will be required over a shorter period of time. Much of the staff costs associated with implementing the CIP progrzm can, however, be funded from the CIP budget, whether the CIP funding is from bonds or cash. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-6 Due to the heavy workload of the City's engineering staff, little staff time is presently available to implement the City's capital program. Given the number of capital projects identified for design and construction, the City may want to make some staffing improvements if the City's CIP program is to be constructed within a shorter period of time (i.e., five to ten years). Current Level of Staffing. Existing CIP responsibilities are presently implemented by the City Engineer, and engineers in the Engineering and Permitting Division of Public Works, with the City Engineer providing the technical direction for the projects. Estimated level of staffing is about 1,000 hours per year. Required for Regulatory Compliance. The design and construction of capital projects to reduce flooding or treat stormwater to improve its water quality are not required for compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program. A capital program for drainage, however, is required under the Federal Clean Water Act and the State's water pollution control laws to achieve both national, State, and regional water quality goals. Corrective actions, including the construction and/or retrofitting of capital flood control and water quality projects, are required under the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program and may be incorporated into a future Stormwater NPDES permit which could be issued to the City within the next two to four years. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. The construction of capital facilities by the City is suggested in the recommendations in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan (PAWP) presented earlier in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Applicable recommendations of the PAWP include: PF11 and 4R20. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to address the capital needs of its stormwater program. ® Maintain existing level of staffing by continuing to use the City Engineer and engineers within the Engineering Division, estimated to be about 500 hours per year. · Hire one additional engineer to lead the City's new Stormwater CIP efforts and coordinate the work on the City's Stormwater/CSO sewer separation projects. · Use outside contract resources to design, manage, and build the City's future CIP projects for stormwater, as capital funding becomes available. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-7 Recommendations Program Secure $9.33 M and implement the twenty-five identified stormwater CIP projects over the next ten years, $4.33 M in the short-term (1-5 years) and $5 M in the long-term (5-10 years). Staffing Level Short-term:. Hire an additional half-time senior engineer for an additional 1,000 hours per year (0.5 FTE), bringing the total staffing to 2,000 hours per year, the equivalent of one full-time position. Long-term: No new staff. Maintain short-term staffing level of one dedicated full-time CIP stormwater engineer (2,000 hours/year at a cost of $50,000 per year). Management Continue to use existing staff to direct and oversee Alternatives the implementation of the City's Stormwater CIP program, as capital funding is realized and becomes available. Use new utility revenues and/or grants and debt financing to fund CIP needs. Identify the needed financial resources to build the desired 25 improvement within the next ten years. This will likely involve securing outside bonding and/or grants and loans. Use outside contract services, as-needed, and as funding allows in either the short- or long-term. Costs/Funding Costs: Source Cost is about $$9.33M over the next five to ten years. The small annual capital needs have been estimated to be an additional $25,000 per year. Funding Source(s): Future capital funding sources include revenue or Councilmatic bonds, State Centennial Grants, Current Expense Funds, forming local improvement districts, Public Works Trust Fund and/or partial or total funding from a new City-wide stormwater utility. The staff position could be paid in part from the City's CSO Reduction Progrsm and/or the wastewater utility. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-8 Legal Authority City has the needed authority to design and construct public capital drainage facilities. No new legal authority required. 7.3.3 Element No. 3~Maintenance Assessment. One of the most important elements of surface water management and the protection of groundwater is proper maintenance of the City's drainage system. As urbnnization increases, the vo],~ne of surface water runoff increases, taxing the capacities of both the natural and ma_nmade drainage features and facilities. If these systems are not maintained to allow their operation to be maintained at design capacity, there may be localized flooding and/or little removal of pollutants prior to entering the natural surface or groundwater drainage system. The resulting risks of groundwater contsmination, localized flooding, and receiving water impacts are substantially increased. Generally, constructed stormwater drainage systems require more maintenance than sewer or water facilities. Surface water systems are often more complex in that maintenance of these systems involves not only catch basins, retention ponds, and culverts, but also street and impervious surface cleaning, and ditch and natural drainage system enhancements. Proper stormwater maintenance also includes the annual inspection and maintenance of drainage facilities on both public and private properties. Analysis. The maintenance o£ stormwater facilities within the City is annually performed by the stoz-,,,water maintenance unit within the Street Division. Organizationally, this unit is located within the Street Division of the Public Works Department. In 1995, the Division was provided an annual budget of $235,000, which allowed the cleaning of catch basins and mowing of vegetation in some of the City's major drainage swales. Over the last few years, the City's drainage maintenance program has varied from an annual appropriation of about $100,000 in 1992 and 1993, to $235,000 in 1995. This funding supports the equivalent of about 3.0 FTE or 6,000 hours of t{rne and is provided by a three-person maintenance crew. The direction and day-to- day supervision of drainage maintenance is provided by a lead maintenance worker within the Street Division. Under the City's emerging annual stoz-,,,water maintenance program there are many drainage features that are not being properly maintained. In addition, the City presently has no program to in.~pect or enforce the maintenance of sto,-,,,water facilities on private property. Maintenance activities that are currently being performed at a reduced level include: Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-9 ® Catch basins cleaning · Ditches-vegetation, debris, and sediment removal · Structural repairs and replacement of older or failing facilities · Ditch, swale, and culvert semi-~nnual inventory and maintenance · Semi-annual inspection and enforcement of the maintenance of private facilities · Development and adequate funding of an annual maintenance management plan · Formal inventory and record keeping processes for new and existing drainage facilities, which are needed for regulatory compliance Other observations of the existing maintenance program include: · Catch Basin Maintenance: The stormwater progrgm needs its own dedicated vactor vehicle. Also, there is sometimes not enough crew to keep the vactor operating on a regular schedule to achieve the frequency of cleaning that is needed. · Street Sweeping Maintenance: The City has a bristle brush sweeper but does not have vacw~m street sweeping equipment. This means that its ability to improve water quality by eliminating small particulates on the surface of the road is limited. Existing "brush~ street sweeping is primarily for safety and aesthetics and does little to improve water quality. · Facility Inventory, Maps, Records: The City's stormwater maps and inventory of facilities need to be expanded and updated. Facility base maps were developed as part of this planning effort, however, additional site specific field and performance data is needed. This site-specific field data is particularly important to the maintenance activity, since many of the facilities were installed a long time ago and are difficult to find and/or be maintained in order to function properly. Documenting pipe and ditch sizes, locations, and slopes will also assist the City in identifying and removing the many drainage ~discontinuities' that presently exist within the City's drainage system. (These maintenance improvements are needed for the City to be in compliance with Ecology's Basic Stormwater Progrem requirements.) · Annual Maintenance Plan: There is no preventative maintenance program, except for inspection and cleaning of catch basins, ditches and major culverts. An annual or biannual field inspection of all O/M facilities is needed to develop an annual prioritized O/M management plan. The annual O/M management plan should list prioritized Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-10 activities, as well as staffing, equipment, and funding needs. Available stating is currently insufficient to perform routine preventative maintenance for the City's entire stormwater drainage system. ® Regional Detention Facilities: There are few City-owned on-site or regional detention facilities (five within the study area), however, as development continues, the City will need to develop a policy about the ownership and long-term maintenance responsibilities of such facilities. Although maintenance of future residential systems .could be assigned to Home Owners Associations, the City should always retain the right to properly maintain neglected facilities and bill the owners in order to prevent flooding, water quality, and liability problems, as well as recover costs. · Spills and Emergency Response: The maintenance crew of the City Street Division is presently the primary emergency response team, along with the fire department, for all hazardous material spills or illicit dumping responses which may occur within the City. The crew is also involved in many of the Public Works Department's responses to citizen complaints concerning either ponding, dumping, or water quality problems. Proper education, training, staffing, and equipping of this activity is important to the City's stormwater management and water quality enhancement initiatives. In general, many of the sto~tm drainage maintenance activities of the City are understaffed and under funded at this time. Additional staffing is needed. Stormwater maintenance activities, management, and funding need to be increased over the next one to three years. Current Level of Staffing. Approximately 6,000 hours per year, performed by a 3.0-person maintenance crew, including the maintenance foreman. Required for Regulatory Compliance. There is a regulatory requirement within the State's Basic Stormwater Program to develop and operate an effective maintenance program for all public and private drainage facilities. This will require the City to draft and adopt a new maintenance ordinance and increase the level of staffing and funding of maintenance activities administered by the City's Stormwater Program. An inventory and mapping of existing facilities is required along with a process to keep and update records of all new public and private drainage systems and facilities. Under the State Comprehensive Stormwater Program, and/or future NPDES Stormwater Permit, additional maintenance related activities, such as monitoring, eliminating illicit connections, spill response, illegal hookups, dumping, and enforcement may also be required to be assumed by the City. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-1i Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. The funding and operation of an effective stormwater maintenance progr-m by the City is suggested in the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan (PAWP). PAWP recommendations include PF13, PF15, PF17, and PF16. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to enhance the performance of its stormwater maintenance unit. · Continue with the present drainage maintenance program, level of staffing, maintenance activities, priorities, level of funtling, and funding sources. · Adopt a new maintenance ordinance for drainage facilities and staff up internally by hiring one additional laborer in the short-term, within the Street Division, to perform an expanded maintenance program. Secure additional financial and staff resources, as needed, over a three to five year period of time by hiring up to 2.0 additional FTE to support the long-term needs of the program. · Adopt a new maintenance ordinance and contract out the management and maintenance activities to an outside contract services firm. Recommendations Program Enhance the City's present stormwater maintenance and activities to meet the immediate, short-te~-m needs of the City and address the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Later, in the long-term, expand the program as needed for regulatory compliance with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program and/or NPDES pet Staffing Level Short-term: Hire one full-time stormwater maintenance laborer for a total of 4.0 FTE. Long-term: Hire two additional full-time stormwater maintenance laborers (or more), as defined in future annual work plans for a total of 6.0 FTE. Management Adopt a new maintenance ordinance, hire one new Alternative full time staff, secure needed funding from the City's Street Fund or new stormwater utility, and comply with the maintenance requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-12 Costs/Funding Costs: Source Short-term: Estimated to be about $330,000 per year, $170,000 for staff and $160,000 for equipment. Long-term: Estimated to be an additional $500,000 per year, $250,000 for staff and $250,000 for equipment. Funding Source(s): New funding fi.om a City-wide stormwater utility, or another adequate new revenue source, is needed for maintenance. Alternatively, appropriations fi.om the Street Fund could be increased for enhancing annual maintenance and constructing smaller capital projects. (Local improvement district revenues are also a possibility. Grants, loans, and bonds are usually not viable options to fund maintenance programs.) Legal Authority The City does not have the required legal authority to properly conduct and enforce its annual maintenance program on private facilities. It also does not have all the accesses and rights-of-entry to inspect all of the City's drainage facilities. The City needs to write a maintenance ordinance for public and private facilities, which includes enforcement, semi-annual inspections, and cost recovery provisions. It needs to be equivalent to the Ecology "model" maintenance ordinance. (A new draf~ ordinance for maintenance is presented in Appendix IV-I of Technical Appendix Volume IV-l; the Ecology model maintenance ordinance is presented in Appendix IV-P of Technical Appendix Volume IV-2.) 7.3.4 Element No. ~. Development Review Assessment. Development review is one of the most critical functions of any municipal stormwater program because through the development review process future flooding, drainage, maintenance, water quality, and environmental problems may be reduced or even eliminated. This function must be done properly by the City. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-13 There is the concern that if new drainage facilities are undersized, do not address water quality, or do not work properly, the City may have to rebuild or incur the costs of increased maintenance when these new drainage facilities are accepted by the City for ownership and long-term maintenance. It is important that the developer construct these new facilities correctly to keep City maintenance and retrofit costs to a minimum. In the City of Port Angeles, the regulation of new development is the joint responsibility of the City's Planning and Public Works Departments. Most of the drainage reviews required for new developments are performed by the Engineering Division within the Public Works Department. Because many new developments in the City are single lot commercial or residential projects, it is important that single lot developments and redevelopments have adequate drainage and water quality controls. Analysis. The Public Works Department routinely reviews all drainage plans for the City. The drainage plans are usually sent to the City Engineer within Public Works for technical review. Technical reviews are performed as time allows. The City adopted drainage design standards in 1993 via the adoption of its Public Works Operations Manual. The City should refine this existing ordinance and adopt the Ecology Technical Manual through a new sto,-~uwater management ordinance. There are three issues involved with the City's development review activity: 1. Legal authority 2. Development standards for drainage facilities 3. Funding The City has little choice in the first two issues. The City is required to write and adopt new local drainage ordinances and accept the needed legal authority to review and approve drainage facilities for new development and re-development within the City. The City was also required, in the State's Basic Sto.~niwater Program, to adopt the Ecology Technical Manual, or equivalent drainage design criteria, for new development by January 1, 1995. How the City chooses to staff and fund the development review functions in order to meet the above two requirements is for the City to determine. To be done properly, trained drainage engineers must be able to spend the time necessary to review and approve effective drainage plans. To do this, the activity must be adequately staffed and funded. Development review is one of the few City functions that can and should be entirely fee supported by charging developers for the time it takes City staff to review and approve their drainage plans. The City currently subsidizes the drainage review process from the City's General Fund and/or Street Fund. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-14 One option that many Puget Sound municipalities have successfully implemented is to hire outside drainage consultants on an Ss-needed basis under an open, annual contract. This works very well because there are many drainage consultants that have the required technical expertise and first-hand development experience to interpret and apply the City's drainage design criteria and related environmental policies. This process requires little administrative work on the part of the City, other than billing for the time incurred by the consultant to review and approve the plans. Even City staff administrative time may be billed to the developer so the City incurs no net costs. Current Level Staffing. Estimated to be 400 hours (0.20 FTE) per year and provided on an as-needed basis by the City Engineer and engineers within the Engineering and Permitting Division of the Public Works Department. Required for Regulatory Compliance. The requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program do not specifically stipulate how the local agency is to properly conduct development review. However, it is a specified requirement of the State's Basic Stormwater Program that the City "control the quality of water" from all new development and re-development by: ® Adopting the Ecology Technical Manual by January 1, 1995, or as soon thereafter as is practicable for the local agency. ® Enhancing and adopting local drainage ordinances for all new development and re-development to address: · The control of off-site water quality · The use of BMPs for water quality · The effective treatment of the water quality design storm · The use of infiltration, where and if appropriate · The protection of stream channels and wetlands · The prevention of erosion and the control of sedimentation Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. The adoption of effective design standards and the proper review of the drainage plans for new developments by the City is suggested in the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and the City's new Comprehensive Plan. Applicable recommendations of the PAWP include: PF9, PF14, PR16, NE1, UR8, PF2, PF10, PF13 and PF17. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to enhance development review services. ® Maintain the existing level of staffing and funding by continuing to have the City Engineer's office perform plan reviews, as time and priorities Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7.15 '- allow and training this office to be fluent in the technical methodologies and BMP requirements presented in Ecology's Technical Msnual. · Hire one senior drainage engineer to perform reviews internally for Public Works. This position could be partially funded by the CSO program or the new proposed stormwater CIP program and the responsibilities for these two s~milar technical functions could be shared. · Contract out the drainage reviews needed for new developments and redevelopments within the City. Recommendations Program Write and adopt new stormwater and drainage design standards as needed in order to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Progrsm. Review the adequacy of the City's 1994 clearing/grading ordinance. The City should comply with this recommendation within the next year. Staffing Level Short-term: Hire the equivalent of an additional 0.2 FTE (adding an additional 400 hours). Hire new staff as the m~mber of new permits requests increases, using developer fees to pay for the increased level of staffing. Long-term: Hire an additional 0.1 FTE for a total of 0.5 FTE to perform development review as permit requests demand. Management Continue to perform permit reviews internally under Alternative the direction of the City Engineer. Continue to use the engineering positions within the Engineering Division of the City Engineer's office for these reviews, as time and priorities allow. Cost/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-Term: Estimated'to be $16,000 for 800 hours annually. Paid annually by the General Fund and/or developer fees. Total staffing level increased to 0.4 FTE from 0.2 FTE. Long-Term: Costs may increase as m~rnber and complexity of permits increases. Estimated to be Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-16 $20,000 annually for 1,000 hours, the equivalent of 0.5 FTE, an increase of an additional 0.1 FTE. Funding Source(s): The City should develop a developer review fee to reimburse the City for all of the expenses related to reviewing and approving the plans of new developments or re-developments. Future plan reviews will take longer and be more complicated due to the adoption of Ecology's Technical Manual. Continuing to use the City General Fund and/or Street Funds are not viable long-term financial options. Legal Authority City has the required legal authority to implement the City's development review process. The City needs its existing drainage ordinance to be revised and upgraded to be consistent with the Ecology model ordinance. A new drai% ordinance has been prepared and presented in Appendix IV-H of Technical Appendix Volume IV-1. The Ecology model ordinance is presented in Appendix IV-O of Technical Appendix Volume IV-2. The City needs to revise its existing drainage design standards to be consistent with the Ecology Technical Manual. Adoption of the Ecology Technical Manuals are recommended. Also, new development controls are recommended in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. The City's existing drainage ordinance will need to be enhanced to include single family developments/ redevelopments and possibly additional erosion and sedimentation controls. 7.3.5 Element No. 5--Inspection and Enforcement Assessment. Inspection and enforcement of development design standards and the protection of the City's sensitive wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, streams, lakes, and floodplains are critical to the protection, preservation, and enhancement of a region's natural drainage features and related resources. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-17 Because the City has the responsibility of providing adequate drainage controls, its import_sbt that all new drainage systems installed by developers are properly designed and built. The City accepts ownership of these public drainage facilities and is responsible for their proper long-term maintenance. Some facilities now and in the future will be maintained by residential home owner's associations. An inspection progrsm of new stormwater facilities ensures that both public and private facilities are properly constructed in the field. It ~1~o ensures that the proper long-term maintenance is provided for the City's private drainage facilities. Analysis. The Public Works Department presently uses about one fifth of a position (0.20 FTE) within the Engineering Division to conduct inspection and enforcement of the City's drainage requirements for new development. About another tenth (0.10 FTE) of a position in the Plsnuing Department is also involved in construction inspection and development review. Inspection of new development is occurring through the City's Public Works Department, however, the inspectors often do not have the time to fully ensure the City's drainage facilities are built and operating according to the proposed plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department. This is of concern to the City for two reasons. First, the City ultimately has the responsibility and liability if the facilities are not operating correctly or are causing localized flooding and water quality problems. Secondly, many of these systems built by developers may be deeded over to the City and taken over for long-term maintenance and repair. (See above discussion in Maintenance Element No. 3.) If not built or maintained properly by the developer, the City may have to retrofit and reconstruct the facilities, or incur a large operating cost in maintaining it "for the developer," in order to bring it up to the City's operating standards. Drainage inspectors have the authority, as defined in City ordinances, to enforce the City's drainage codes by 'red tagging" a site, and halting all construction on the site until the drainage, erosion, or water quality problems have been corrected. The City of Port Angeles also requires maintenance or stormwater cash bonds to be secured by a developer before work begins at a site. In this way if a drainage emergency or other related problem occurs, the City crews can fix it immediately in order to minimize its environmental impacts, and be reimbursed directly by the developer or through the pre- established cash bond. An inspection/enforcement program is normally not needed if developers, businesses, and the public do what they are supposed to do with regard to the design, operation, and maintenance of the City's drainage facilities. However, because this is not always the case, and because the City assumes ownership and the liability of the City's drainage facilities, and because it is Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-I8 required by the State, the City should improve its existing inspection and enforcement program of both private and public drsinage systems. Existing Level of Staffing. Estimated to be 600 hours per year (0.30 FTE), as performed by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Planning Department. Required for Regulatory Compliance. Inspection and enforcement of the City's stormwater and maintensnce ordinances and design criteria are a requirement of both the State's Basic and Comprehensive Stormwater Progrsms. Under the State's Basic Stormwater Program, the City is to: · "Control stormwater quality from all development" (by inspection and approval of all new drainage facilities acquired by the City). · "Maintain all stormwater facilities within the City," both public and private, by "developing and enforcing the proper operation and main- tenance progrs~." Under the Comprehensive Stormwater Program the City is to: · "Investigate and correct problem sto~n drains." · "Investigate sources of pollutants, spill, illegal back-ups and other water quality problems"...'to support compliance and enforcement efforts." · "Investigate and enforce compliance measures for stormwater facility inspections, elimination of illicit connections and investigation/ verification of corrective actions." Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. An inspection/enforcement program is needed by the City to effectively address implementation requirements of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan (PAWP). Applicable PAWP recommendations include: PF19, PF18, PF17, NE1, UR8 and UR9. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to enhance the inspection and enforcement of new construction. · Continue as is, with the existing level of inspection and enforcement in Public Works and Planning. · Have building inspectors and engineers in Public Works receive training as needed to assr]me the drainage enforcement inspection requirements of the City. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-19 · Staff up and train one of the drainage maintenance crew (in the Street Division) to provide inspection and enforcement services. · Have future Stormwater staff assume the enforcement/ inspection function, e.g., the stormwater CIP engineer. · Contract with the County or near-by cities to petrol-,,, inspection and enforcement in a cooperative effort using common design standards. · Contract the work out to engineering consultants. Recommendation Program The City needs to enhance its present inspection/ enforcement program. Staffing Level Short-term: Existing funding and staffing levels should be increased to 800 hours (0.40 FTE) costing about $16,000, and the City's inspection and enforcement procedures and authority should be reviewed and updated as-needed. A proposal should be developed and adopted by the City so that a drainage enforcement/inspection program for new development and existing private drainage facilities is developed that is primarily fee supported. Long-term: The City should develop an inspection enforcement capability with at least one-half of a full-time drainage inspector (1,000 hours, 0.5 FTE, $20,000 per year). Because of the similarity of the technical expertise needed, the position should work in close association with the drainage maintenance crew and may also be used to lead the City's spill response program which may be needed as part of the City's future water quality enhancement program. This position could be shared with the 0.5 FTE recommended for Development Review or the 1.0 FTE recommended for capital improvements. It could also be incorporated into the responsibilities of the Stormwater maintenance crew discussed in Element No. 3. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-20 Management In the short-term the City needs to meet its existing Alternative inspection/enforcement needs by: · Using existing staff within Public Works to improve the review of new construct sites and new drainage facilities, (by increasing total staffing from 400 to 800 hours, 0.20 to 0.40 FTE, per year costing $16,000) and · Improve the existing inspection/enforcement program for private drainage facilities. (This is needed to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Program.) In the long-term, add an additional 0.1 FTE, increasing stsffing to 0.5 FTE for 1,000 hours, and costing $20,000 per year. Add water quality inspection/enforcement expertise as work load increases and responsibilities are defined. (Note: Using outside consultants for inspection/ enforcement of City drainage code is not an effective management option due to legal, logistical, and technical challenges and issues.) Cost/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: Increase staffing by 0.2 FTE to 0.4 FTE, for 800 hours of labor, costing $16,000 per year. Long-term: Increase staffing by 0.1 FTE, to 0.5 FTE for 1,000 hours of labor, costing $20,000 per year. Funding Source(s): General Fund, new developer inspection fees, new permit review fees, and/or new private facility inspection fees. Development related staff positions within the City should be 100 percent fee supported. Legal Authority The City has the authority to inspect new facilities, but does not have the needed legal authority to implement its inspection/enforcement progrsm for existing private drainage facilities. New ordinance language is needed along with rights of entry. Inspection/ Enforcement legal authority could be included in the City's new maintenance ordinance. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-21 7.3.6 Element No. 6--Complaint Response Assessment. Most Northwest cities have found it very important to be responsive to the needs of their citizen clientele, particularly when programs are being publicly funded and require public approval of any new fee increases. Public perception is critical to the long-term success of any stormwater program. Local citizens will judge the effectiveness of the City's Stormwater Program by how ~mely and effectively their complaints are addressed. Most people do not expect their problem to be fixed immediately, but they do expect a professional and timely response to their complaint and a general idea of how and when their local problem will be addressed. Olden these complaints can be used by the City's drainage engineers as an early warning system, alerting them to unresolved, capacity and/or water quality problems. At this time, public complaints are handled on a "case-by-case~ basis. There is a list of drainage complaints that is kept by Public Works. Complaints are carefully tracked, however, the ability of the Department to respond to these complaints in a timely manner is hindered by limited staff resources. Usually the Street drainage maintenance crew are the staff that respond to these inquiries. Analysis. The City's Stormwater Program receives about 40 to 80 drainage- related complaints per year. Each complaint is recorded and a master list is maintained within Public Works. Immediate response by City staff occurs if property damage or public safety is involved. Complaints of lesser priority are responded to as part of the annual maintenance program or may be addressed as regional capital projects are designed and built. Due to the sporadic and seasonal nature of most public complaints, it is difficult to dete~-~nine in advance how many and what types of complaints the City may experience. Because the work load is difficult to define, hiring new staff or dedicating existing staff just to respond to public complaints is difficult to justify. To effectively deal with the sporadic nature of public complaints, the Public Works Department has developed a Consistency Contact and Response System (CCARS). This allows the City to respond to, doc-ment and record any type of request or contact made by the public. All of the City's staff, including inspectors, maintenance staff and engineers are part of the City's comprehensive public response system. This system has been appreciated by many of the local residents because of its rapid response time. It has allowed the City to be particularly responsive to drainage and localized flooding problems. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-22 Current Staffing Level. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year, generally performed by the stormwater maintenance crew or the City Engineer. Required for Regulatory Compliance. There is no specific regulatory requirements to respond to public complaints. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. Complaint response is needed in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan to implement Recommendation PF5. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to address citizen drainage complaints. ® Continue "as is" responding as staff time and situations dictate using the City's highly effective Consistency Contact and Response System. · Add dedicated staff within either Street Division or City Engineer's office to improve response time and service to the public. · Contract with the County and/or adjacent cities to provide this service. · Contract out to consultants. Recommendations Program The City needs to establish and maintain effective complaint response processes by continuing to implement its responsive CCARS program. Staffing Level Short-term: No immediate new staffing is recommended, maintain existing funding and staffing levels. Long-term: This element of the City's stormwater work load should be documented and taken into account when hiring new staff and making future work assignments. Because of its sporadic nature, dedicating staff to respond just to public complaints is not recommended; however, once doc~mented, this work element could account for as much as 1,000 hours, $20,000 per year (0.50 FTE), as the City's Stormwater ProgrAm continues to grow and expand its responsibilities. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-23 M~nagement Tmprove City response to public complaints by: Alternatives · Maintaining existing CCARS processes to doc~ment and respond to public complaints, and · Continue to use existing staff within City Engineer's office, Street Division, and Water Utility to respond to individual complaints based on the type and nature of the complaint. '.. ·No immediate s~g is recommended at this time. Costs/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: No additional staffing or annual expenditures recommended. Long-term: No new staffing or costs recommended. Funding Source(s): Short-term: No new or additional funding needed. Long-ter-,: Future funding could come from a new stormwater utility or an enforcement/inspection system of fees to recover City costs. Legal Authority City has existing legal authority needed to respond to public complaints. No new legal authority required. Clarification of authority and situations dictating entry onto private property would be helpful to City staff participating in the CCARS progr-m. 7.3.7 Element No. 7--Basin and Watershed Planning Assessment - Water Resources Management requires an understanding of the hydrology, hydraulics, water quality, and environmental conditions of each of the major drainage areas within the City. The City drains primarily into two major water bodies, Port Angeles Harbor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which discharge directly into the Puget Sound Basin. The City has been active in developing regional basin plans for these watersheds by: Programmatic Analysis of the City% Existing Storrnwater Program 7-24 · Participating in the development of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan · Coordinating with regional agencies in regard to the m~merous drainage issues associated with growth management · Sponsoring and funding the development of this comprehensive Sto~-,,,water Management Plan for the urban drainage basins within the City. The above three basin planning efforts have completed some of the City's primary stormwater planning responsibilities. These basin plans and special stormwater studies have identified a number of capital and non-structural improvements and source control studies that are needed to improve the major drainages throughout the City. The identified capital improvements have been incorporated into the City's Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), presented in Section 4. The primary planning effort that has yet to be undertaken is a series of Drainage Basin Assessments in the more urbanized areas of the City. These studies will result in the development of source control programs for each basin which are recommended in lieu of the construction of expensive capital treatment facilities to enhance water quality, as discussed earlier in Sections 3 and 4 of this report. These source control programs are needed to enhance the quality of the City's urban runoff and achieve regulatory compliance. These studies would be helpful to the City to identify and rank significant pollutant sources and their relationship to the drainage system and local water bodies. They could also be useful in assessing the effectiveness of the City's existing sto~mwater program. Some future smaller watershed plans may be needed as growth occurs and additional studies in all subbasins will likely be needed from time to time to solve specific problems. There is also the on-going need to update each of these plans on about a 5-year cycle as well as continuously monitor their implementation and effectiveness. Also, more detailed water quality studies within each basin may eventually be needed for the City to comply with future NPDES permits and the requirements of the PSWQA Management Plan. Analysis. Most of the major basin planning for the City has been, or is about to be, completed with the adoption of this Stormwater Management Plan. Some smaller subbasin and catchment areas need to be studied to solve specific existing and future drainage problems. To enhance water quality, a number of Drainage Basin Assessments (11) have been recommended. Depending on the rate of growth within the City, an update to this comprehensive management plan may be needed in about 5-10 years to Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-25 assess the impacts of development and review and reassess drainage and environmental problems and priorities. The most significant problem of the City's present basin/watershed p]~nnlug process relates to funding. Additional funding will be needed to undertake the drainage basin assessments needed to develop source controls and to implement this stormwater plan, as well as the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Current Level of Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year. Current st~ffing is provided by the City's existing staff, including the City Engineer, Public Works Director, and a Senior Plsnner, on an as-needed basis. Required for Regulatory Compliance. Basin planning is not required for compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Management Program. The emphasis of the State's Basic Stormwater Progrsm is on controlling the quality of runoff from new development and properly operating and maintaining existing stormwater facilities. Basin planning, however, is needed to identify and correct sources of stormwater pollution. Basin planning is also required to coordinate the City's Stormwater infrastructure needs with the City's GMA planning processes. Land use policies and infrastructure needs, including drainage, are to be integrated by each public agency as guided by the GMA. It is also possible that the City may be required to perform basin planning as part of a future NPDES Stormwater PeL~nit. Basin planning is required in the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Progrsm. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plan. Basin planning is needed to address recommendation NE6, NE7, NE19, IMP7, PF1, PF2, PF12, ED10, and NE2 within the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is also needed to enhance water quality within the City and establish source control plans to reduce pollutant loadings into local marine receiving waters. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to meet its basic planning needs. · Maintain existing staffing and funding level by continuing to have the basin planning tasks assumed by existing planning and public works staff' within the Public Works and Planning Departments. · Assign basin planning responsibilities to the existing staff of the Engineering Division and fund with revenues from the City's proposed stormwater utility. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-26 '- ® Have the basin planning work incorporated into the existing community planning process which is routinely performed by the Planning Department. ® Require new developments and redevelopments to perform basin planning studies as a condition of their building permit. · Use outside consulta~nts on an as-needed basis to perform basin planning, including updating existing basin plans. Fund through grants, the General Fund, and/or new stormwater utility. Recommendations Program Perform future basin planning only on an as needed basis (i.e., for small drainage projects), updating this comprehensive plan in about 5 years. Conduct Drainage Basin Assessments within the most urban basins and develop source control plans for each basin. Staffing Level Short-term: Maintain the existing level of staffing and funding, no new staff recommended. Fund one drainage basin assessment at a cost of $25,000. Use existing staff within the Planning and Public Works Departments. Long-term: Hire a new staff person in either Planning or Public Works and assign them to staff this activity to a level of 500 hours per year (0.25 FTE) at an annual cost of $11,250. Fund drainage basin assessments at a rate of 2-3 per year and at an annual cost of $100,000 for five years. Management Have the City's Engineering and Planning staff Alternative perform Drainage Basin Assessments and establish source control programs. Consultants can be used as technical advisors to City staff, if needed. Hire consultants on an as-needed basis in the future to develop or update the City's basin and watershed plans. Cost/Funding Costs: Sources Short-tei~m: No new staff expenditures; $25,000 for one drainage basin assessment study. Long-term: Hire 0.25 FTE at a cost of $11,250 per year. Appropriate $100,000 per year for 5 years to conduct drainage basin assessments and establish source Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-27 control progrsms. An additional appropriation of $100,000 to update th/s Stormwater Management Plan within 5-10 years may also be needed. Note: Cost to perform Drainage Basin Assessments and establish Source Control Plans is about $30,000- $50,000 per basin, a total of about $300,00 to $500,000. Funding Sources: New annual funding, possibly from a new stormwater utility, will be needed in the long term to hire staff and conduct and implement drainage basin assessments. New funding sources will not be needed to address future basin planning needs. These infrequent studies can be funded as-needed from the City's Sto~mwater Street Fund or General Fund. Secure grants and/or loans, as needed, to accelerate the source control planning process. Legal Authority The City has the needed legal authority to conduct basin and watershed management. No new legal authority is required, however, entry onto private property for the purposes of wetland mapping, water quality monitoring, etc., would be helpful to City staff. 7.3.8 Element No. 8 Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Assessment. A major emphasis of the City's Stormwater Program should be on groundwater, aquifer, and wellhead protection. This emphasis on groundwater will continue as growth occurs, particularly as the City develops and implements a future Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Plan. The Water Utility will need this expertise to conduct wellhead protection planning and to coordinate regionally for the City on groundwater related issues. The City's groundwater resources under the Elwha River supply drinking water to thousands of citizens within Port Angeles and the adjacent areas within the County. There are shallow aquifers, about 60 feet in depth, that could become contaminated from stormwater infiltration. Much of the City's future groundwater planning work is anticipated to be accomplished through the City's Water Utility through its Wellhead Protection Program. As groundwater and wellhead protection plans are developed and implemented by the City, staffing and program priorities will Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program ?-28 " need to be established as well as the identification of new and additional funding sources. Analysis. The specific role the City needs to assume in regard to groundwater protection both now and in the future is unclear. The City may need to develop a wellhead protection and groundwater management plan in the future to protect the Ci~'s system of water supply aquifers on the east bank of the Elwha River. This will likely be done using an outside consultant and existing staff within the City's Water Utility Division of Public Works. This type and level of staffing seems appropriate to address both current and short-term needs. In the long-term, additional groundwater expertise and protection will likely be needed. This is particularly true if the City Council officially adopts a Wellhead Protection and Groundwater Management Plan in the near future. Because groundwater and wellhead protection involve the monitoring and control of both point and non-point sources of pollution; usually transported via stormwater runoff, it would be appropriate to locate this function within close pro~mity to the City's water quality specialists. In fact, due to their technical similarities, the water quality person within the City could also perform or guide the wellhead protection activities. Based on the discussion below in Element No. 9 regarding water quality, wetlands, and stream habitat expertise, the City may be best served by developing the in-house groundwater protection expertise within the City's Water Utility Division. This same position could also perform surface water quality functions and help the City meet its future stoLmwater regulatory requirements. Funding for this position could be provided by the Water Utility and expanded as needed to meet future enhancements of the City's groundwater protection program. Current Level of Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year, as provided by the Water Utility Division Manager, City Engineer, City Planners and Public Works Director. Required for Regulatory Compliance. Groundwater and wellhead protection " are highly desirable goals for the City to achieve, but they are not specifically required to meet the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater and Comprehensive Programs, however, groundwater management and protection will likely be part of any future stormwater NPDES permit and are recommended in the City's 1995 Comprehensive Water System Plan Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. Groundwater/wellhead expertise would be helpful to the City to address the City's responsibilities Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-29 - listed in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and City's Comprehensive Plan. Applicable PAWP responsibilities includes: NE1. _Management A/ternatives. Listed below are several &ifferent alternative for the City's consideration to provide groundwater protection services: · Continue the existing level of expertise, staffing, and funding within the Water U~!~ty and Engineering Division of Public Works and the planning Department. · Develop groundwater expertise, as needed, within the City's Water Utility Division. · Contract with the County and/or adjacent cities in a regionally cooperative approach. · Contract out to consultants. Recommendations Program Additional groundwater expertise will likely be needed to initiate and implement future Port Angeles Wellhead Protection and Groundwater Management Plans. Staffing Level Short-term: No new stsffing recommended. Continue to use existing staff in Public Works and Planning Departments. Long-term: It is likely that the need for groundwater protection expertise will increase as the groundwater, wellhead, water supply, and conservation plans are developed and implemented. Continued and expanded funding from the Water Utility will be critical to being able to sustain groundwater expertise within the City's Water Utility Division. The future level of staffing for this element is estimated to be about 500 hours (0.25 FTE) and cost $11,250 per year. This 0.25 FTE position should be shared with the 0.25 FTE long-term position recommended in Water Quality, the 0.25 FTE recommended in Streams and Habitat, the 0.25 FTE recommended for basin plsnning and the 0.25 FTE recommended for regional coordination. When existing groundwater plans are adopted and begin to be implemented, another review of staffing and workload levels is recommended. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-30 " Management In the short-term, continue using existing City staff, Alternative other agency staff and outside consultants, as appropriate. In the long term, increase support within Public Works from the Water Utility or the Planning Department to 500 hours per year (0.25 FTE). Begin to develop associated in-house expertise for water qu~llty (0.25 FTE), basin planning (0.25 FTE) and regional coordination (0.25 FTE) within the same staff person located within the City's Water Utility Division or Planning Department. Supplement in-house expertise with outside consultants on an as-needed basis. (No budget has been estimated for these possible future services.) Cost/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: No additional staff recommended. Long-term: Estimated to be an additional $11,250 for 500 hours and an additional 0.25 FTE. Funding Source(s): Water Utility. Other options are General Fund and/or the City's new wastewater-stormwater utility fund. Legal Authority The City has the needed legal authority to implement its groundwater management and planning services. No new legal authority is needed, although a wellhead protection ordinance would help staff in enforcement situations and in regional coordination with the County. The City's authority to enter private property needs to be clarified. 7.3.9 Element No. 9---Water Quality, Streams, and Habitats Assessment. The proper management and protection of surface water involves the use of natural systems. The management and integration of these natural systems goes beyond engineering judgments, and includes such areas of expertise as biology, water chemistry, fisheries, geology, hydrology, and ecology. Viable streams, fisheries, wetlands, and estuaries are the visible products of an effective stormwater progrzm. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-31 In order to have the proper understanding of these systems, it is important for the City to have qualified staff to assess and guide these aspects of the City's sto~-,,,water program. At this time, the City has no specially trained staff in the areas of freshwater ecology or fisheries. The City, however, is fortunate to have the expertise of the senior planner in .the Planning Department to provide water quality and related environmental support to the City's Stormwater program'. Biological expertise may be available from the County, County Cooperative Extension Services, County Conservation District, State resource agencies, and/or consultants to assist the City in making natural resource decisions. The City does, however, have water quality szmpling and monitoring expertise and capabilities through their wastewater laboratory which they have used in the past to perform stream s~mpling and fecal coliform analyses. Some of this type of work may be done cooperatively with the Count5', and through the use of consultants. However, the day-to-day involvement of these types of personnel is important to the long-term success of the program and ultimately the City may need to acquire new staff or train existing Public Works and Planning staff. Water quality expertise will be especially helpful to the City when developing monitoring and source control programs needed to meet future regulatory requirements and implement any future City wellhead protection program. Habitat, water quality, land use, and watershed planning skills can olden be found in the same person, which may also help the City realize its future basin planning objectives, as described above in Element No. 7, in Section 7.3.7. Analysis. Water quality, wetlands, and stre~ra habitat expertise are important and vital to the long-te~-, success of the City's Stormwater Program. It is, however, the type of expertise that is not immediately needed, is not required by regulation, and could easily be provided by internal or external experts. Immediate staffing is not recommended because it is not needed for compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program. If this expertise is needed in the short-term, the City might best be served by using outside consultants or developing this expertise in-house within the Engineering Division of Public Works. Because there is a long-term need to have this expertise to comply with the regional watershed action plans and possible future NPDES permits, the City should anticipate acquiring this expertise within three to five years or developing it internally. It appears that existing staff will not be able to meet this long-term need. Developing this expertise within the Planning Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-32 Department or using outside consultants on an as needed basis are alSo. viable alternatives. If it is not possible to develop this expertise within the Public Works, the City has a number of options to enhance its water quality, stream and habitat capabilities: · Develop the expertise "in-house", i.e., within the Planning or Water Divisions · Contract out to the County or other local agencies such as the County Cooperative Extension Services or Conservation District · Contract out to consultants The best option, in this case, is to do all three. Develop enough of this type of expertise "in-house" to answer day-to-day questions. Use the County or other agency expertise when doing large scale basin studies or conducting regional water quality monitoring. Continue to use consultants, as needed, to confer with City staff and/or conduct specialized studies or meet specific permit or regulatory requirements. Current Level of Staff. Estimated to be approximately 200 hours per year, as provided by the senior planner(s) in the City's Planning Department. Required for Regulatory Compliance. Retaining water quality, wetlands, and stream habitat specialists is not required in the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Water quality expertise will, however, be needed to meet the requirements of the State Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program and comply with possible future NPDES pe~-mits. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. There is no specific requirement for the City to hire and maintain water quality, streams, and habitat expertise on staff, however, having this expertise in-house would allow the City to implement suggested recommendations presented in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and City Comprehensive Plan. Applicable recommendations of the PAWP include: PF1, PF2, PF3, PFT, PF10, NE7, NE16, NE17, NE23, UR10, URll, UR15, G7, MS, UR14, PF14, NE2, NE6, NE10 and UR8. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to provide water quality, stresms and habitat expertise. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-33 · Continue using existing staff of the Public Works and Plan-lng Departments for this function, and continue to use County and other agency personnel as-needed. · Hire an environmental, stormwater management engineer in the Engineering Division that has water quality, wetlands, and stream habitat expertise. · Hire a water quality expert within Public Works and share the position with groundwater management responsibilities within the Water Utility. · Develop this environmental expertise within other departments or divisions within the City, e.g. Planning Department. · Contract out to the County or neighboring cities to acquire these areas of expertise. · Contract out to an outside consultant, on an as needed basis. Recommendations Program Water quality, stream, and habitat expertise is not needed immediately, but will be needed to implement the regional watershed action plans and comply with possible future NPDES permits. (Note: This expertise is similar to that needed for groundwater protection and the two responsibilities could be combined with the hiring of one FTE in the City's Water Utility Division of Public Works in the long-term which could be paid for by the Water Utility.) Staffing Level Short-term: Continue to use existing staff, no new staffing recommended. Long-term: Develop the needed expertise in-house or hire an additional water quality specialist. Increase staffing to 0.25 FTE within the Planning or Public Works Departments. Management Try to acquire some of .this expertise with the new Alternative CIP engineer position (Elements No. 2, 4 and 5 or within the groundwater specialist position recommended to be hired in Element No. 8.) Work with the Planning Department and other City departments to develop an in-house "pool" of expertise. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-34 '- Continue to use County, other cities and resource agency staff, as appropriate. Use outside contract expertise only to supplement the above three options, on an as-needed basis. Cost/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: No new costs. Long-term: Costs of hiring an out-of-house water quality specialist (or adding an additional 0.25 FTE in-house) are estimated to be about $11,250 per year. Total long-term staffing level is 0.25 FTE at a cost of $11,250 per year. Funding Source(s): The City's new stormwater utility fund, the General Fund, and]or the City's Water Utility. Legal Authority The City has the needed legal authority to perform water quality and other environmental related services. 7.3.10 Element No. 10--Internal Engineering and Technical Support Assessment. The control, conveyance, and treatment of surface water runoff is a technical process that involves engineering judgment and decisions. A strong engineering capability is needed in all aspects of water resource management, including the development of design standards and effective maintenance programs, regulatory compliance, watershed planning, and CIP implementation. At this time, the City's Public Works Department does not maintain a separate stormwater engineering staff. The City Engineer and Public Works Director provide the engineering direction for basin planning, regulatory compliance, maintenance, development review, and the CIP process, as their time allows. Technical assistance is also provided by Public Works to the City's Planning Department and other City departments, as time is available from existing staff within Public Works. Analysis. The Public Works Director and City Engineer provide engineering input to stormwater and groundwater management as their time allows. Occasionally, other engineers on the Public Works staff are used to support stormwater and groundwater management technical functions, especially the Street Division manager and Street maintenance foreman. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-35 '- Because there are few stormwater staff presently in the Public Works, many future and some existing City services may not be able to be adequately performed. These include: · Technical support to the water utility for groundwater, wellhead, and aquifer protection · Development review and land use controls · Policy and design standard development · Regional planning and coordination · Inspection and enforcement · Development of additional funding sources · Public education · Regulatory reporting · Complaint response · Water quality monitoring · Staff training · Program management and direction · Regulatory compliance Having the appropriate types of technical expertise and adequate levels of staffing are critical to the success of the City's Stormwater Program. To continue 'as is" is not realistic because additional internal technical resources are needed right now within Public Works to achieve regulatory compliance. Hiring additional staff is expensive and highly visible, however, it is also not appropriate to contract this type of work out to one or more outside consultants or agencies who are %trangers' to the City's way of doing business and are not familiar with the City's drainage system. An effective and cost-effective way to develop and provide this type of function within the City is to first hire a senior drainage engineer position for the capital improvement program and/or development review and include technical assistance within the responsibilities assigned to this new position(s). This should help address the immediate short-term needs with regard to technical assistance, as well as plan review, stormwater regulatory compliance, and groundwater management needs for a senior drainage Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-36 - engineer. (Note: The City's CSO Reduction Program could pay for the CIP portion of this new drainage engineer position and developer fees could help offset the remaining costs.) As the City's Stormwater Program continues to grow, additional and more specialized expertise will likely be needed. Rather than staff up within Public Works, it may be better, to develop this expertise within the various departments of the City, as a technical "pool~ of stormwater related expertise. This, however, could be difficult for smaller cities, such as the City o£ Port Angeles, to achieve. Specialized areas of expertise such as wetlands, fisheries, soils, and water quality could also be acquired on an as needed basis from other agencies or outside consultants to supplement the City's internal technical expertise. Other local agencies with this type of technical expertise may include the County, local Public Health Authority, Soil Conservation District, and the County's Cooperative Extension Services. Current Level of Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year as provided primarily by the City Engineer, the Public Works Director, the Street Division Manager, and their respective technical staffs. Required for Regulatory Compliance. There is no specific regulatory requirement to provide engineering and technical assistance to the City's Stormwater Program. It is, however, understood that the City would use good judgment to select and staff its Stormwater Program with an adequate number of capable, technically competent individuals. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. There is no specific requirement for the City to hire and support specialized engineering stormwater expertise, however, adequate City technical staffing and capabilities are implied in many of the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Management Plan and City Comprehensive Plan. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to provide internal sto~-~water engineering support: · Continue as is, with the existing staff engineers, the City Engineer, the Street Division Superintendent and the Public Works Director providing technical direction and assistance as their time, and that of their respective staffs, allows. · Add additional technical capabilities to the City's Stormwater Program by hiring one senior engineer in the short-term and additional specialized staff in the future as-needed to provide internal technical expertise. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-37 - Share this position with the City's emerging stormwater CIP program and other technical stor~water responsibilities within Public Works. · Contract the work out to another local agency, such as Clall~m County, The County Cooperative Extension Service or other local agency or agencies through interlocal agreement(s). · Contract the work out to an outside consultant on an as needed basis. Recommendations Program Develop the internal engineering and technical expertise as-needed to effectively implement the City's Stormwater Program, achieve compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program and implement the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and City Comprehensive Plan. Additional future technical expertise will be required for compliance with a future NPDES permit. Staffing Level Short-term: Add the equivalent of 1,000 hours (0.5 FTE) of a senior stormwater engineer's time for capital projects, as described in Element No. 2 above. Share this position with the technical needs described for this internal technical support function. Long-term: Hire no new staff. Use the new and existing engineers within Public Works for this activity, as time allows. Add water quality related expertise as the program dictates and funding allows. Management Hire an additional senior engineer, within Public Alternative Works, to address the immediate short-term technical assistance needs. Other duties assigned to this position would include development review, regulatory compliance, and the direction of the City's new stormwater CIP program. To address the long-term needs, create an internal 'pool" of expertise within the City by developing technical expertise within the two divisions in the Public Works Department, including the Engineering Division and the Street Division. Hire outside consultants and/or contract with other agencies to acquire additional, or very specialized areas of expertise, on an as needed basis. These Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-38 '- outside experts could also be used to provide a senior ' level of review to the City's internal 'pool~ of technical personnel if desired. Costs/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: None. Costs are included in the CIP staffing recommendations presented in Section 7.3.2. Long-term: None. Cost included in CIP progrsm element (See Section 7.3.2). Funding Sources: Revenue from the City's new stormwater utility and/or General Fund would be the most appropriate funding sources. The City's CSO reduction progrsm could pay for the CIP half of this position. Legal Authority The City has the needed legal authority to technically support the City's Stormwater Progrsm. No new legal authority is required. 7.3.11 Element No. 11--Regional Coordination Assessment. The City is fortunate in many ways in that they are a part of a larger regional water resources management group which includes Clallsm County, the County Public Health Department, Conservation District, County Cooperative Extension Services, and other resource agencies. Over the past several years, coordination has occurred between the various agencies in the Port Angeles Watershed area that will save the City financial resources and will allow the City's stormwater program to grow rapidly and implement state-of-the-art management practices, such as effective drainage standards and the local use of BMPs. This type of effective regional coordination takes time and has not been assigned to any one specific person within the City's Stormwater ProgrAm. Most of the coordination efforts have been historically shared by the Planning and Public Works Departments. It is important for the City to ass,,me its roie in the implementation of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and to continue this type of regional " coordination in order to continue to save money and take advantage of regional technical expertise. Analysis. Regional coordination of the various activities of the City's Stormwater Program should continuously be pursued. 'The City should use Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-39 '- regional coordination to help develop its existing Stormwater.~rogr~r~, and keep costs and sta~mg levels to a m~n~rn~rn. These efforts should be continued by the City, and perhaps even increased, in order to continue to keep the City's stormwater costs to a m~nirnurn as it attempts to implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Interlocal agreements and regional coordination will likely be needed over t~me to effectively implement the City's numerous stormwater and watershed improvement activities. The City should continue to maintain and expand its good working relationship with other local agencies, however, no additional staffing within Public Works in either the short- or long-term is recommended at this time. New sta~ng amounting to 0.25 FTE is recommended in the long-term in the Planning Department. Existing efforts and st~ng may need to be increased as part of a future NPDES Stormwater Permit, but cannot be justified at this time. Contracting with an outside consultant to perform the regional coordination function is usually not needed or even appropriate. Consultants may be helpful, however, on a project specific or issue specific basis for technical advise or evaluation of alternatives. Current Level o£ Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year, as performed by the Planning Department and City Engineer. Required £or Regulatory Compliance. Regulatory requirements for regional coordination are required and encouraged in the GMA planning requirement of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. The State's Basic Stormwater Progr2m states that the City shall ~conduct the City's Stormwater Program with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, where appropriate." New and/or additional requirements for regional coordination have not been further defined under the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program. It is, possible however, that the State may issue a regional Stormwater NPDES permit within the next two- to four-years to the greater Port Angeles/Clallam County urban area. This NPDES permit may require special regional coordination and new interlocal agreements as part of its compliance requirements. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. Regional coordination is specified in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan in Recommendations NE2, IMP21, PF12, ED10, and NE7. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to provide regional coordination. · Continue the existing level of regional coordination using existing staff within Public Works and Planning. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-40 - · Increase the level of regional coordination in an effort to reduce the City's Stormwater Program costs, keeping st~ng levels to a minimum, and t~k~ng advantage of specialized expertise within other local agencies. · Decrease the existing level of regional coordination in order to develop special internal policies and practices for stormwater management that are uniquely tailored to the City's land use plans, environmental conditions, and other internal polices favored by the City. · Contract out regional coordination activities to a consultant. Recommendations Program Continue to maintain the existing level of regional coordination. Staffing Level Short-term: No new additional staff should be specifically hired for regional stormwater progrsm coordination for the City's stormwater activities. Long-term: Regional coordination staffing responsibilities will smount to 0.25 FTE, costing $11,250 and should be assigned to planner in the Planning Department. The other 0.75 FTE of this position could be shared equally by future basin planning, groundwater protection and water quality/stream habitat responsibilities, described above. Management · Continue the existing level of regional Alternative coordination by having the existing staff of the Planning Department contact local agencies, establish agreements and working relationships and coordinate as-needed on a project specific basis. · Continuously pursue interagency working relationships to reduce stormwater costs and staffing levels, and establish a friendly basis for future agreements 'which will be needed to implement the regional Port Angeles Watershed Plan and possible future NPDES stormwater permits. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-41 Costs/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: No new expenditures recommended. Long-term: Hire 0.25 FTE in Planning costing $11,250 per year. Funding Source(s): General Fund or new stormwater utility. Legal Authority The City has the required authority to implement its regional coordination activities. No new legal authority required. Interlocal agreements would need to be established with the City attorney and approved in advance by the City Council. 7.3.12 Element No. 12--Public Education Assessment. One of the major components of any future regulatory compliance program will involve a significant effort to educate the public so as to prevent pollutants from entering the surface water and groundwater systems. Such a public information education program does not just happen, it needs to have direction and it needs to be coordinated with the activities of other agencies, both within the State and the local region. Producing the corresponding info~-£uational and educational materials can often require considerable financial and staff resources. Education and public involvement help foster recognition and stewardship of natural resources. Recognizing that education is an effective, long-term resource management tool, and that education is necessary as both a supplement and an alternative to enforcement programs, the City's Stormwater Program should be making the effort to inform and involve the public in pollution prevention and resource protection. An ongoing public involvement program will be critical to the City in achieving its water resource goals. The non-point source control progrzms needed for the enhancement of the City's surface water quality are primarily realized through public education. Public education is also especially important for an effective wellhead protection program which can only be realized through continuous public education and awareness. Oi~en a good place to begin such programs is by sponsoring the development of local school curricuh~ms which tend to reach out to most families and generally reaches the entire community. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-42 " In its future basin planning projects, the City's Stormwater Program should target education and involvement efforts to the citizens and businesses within the basin. By direct participation on project advisory committees, the City can make a good effort to change the habits and practices of some of its citizens to protect the area's water resources. A special business oriented education program is recommended. Analysis. Much of the past progress made by the City in the areas of public involvement and education has been made on a project specific basis. Because public involvement and education activities have been primarily project specific, it has been difficult to maintain a consistent, ongoing effort to educate and involve the public, and work with specific commercial activities or special interest groups, such as the business community of the Port Angeles Harbor area. The City's Stormwater Progr2m should develop a long-term, dedicated public involvement and education program. The focus of this effort should be on source control, i.e., stopping the discharge of pollutants into the natural drainage system. This is one of the most effective BMPs for the reduction of pollutants and is stressed by both Ecology and the PSWQA. This type of activity must be an ongoing effort to be successful because the City is requesting its citizens to change their lifestyle and their 'normal way of doing thingsf To change people's habits takes time and continuous education. It will also require opportunities and programs created and sponsored by the City that allow the public to act correctly (i.e., oil recycling, collection of household hazardous wastes, and the correct selection and use of pesticides, etc.). Public education is a good 'preventive tool" that plays an effective role in reducing or eliminating future stormwater, habitat, and water quality problems. Experience with other agencies throughout Puget Sound and the nation indicate that this is true and that the long-te,m benefits of public education usually more than pay for their short-term costs. It is for these reasons that the existing level of effort for public education within the City's Stormwater Progi'am should be enhanced. Where appropriate, additional opportunities for regionally sponsored public education activities should also be pursued. Contracting out ongoing public involvement is not encouraged unless a new level of effort and/or specialized public relations c~mpaign is being initiated, such as developing a stormwater brochure. The City's program of public education may also need to be expanded in the future, requiring additional staff to meet possible future regulatory and NPDES permit requirements. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-43 '- Current Level of Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year, as provided by the staff of Public Works and PlAnning. Required for Regulatory Compliance. The State's Basic Stormwater Progrsm requires the City to "develop and implement education programs to educate citizens about stormwater and its effects..f The State's Comprehensive Sto~:mwater Program requires the City to conduct "an ongoing stormwater public education program ~irned at residents, businesses, and industries in the urban area~. Required by Regional Watershed Action Plans. There is a specific requirement in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan for the City to educate citizens regarding household hazardous wastes, as described in Recommendations PF12, ED7, ED8, ED10, NE5,, PIE19, PIE25, PIE27, UR10, G5 and G6. Management Alternative. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration. · Continue "as is" to allocate Stormwater Program staff time on a project specific basis. · Meet the minimum requirements of the State's Basic Sto~-mwater Program by establishing a public education program, beginning with the development of a Stormwater brochure. (Note: The City has developed a new stormwater brochure, as well as a sensitive areas brochure.) · Expand the existing City public education plan by allocating additional funding and staff time, create an ongoing, annually funded public education program. · Regionally coordinate with the County and adjacent cities to perfo~-m public education for stormwater, keeping the use of City staff to a minim~m. · Contract public education involvement work out to a consultant (perhaps even creating a new stormwater public relation~ campaign) to support the City's existing stormwater program, groundwater protection, and the proposed stormwater utility. Recommendations Program The City needs to develop a public education program to meet the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. Staffing Level Short-term: The City should continue to educate its citizens and participate in regional stormwater Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-44 awareness campaigns ss opportunities present themselves. It is recommended that the City continue to budget funds to work cooperatively with the other agencies in the area in developing regional public involvement and education programs. No additional stag is recommended at this time. Maintain current levels of staffing and funding. Long-term: The Division should adopt an ongoing public involvement and education program. Public involvement and education, including volunteer and regional coordination, requires additional staff resources. To ensure a consistent high quality program and continued regional coordination, it is envisioned that dedicated staff may be required in the future. As much as a quarter of a full-tlme position (0.25 FTE) may be estimated to be needed in the future in the Engineering Division or Planning Department. Duties could be included with the new staff person to be hired for regulatory compliance, as described in Element 13, Regulatory Compliance. Management ® Increase the City's support of' public education Alternative activities for stormwater as needed to meet the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. The minimum would be the continued use and distribution of the City's existing stormwater/water quality brochure. · Pursue new regionally supported and funded public education activities, as opportunities allow. (This is a cost-effective way to enhance the existing public education program without incurring significant new expenditures or staffing requirements.) Costs/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: Maintain existing levels of staffing and' "' funding. Long-term: Expand existing level of support to create an annual ongoing public education program requiring one-quarter of a full-time staff position (0.25 FTE). Include these public education responsibilities in the new staff position to be hired Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-45 - for regulatory compliance monitoring. Funding Source(s): Short Term: General Fund. Long Term: General Fund or new stormwater utility Legal Authority The City has the required legal authority to implement and enhanced public education program. No new authority is needed. 7.3.13 Element No. 13---Regulatory Compliance Assessment. The City will come under increasing regulatory pressure from Ecology, through the PSWQA Management Plan and through the implementation of a possible future NPDES stormwater permit, to comply with certain activity levels and standards related to water quality of both groundwater and surface water. The City will need to have a person who can remain up-to-date on the latest regulatory requirements, participate in their negotiation, and prepare the appropriate reports and compliance doc~mentation. This will be especially true if an N-PDES Stormwater Permit is issued to the City by Ecology. It is not appropriate, or responsible for, the City to ignore these requirements. As discussed earlier, the penalties for non-compliance would include significant political, financial, and legal r~mifications. Analysis. All regulatory compliance up to this point in time has been handled by the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. The City's Stormwater Program has no staff specifically assigned to this task. It is anticipated that the requirements for regulatory compliance will increase substantially over the next several years, particularly if the State issues the City a NPDES Stormwater Pe~it and/or begins to enforce compliance with the PSWQA Management Plan. ~ Although the City will have to document compliance with State and federal regulations, this should not require a major staffing effort. What is required is to have someone responsible for this activity who can take the time to meet with the regulatory agencies, compile the various reports and studies prepared by other parts of the City's Stormwater Program, and see that all reports and regulatory requirements are submitted in a proper manner. The short- and long-term regulatory responsibilities of the City's Stormwater Program should reside with the Public Works Director. The director and/or future sto,mwater manager will need assistance, however, from a number of Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-46 City stsff and different departments to meet the diverse regulatory requirements for stormwater. Existing staff within the City's Stormwater Program should be adequate to continue to meet the short-term regulatory needs of the City. Current regulatory needs include compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Progrnm and preparing for compliance with a possible NPDES permit by 1998 to 2000. The actual work of developing and responding to the various regulatory req,,irements would be performed by engineering and planning staff of the Planning and Public Works Departments, and outside consultants, as required. Regulatory compliance work, particularly the management and direction of the progrnm, is best done internally by City staff. Special studies, water quality monitoring, and other specific assignments to meet these requirements can, and perhaps should, be contracted out to keep internal staffing levels to a mfnim,,rn. Current Level of Staffing. Estimated to be less than 50 hours per year as conducted by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. Required for Regulatory Compliance. The City is obligated under State laws to comply with the State's Basic Stormwater Progrsms, and any future NPDES Stormwater Permits. Compliance with these regulations require the City to undertake many stormwater related activities, including: · Adopting new ordinances · Conducting effective stormwater and water quality management for new developments · Proper operation and maintenance, including annual O&M planning, inventory of facilities, and record keeping · Public education · Regional coordination · Dedicated, adequate local funding · Inspection and enforcement · Water quality monitoring and response progrsm · Fixing problem areas, including illicit connections · Developing and implementing a Source control program Future stormwater NPDES Stormwater Permits may also include additional sto~mwater activities, including watershed action plans, additional monitoring, and groundwater protection. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-4 7 ReqUired by Regional Watershed Action Plans. Regulatory compliance for the City is specifically defined in the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, Recommendation PF22. As part of this regional watershed plan, the City is expected to meet or exceed all regulatory stormwater requirements. Management Alternatives. Listed below are several different alternatives for the City's consideration to provide regulatory compliance coordination. · Continue to have the City Engineer and the Public Works Director ass~me these responsibilities, as required. · Have some other division or department within the City assume these additional responsibilities with existing staff. · Add new staff within the City's Stormwater Program (i.e., within the Engineering Division of Public Works) when needed, to ass~me the increasing level of regulatory compliance responsibilities. · Hire new st~ff, when needed, within other divisions or departments (e.g., the Planning Department) to meet these responsibilities. · Keep internal staffing to a minlm~m, using existing City Stormwater staff in the short-term, and hiring 1.0 FTE in the City's Stormwater Program in the long-ter,,,. Hire consultants or contract with the County or other local agencies to meet specialized regulatory requirements and provide technical/progr~ramatic advice. Recommendations Program The City currently meets the regulatory requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. In the future, however, the City should be prepared to meet the NPDES permit requirements, as required, which will require additional internal staffing. Staffing Level Short-term: In Public Works, the Public Works Director and City Engineer should continue to track regulatory changes and be the primary contact for the City on regulatory issues, including stormwater, groundwater, and wellhead protection. Long-term: This responsibility would be assumed by the new stormwater position to be located in the Engineering Division of Public Works. Management · Continue to use existing City Public Works to Alternative monitor and ensure compliance with the various Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-48 stormwater regulations. · Hire up to one new staff person (2,000 hours, $40,000 per year, 1.0 FTE) to assist in regulatory compliance, as needed in the future. · Use consultants, as-needed, for special/specific regulatory compliance assignments in order to keep staffing ~_n_d compliance costs to a minimum in both the short- and long-term. · Where appropriate, contract with other local agencies to reduce financial and staf~g burdens upon the City. Economies of scale may be possible on similar or repetitive compliance requirements; these should be pursued by the City before any additional staff are hired. Cost/Funding Costs: Source(s) Short-term: No new expenditures. Long-term: Hire one new staff person (1.0 FTE) 2,000 hours per year) in the Engineering Division of Public Works, costing about $40,000 per year. Funding Source(s): City General Fund, or new stormwater utility. Legal Authority City has required legal authority to implement regulatory compliance related activities, except as defined in Elements Nos. 1-12 above. No new legal authority is required. 7.4 Summary of Programmatic Analysis The City's Stormwater Program is emerging from a planning phase into an implementation phase. As such, it is appropriate to review and update the City's stormwater operating program, as well as funding and staffing levels. The City's Stormwater Program, at this time, is underfunded 'and understaffed. Each of the thirteen elements of the program analyzed above will require additional effort in the future. Staffing needs have been divided into short-term needs (0-2 years) and long-term needs (3-10 years), as shown in Table 7-1. In the short-teL-m, the addition of 1.8 new FTE (3,600 hours) is recommended. In the long-term, as many as an additional 4.5 new FTE (9,000 hours) may be required as the City begins to address the needs of compliance with future regulatory requirements. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-49 Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-50 New staff, tots]lng 6.3 positions, are primarily located in Public Works, with one position added to the Pl,nnlng Department, as shown in Table 7-2. The recommended short-te~-m stormwater program will cost $650,000 annually, as shown in Table 7-3, and should begin to be implemented as soon as practicable. (It has been ass,~med that the existing level of stormwater funding and staffing would be maintained.) The short-term operating budget is $475,000 and the associated capital budget is $175,000 per year. Long-term operating improvements will cost an additional $345,000 per year for a total of $820,000 annually. In addition, a future annual capital budget of $725,000 will also be required~ The total long-ter~u operating and capital costs are estimated to be $1,745,000 per year. Implementing both the recommended short- and long-term improvements will cost about $1,745,000, a~ually, a substantial increase over the operating costs of the City's current Stormwater Program. Improvements will require new funding sources to be developed along with a new outside funding source for capital projects. Table 7-2 Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program Summary of Staffing by Area of Responsibility Total Area Existing Short-Term Long-Term Staffing of Responsibility Staff (0-2 years) (3-10 years) Changes Public Works Department Office of Public Works Director 0.1 0.2 0.5 +0.4 Engineering Division 0.9 1.8 3.0 +2.1 Street Division 3.0 4.0 6.0 +3.0 Water Utility .... Wastewater Utility .... Subtotal 4.0 6.0 9.5 +5.5 Planning Department 0.2 __ 1.0 +0.8 Total 4.2 6.0 10.5 6.3 Increases in New Staff -- +1.8 +6.3 - Funding for the short-term improvements could be primarily from the Cveneral and Street Funds and the creation of pe,-mit review and maintenance/inspection fees for private facilities. Operating improvements could be funded primarily from a new City-wide stormwater utility fee along with other revenue sources, including increased developer fees, a new development inspection fee, grants, and support from the wastewater and water utilities. Capital improvements may be funded by grants, loans, stormwater utility fee revenues, local improvement districts, and revenue/councilmatic bonds. Funding outside of the annual appropriations from the General and Street Funds will likely be needed to address the City's capital and Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Storrnwater Program 7-51 long-term operating stor~water needs. A financial plan is presented along with the complete Stormwater Management P]sn in the following section of this report. (Please note: All budget and cost estimates presented in this report are estimates and need additional 6nancial analysis before funding is appropriated. The n~mbers are presented to provide perspective to the planning concepts and alternatives discussed as part of this management analysis.) Table 7-3 Port Angeles Storrnwatsr Management Program Summary of Annual Operating and Capital Co.$s by Area of Expenditures b-'"nort-Term Long-Term 1995 City City Existing City Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater ProgrAm ProgrAm Program Expense Item ProgrAm (0-2 Years) (3-10 Years) Operating Labor Public Works Department Director's Office $6,000 $13,000 $6,000 Engineering Division 41,000 92,000 154,000 Street Division 125,000 170,000 250,000 Planning Department 8,000 __ 45,000 Labor Subtotal 180,000 275,000 455,000 Equipment $110,000 $160,000 $250,000 Other Costs Billing Services -- 15,000 15,000 Drainage Basin Assessments -- 25,000~' 100,000~' Operating Subtotal $290,000 $475,000 $820,000 Capital Capital Improvements -- 150,000~ 900,000~ Small Works Projects -- 25,000 25,000 Capital Subtotal -- 175,000 925,000 Total Stormwater Program Costs $290,000 $650,000 $1,745,000 (1) Total cost of drainage basin assessments is $500,000; 10 basinz @ $50,O00 per basin. (2) Total capital costs are $9,325,000 and is composed of 25 CIP projects. Programmatic Analysis of the City's Existing Stormwater Program 7-52 Section 8 Stormwater Management Plan 8.1 Overview The following Stormwater Management Plan (Plan) presents activities and costs for the City of Port Angeles (City) to address local drainage needs and comply with the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program, as defined in the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The various recommended administrative, regulatory, and programmatic activities have been identified with both short and long-term improvements prioritized. Funding alternatives have been considered and recommendations made as to the most viable funding sources. Suggested staffing levels and costs for each element of the City's Stormwater Program have been presented, along with identified capital and operating programs and priorities. An implementation plan is presented with defined incremental staffing and funding levels, along with a proposed schedule. Note that a Letter of Compliance to the Puget Sound Authority has been sent to demonstrate the City's acknowledgment and intended compliance with the January 1, 1995, requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program. 8.2 Stormwater Management Strategy and Formation of the Stormwater Management Plan 8.2.1 Stormwater Management Strategy The Plan for the City is based upon two program directives: first, to solve local drainage problems; and second, to develop a sto~mwater program that achieves regulatory compliance. One of the biggest challenges the City faces in regard to stormwater management is providing adequate treatment of the surface runoff before it is discharged into Port Angeles Harbor or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Most of the elements of the City's drainage system are older and are in densely developed areas of the City. As such, there is limited opportunity to provide adequate treatment prior to discharge. Drainage Basin Assessments have been rec'ommended to set up source 'control plans, prior to the construction of any new water quality treatment facilities. To achieve the first goal, the existing City Stormwater Program and facilities were analyzed and evaluated. Capital needs were based upon an inventory of existing problems, the CSO Reduction Report, and an Storrnwater Management Plan 8-1 engineering analysis, which identified the need for a number of conveyance and capacity improvements. Twenty-five capital projects totaling $9.3M were identified. Because major flooding was not a problem, the analysis emphasized the gains to be realized by an enhanced maintenance program. Signit~icant capacity and water quality improvements may be realized through regular maintenance and through a series of minor repairs to remove major discontinuities within the existing drainage system. Where needed, additional capacity improvements, consisting primarily of larger pipes, and/or regional storage have been recommended to meet existing and/or future drainage needs. The second Stormwater Program directive of achieving regulatory compliance, presents many challenges because the City's stormwater program does not effectively address water quality, maintenance, or enforcement/inspection at the present time. Providing the City with the needed legal authority for stormwater management has been recommended as the first step in forming an effective stormwater program. The City adopted a new erosion control ordinance in 1994, however, the adoption of a new stormwater ordinance is needed that includes standards for new development and redevelopment that are equivalent with the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Technical Manual. The maintenance section of the City's stormwater ordinance also needs the legal authority to maintain private drainage systems, as well as public systems. New draf~ stormwater and maintenance ordinances have been included for adoption by the City with this Sto~-mwater Management Plan. Funding alternatives have been evaluated for both local and political feasibility, as well as their potential to generate new revenues. Without new and additional sources of funding, the City's new Sto~-mwater Program will not be able to realize the additional staffing and financial resources that are needed to achieve regulatory compliance. The current level of funding can not be expected to fund the enhanced and expanded Stormwater Program needed to meet even the Basic regulatory requirements of the Puget Sound Plan. Future viable funding sources have been identified and are recommended which include establishing a new wastewater-stormwater utility service charge and developing new fees for development review, enforcement/inspection and maintenance, as well as securing outside grants and loans. Capital projects may be most effectively financed through grants, loans, local improvement districts, and revenue or councilmatic bonds.- Stormwater Management Plan 8-2 To achieve the above stormwater management goals for sustaining the quality of life within the City and surrounding area, the City needs to continue its commitment to fund, staff, and implement its comprehensive stormwater and land use/management plans, as defined in this Stormwater Management Plan and the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan. 8.2.2 Formation Of The City's Stormwater Management Plan This following Stormwater Management Plan for the City is based upon the various administrative, regulatory, technical and programmatic analyses performed as part of this study and presented in this report. The primary sources of input for developing the City's Stormwater Plan are visually displayed in Exhibit 8-1 and include the following. Section 1.0--Introduction Definition of City's StoL-mwater Management Goals, Objectives and Planning Process. The primary goals of the Port Angeles stormwater management planning study were to: · Evaluate the City's existing stormwater infrastructure system of facilities, policies, practices, staffing and funding levels and legal authorities and present to the City a comprehensive management plan to solve existing drainage problems and ensure the long-term performance of the City's drainage system. · Also, to achieve compliance with existing State regulatory requirements, as defined in the Basic Stormwater Program of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. These goals were agreed to by City and Ecology project managers and a scope of work and planning process, described in Section 1, were established by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. for the successful completion of the project. Section 2.0---Drainage Area Characterization Identification of Physical Attributes and General Needs of the City's Drainage Basins. A series of studies and site investigations were initially conducted, as presented in Section 2, to identify the unique drainage and water quality features within the City's drainage basins. Wetlands were inventoried and each major stream within the City was walked to assess fish resources and identify remaining Stormwater Management Plan 8-3 Section 1 Introduction: Definition ofthe Stormwater Management Objectives and Pl~nnlng Process Sect/on 2 Drainage Area Characterization: Wetland Inventory and Development of Stream Habitat Restoration Plans ~-Seetion 3 ~ Section 4 Water Quality Assessment: ~ Engineering Analysis of Existing Development of Recommended ~ Drainage System: Development Water Quality Enhancement .~ of Recommended Capital Im- /' Evaluation oft. he City's Existing ~ ( Stormwater Program: Ident/fication ~ ~ of Accomplishments, Deficiencies ~ Staffing Levels and Costs I Recommended Stormwater 1 ! Man.agement Plan for the ~ lementation~~ Funding, Staffing ~ plementation Plan · Exhibit 8-1 Conceptual Schematic of the Technical and Programmatic Studies Used to Develop the City's Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater Management Plan 8-4 -- habitat areas. Drainage facilities, watershed boundaries, wetlands, soils, stream habitat areas, sensitive areas, hazardous waste sites, and localized flooding problems, complaints and claims were inventoried and mapped. Special reports were prepared on the wetlands remaining within the City and how to restore the fish habitats within the City's n-merous urban streams. Section 3.0---Water Quality Assessment Identification of Treatment and Source Controls. A review was conducted of the water quality within the study area in Section 3. Available water quality data were compared and contrasted with state standards and national literature. Sources of urban pollution were identified along with an ~unual pollutant loading assessment for each of the major drainage basins within the City. Treatment and source controls were developed in the Water Quality Assessment based on available water quality data. A water quality enhancement plan for the City was developed and presented in this section. Source controls have been stressed over treatment facilities. In the water quality enhancement plan, treatment controls were identified, but have not been recommended for construction until the effectiveness of the recommended source controls have been established. Initial drainage basin assessments have been recommended to establish basin-specific source control plans. Section 4.0 ,. Drainage System Evaluation Identification of Capital Needs. The capital needs of the City's drainage system have been identified and prioritized in Section 4 of this report. Twenty-five projects totaling $9.3M have been recommended. Many flooding problems are .being resolved through the CSO Reduction Plan. A total of twenty-nine localized flooding problems were identified and were resolved either by capital construction, the CSO Reduction Plan or by annual maintenance. Section 5.0--Effectiveness of the Existing Stormwater Program Identification of Existing Program. The City's existing sto,-mwater program was described and evaluated in Section 5. Organization, staffing, funding program priorities and activities were doc-mented and analyzed. Overall program effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the delivery of stormwater services and existing drainage system problems and deficiencies. The administrative, management, legal, staffing, equipment and funding needs were identified and listed. This evaluation of the general performance and effectiveness of the City's existing stormwater program was used as Stormwater Management Plan 8-5 the basis of the regulatory and progrsmmatic recommendations presented in Sections 6 and 7, respectively. Section 6.P. ~ Regulatory Compliance Requirements Identification of Compliance ~kctivities. The regulatory analysis, presented in Section 6, compared the City's existing stormwater program with the compliance requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program and possible future NPDES permit requirements. The local and regional responsibilities of the City to implement the Port Angeles Watershed Plan were also reviewed and correlated with the elements of the City's new stormwater program. Activities needed for immediate compliance were identified. Future NPDES permits requirements were also identified and evaluated. Section 7.t~--Programmatic Analysis of Ex/sting Stormwater Program Identification of Administrative Needs. The programmatic analysis of the City's sto~mwater program, presented in Section 7, identified the need for additional legal authorities, enhanced program management and additional financial support. A series of management, legal, authority, staffing, organizational and financial enhancements were suggested. Identification of Programmatic Needs. The detailed programmatic analysis of Section 7 also addressed each of the thirteen elements of the City's existing Stormwater Program. This analysis identified program initiatives, management approaches, staffing and funding levels, and regulatory compliance needs. Management, staffing, and funding alternatives were presented for each element within the City's Stormwater Progrnm. Program priorities were identified along with a ten-year phased implementation plan. Section 8. O---Recommended Stormwater Management Plan A stormwater management plan has been developed and presented in Section 8 that integrates each of the above stormwater program priorities, staffing levels and funding alternatives, and presents them in a prioritized and phased implementation schedule. The resulting stormwater plan for the City of Port Angels is presented below. Storrnwater Management Plan 8-6 '- 8.3 Recommended Stormwater Management Plan 8.3.1 Overview The recommended Plan for the City has been divided into an annual operating program and a capital facility plan, as presented in Table 8-1. The annual operating plan is based on the water quality, flood control, administrative, regulatory, and programmatic analyses presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, of this report. The capital facilities plan presents twenty-five major drainage control projects, as identified in Section 4. Capital facilities for water quality treatment are not recommended at this time. They are also not recommended in the future until the effectiveness of the City's source control plans and capital improvement projects can be determined and the future regulatory requirements for water quality enhancement ~re defined by Ecology. The recommended stormwater program for the City of Port Angeles is composed of two parts: Part #1~Annual Operating Plan · Programmatic Enhancements · Water Quality Enhancement Plan · Regulatory Compliance Plan Part #2--Capital-Construction Program · Capital Improvements · Small Works Projects 8.3.2 Ma]or Elements of Stormwater Plan The major elements of the proposed stormwater plans are summarized below. Part #1: Annual O0eratin_= Pro_cram Programmatic Enhancements The City needs to improve the staffing and level of funding of its existing stormwater program. Programmatic enhancements are needed to meet the requirements of the State's Basic Stormwater Program and possible future NPDES permits, to improve the maintenance and capacity of the City's existing drainage system, to Stormwater Management Plan 8-7 - Stormwater Management Plan 8-8 Stormwater Management Plan 8-9 establish effective drainage controls for new development, and to improve local water quality. Completing these program enhancements will allow the City to meet many of the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan and the City's new Comprehensive Plan. Recommended st~ffing and funding levels have been previously presented in Section 7 and are briefly s~,mmarized below. In the short-term the City should: · Hire the equivalent of 1.8 new full-time employees (FTEs) which will provide the program with an additional 3,600 hours of internal technical support. Dedicate one of these new positions (1.0 FTE, 2,000 hours per year) to enhance ~ual maintenance of the drainage system. · Increase the level of annual operating funding to the program from $290,000 to $650,000, ~n increase of $360,000 per year. Within this $360,000 increase, enhance maintenance and begin a small capital improvement program totaling $175,000 per year. Potential sources of funding include, General Fund, Street Fund, Water Utility, a new City Wastewater-Stormwater Utility, and grants/loans. In the long-term the City should: · Hire the equivalent of an additional 4.5 new staff, providing the program with an additional 9,000 hours of technical support. · Increase the level of funding to the program from $650,000 per year to $1,745,000 per year, an annual increase of an additional $1,095,000. Of this $1,095,000 increase, $900,000 would be for capital improvement projects. Potential funding sources include forming a stormwater utility, the water utility, creating new development and inspection related fees, and securing grants and loans. Continuing to use the Street and General Funds are not viable long-term funding options to support the City's long-term stormwater management program. Water Quality Enhancement One of the City's largest challenges is to treat its stormwater runoff prior to discharge into local receiving waters. Because the City is so highly developed and has no room for settling ponds and biological treatment, a source control plan has been recommended to be developed. Each urban drainage basin would undergo a Drainage Stormwater Management Plan 8-10 Basin Assessment which would result in establishing a source control plan tailored to the water quality and pollution needs witch each basin. Treatment controls will be so expensive for the City that they are not recommended until the effectiveness of the various source plans can be evaluated. Treatment controls will hopefully be needed for only a few "worse-case~ water quality problem areas, if at all. (Refer to Section 3 for a more in-depth discussion of source controls and treatment controls for water quality enhancement.) In the short-ter~u the City should: · Conduct Drainage Basin Assessments and develop source control plans for the City's urban basins. Cost: $500,000; $100,000 per year for five years. This level of funding allows the City to conduct two drainage basin assessments per year at a cost of about $50,000 each. · Adopt appropriate stormwater and maintenance ordinances and require all new developments and redevelopments to include construction treatment controls and water quality BMPs. Cost: Paid by developers and future home buyers. · Identify future funding sources, such as forming a new sto~-mWater utility and establishing development and inspection fees, in order to implement programmatic short-term source controls, as described in Section 3 (Water Quality) and Section 6 (Regulatory Compliance). Cost: Performed by City staff with new stormwater revenues. In the long-term the City should: · Continue to develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the City's source control plans on water quality. Cost: Included in long-term, staffing and program needs, described above under Progr_~mmatic Enhancements. · Continue to implement long-term treatment controls, including reducing illicit connections, removing septic tanks, and initiating waste reduction programs. Cost: Included in wastewater system improvements. · Design and build water quality treatment controls on an as-needed basis. Cost: Because the recommended source control program may be adequate, the costs for constructing new water quality treatment facilities has not been estimated or included in the Citfs Stormwater CIP program at this time.. Storrnwater Management Plan 8-11 Regulatory Compliance The stormwater activities needed to be completed by the City to achieve compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program and possible future 1VPDES permits have been presented and discussed in Section 6. In the short-term the City should: · Revise and adopt a new stormwater ordinance (equivalent to the Ecology model ordinance). · Revise and adopt new drainage design standards (equivalent to the Ecology Technical M~nual). · Improve the City's annual maintenance program, as required, by: · writing and adopting a new maintenance ordinance for both public and private facilities (the ordinance should also include inspection and enforcement as well as the right of entry) · completing an inventory and mapping all major drainage facilities and enhancing the City's record keeping process for existing and new drainage facilities · inspecting the City's drainage system annually and developing an annual maintenance management plan · increasing the frequency of maintenance on individual public facilities (to be equivalent to Ecology guidelines) ·establishing a maintenance enforcement program for private facilities · increasing funding from $235,000 to $330,000 per year in the short-term and up to $500,000 per year in the long-term · Develop and distribute a stormwater management/water quality brochure to educate the public. (This has been completed by the City for both stormwater (see Exhibit 10-3) and sensitive areas.) · Continue to integrate the City's Stormwater Management program with the City's Growth Management Act (GMA) plarmlng process. · Enforce the City's stormwater management policies, practices, and standards. Storrnwater Management Plan 8-12 Cost: Individual costs for the regulatory compliance activities listed above have not been estimated. The identified short-term stai~_ng and funding levels, presented above under Programmatic Enhancements, should be adequate to complete these various compliance activities (outlined above) within the next twelve to twenty-four months (if adequate funding is approved by the City). In the long-re,-,- the City should: · Plan to meet the terms and conditions' of the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program, full compliance may be expected as soon as the year 1998-2000, if an NPDES permit is issued. (The conditions of the NPDES permit will be similar to, if not identical to, those of the State's Comprehensive Program.) Cost: Generally, the costs for compliance with a future NPDES permit are included in the long-term program recommendations and long- term budget presented under Programmatic Enhancements. (The various compliance activities have been included in the Programmatic Analysis presented in Section 7.) (Note: Compliance with the Port Angeles Watershed Plan is generally achieved by being in compliance with the State's Basic and Comprehensive Stormwater Programs. No additional funding is recommended to specifically address regional stormwater requirements at this time.) Part #2: Capital Construction Proqram Capital Improvements A listing of capital stormwater facility needs has been developed in Section 4 of this report. The list of 25 projects totals $9,325,000 and is scheduled to be constructed at the annual rate of about $900,000 per year over the next 10 years. These projects generally reduce and/or eliminate local flooding by increasing conveyance capacity, adding in-line storage, and removing hydraulic discontinuities within the City's drainage system. Potential funding sources include local improvement district revenues, loans (Public Works Trust Fund), grants (Centennial Clean Water), funds from the City's new wastewater-stormwater utility, and/or bonds (revenue or Councilmatic). Stormwater Management Plan 8-13 '- Small Works Projects It is recommended that an annual small works capital program be established to address the number of smaller local flooding problems that the City is presently experiencing. This program would allow for the repair and replacement of old or d~maged facilities and also allow for the systematic repair of the hydraulic capacity discontinuities that exist within the present system. The cost of a small capital program has been estimated to be $25,000 ~nnuany. In the short-term the City should: · Set up, fund, and implement an annual small capital projects program. Cost: $25,000 per year. Identify and secure sources of funding for the $9.3M stormwater capital improvement program. In long-term the City should: · Continue to annually fund the small works program until the n-merous small flooding problems have been eliminated, then fund this activity in the future on an as needed basis. Cost: $250,000, at a rate of $25,000 per year over 10 years. · Fund major capital improvement projects at the rate of about $900,000 per year for ten years. 8.3.3 Scope and Effectiveness of the Proposed Plan The preceding stormwater management plan allows the City to: · Achieve regulatory compliance · Address local drainage programs · Improve the City's annual maintenance program · Identify and fund needed capital facilities for flood control · Undertake drainage basin assessments and establish source control plans to improve water quality · Upgrade staffing and funding levels of the existing stormwater program · Develop new revenue sources, as needed Stormwater Management Plan 8-14 · Be consistent with the results and recommendations of County's Stormwater Program and local water quality studies · Implement many of the recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan, as well as many of the policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Due to the high costs of an annual City-wide water quality monitoring program, a specific monitoring plan has not been developed as part of this study and is not recommended at this time. Site specific monitoring of water quality problem areas may be warranted on an as- needed basis.) 8.4 Funding 8.4.1 Existing Stormwater Program Revenues The City does not have a dedicated, independent revenue source for stormwater related activities. The annual budget for the City's Stormwater Program was $290,000 in both 1995 and 1996, with $235,000 appropriated from the Street Fund and $55,000 appropriated from the General Fund. Expenditures Annual expenditures of the City's Stormwater Program are equal to annual appropriations. Expenditures for 1995 and 1996 were $290,000. There was no funding available for capital improvement projects. Additional Stormwater information is presented in Sections 5 and 7. The 1996 sto~mwater budget is presented in Appendix I-C of Technical Appendix Volume I. Program and Financial Priorities Annual appropriations are used primarily to fund maintenance activities. Smaller amounts of funding annually support development review, construction inspection, and all other stormwater related activities. Capital funding has historically been added to the annual stormwater operating budget on a project specific basis and has not to date been funded routinely on an annual basis. Management, administration, regulatory compliance, and technical direction have been historically provided by the Public Works Director, the City Stormwater Management Plan 8-15 Engineer and the Street Division Superintendent. These positions are funded primarily by the Street Fund and General Fund. Adequacy of Existing Funding and Future Needs The existing level of funding for stormwater management by the City is not adequate to address .the Program's existing operating needs, comply with regulatory mandates, and fund needed capital improvements. General observations about the existing budget are: · Maintenance is understaffed and underfunded, the City needs to enhance the management and direction of its annual maintenance program in order to ensure the proper level of maintenance for the entire system and achieve regulatory compliance · Operating and staffing responsibilities greatly exceed the time, and occasionally the technical expertise, of the City's existing staff · Grants cannot be expected to play a significant role in meeting future operating and capital needs · Development review does not pay for itself, as it could · There is little or no funding available to meet existing and future regulatory requirements · There is little or no funding available for capital improvement projects · There are little or no financial resources available to implement the City's stormwater and watershed management plans · Since the existing program is not being adequately staffed or funded, many stormwater services can only be provided on an as- needed basis, as available staff time allows It is important to the future success of the City's Stormwater Program that additional revenue sources be identified to meet the level of services that the City's stormwater program is expected to provide. Future funding options, and additional revenues that may be able to be realized for the City's Stormwater Program, are presented below. Stormwater Management Plan 8-16 - 8.4.2 Developing Adequate Funding for Stormwater Management Based on the preceding analysis of the City's present stormwater progrsm and current and future regulatory requirements, it is clear that the City will need to expand its existing revenue sources and adopt one or more new sources for additional revenue in order to adequately support the City's Stormwater Progr_am and implement this Sto,-,,,water Management Plan. Presented below is a listing of possible revenue opportunities and an assessment on how much new revenue may be obtained from a few of the more promising new sources. Future Funding Alternatives Assessment of Alternatives. As shown in Table 8-2, there are at least eighteen different ways to fund stormwater programs in the State of Washington. Table 8-2 Stormwater Program Funding Alternatives General Expense Fund Street/Road Funds Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund State/Federal Grants and Loans (six financial programs available fxom the State of Washington for Water Resources): [] Flood Control Assistance Account ~! Public Works Trust Fund Program [] Centennial Clean Water Program [] Public Involvement Education Fund [] Water Pollution Control Revolving [] HUD Block Grant Program Fund Debt Financing (via General Obligation and Revenue Bonds) Drainage Districts Flood Control Zone Districts Special Assessment/Improvement District (UDs and ULIDs) System Development Fees Fee-in-Lieu of Construction Developer Extension/Late Comer Fees and Agreementz Plan Review and Inspection Fees Shellfish Protection Districts Aquifer Protection Areas Connection Fees Development Impact Fees Street Utility Stormwater Utility Service Char§es Stormwater Management Plan 8-17 To-date, the City has used three of these alternatives: General Fund, Street Fund and grants/loans. Most funding comes primarily from the Street Fund which c~nnot sustain the future needs of the City's stormwater program. Future Revenue Needs The revenue needs of the City's Stormwater ProgrAm will more than double over the next 3-5 years, ss the City achieves regulatory compliance and begins to implement its emerging stormwater program, as described in Section 7. The short-term improvements to the City's stormwater program will cost about $650,000 per year, and the long-term requirements will cost an additional $1,095,000 per year, with $900,000 of the $1,095,000 allocated to capital projects. The presently unfunded capital program totals $9,345,000. The ultimate cost of operating the City's Stormwater ProgrAm could be as high ss $1.745M annually and will require additional outside revenues, such as bonding for capital projects, the creation of new maintenance and inspection fees, creating a wsstewater-stormwater utility service fee, and additional future financial support from the City's water utility for groundwater management and monitoring. Regulatory Compliance The costs of compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program have been incorporated into the responsibilities of the additional 1.8 FTEs and the increase of $360,000 per year recommended for short- term enhancements of the program, for a total annual operating budget of $475,000 and a capital program of $175,000. The cost of compliance with the State's Comprehensive Stormwater Program, as may be required in a future NPDES permit, have been included in the long-term recommendations for the City's Sto~mwater Program. The costs include the hiring of 4.5 additional staff and an increase in annual operating revenues of an additional $170,000 per year, with operating costs totaling $820,000 per year and annual capital costs of about $900,000. Note: It is recommended that the City plan for, but not yet comply with, any of the possible future regulatory requirements of NPDES permits or the Comprehensive Stormwater Program until Ecology clarifies its intentions regarding 1) NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from smaller cities, 2) its legal authority to enforce the requirements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, and 3) State funding of mandated requirements. An %fficial" letter from the Mayor to the Director of Ecology requesting clarification on Storrnwater Management Plan 8-18 " both of these topics may be appropriate at this time. The response from Ecology would allow the City to properly plan for, fund, staff, and implement its future stormwater program in a msnner that achieves full compliance with all State and federal regulations. Developing Adequate Funding There are real costs associated with the creation of new programs, fees, ordinances, and funding sources. Because these are normally the responsibility of the Public Works Director and City Engineer, no additional costs have been identified to establish adequate funding. However, because of the time requirements, these tasks and activities will have an impact on the Public Works Director, and the-City Engineer, and their abilities to complete existing activities and responsibilities could be reduced. From the review of the City's current and future Sto~L~uwater Progrsm obligations, the City's Stormwater Program will need to consider additional funding sources or elect to assume only a few of the new progrsm responsibilities needed to achieve regulatory compliance. Maintaining the Stormwater Progrsm at its existing level of funding will also be difficult to do since many of these new responsibilities are mandated in the State's regulatory compliance requirements. The City, through the regional watershed action plan, also has over 43 unfunded capital and planning activities to locally fund and implement. Common Financial Alternatives for Stormwater Management Funding options that the City may wish to consider include: · Forming a City-wide stormwater utility fee · Forming a City-wide wastewater-stormwater utility fee · Establishing fees for development plan review to cover actual City costs on an hourly basis · Continuing to use the Street Fund to maintain drainage facilities within the road right-of-way · Requesting that the City's Water Utility support more of the Progrsm's groundwater/wellhead protection, basin planning/source control, and other water quality monitoring activities Storrnwater Management Plan 8-19 · Set up fee supported inspection and enforcement programs for new development · Set up a fee supported inspection and enforcement programs for the maintenance of stormwater facilities on private proper~ · Fund capital expenditures through the use of outside revenue or councilmatic bonds · Consider the establishment of a developer extension/latecomer fee · Increase the City's connection fees for hooking up to the City's stormwater system The funding options that are both realistic and will allow the City to realize the most new revenues include: · Forming a City-wide wastewater-stormwater utility. A new w~stewater-stormwater utility with a fee of $4.00 to $5.00 per month per every 2,500 square feet of impervious area, or impervious unit, could add an additional $600,000-$700,000 per year in stormwater revenues. A fee increase fi.om $8.00 to $9.00 per impervious unit could add an additional $1,400,000 to $1,500,000 in annual revenue. (Please note that as p~t of this project, a wastewater-stormwater utility feasibility study was conducted and a draf~ ordinance was developed to form a new wastewaterostormwater utility. The wastewater-stormwater utility study is presented in the form of two issue papers which were presented to the City Council in the summer of 1995, and ~re presented in Technical Appendix Volume ¥ to this Stormwater Plan.) · Setting up new fees or modifying existing fees for: · Development review, where actual costs incurred by the City would be reimbursed by hourly development review fees paid by the developer. This could add as much as $10,000 to $15,000 per year to the Engineering Division of Public Works. · Establishing a new development inspection and enforcement fee, which could add about $10,000 to $15,000 per year, and help support stormwater inspection activities in the Engineering Division and stormwater maintenance activities of the Street Division. · Fo~ming a new private facility inspection and enforcement fee which could add about $10,000 to $15,000 per year and help Stormwater Management Plan 8-20 fund one of the two new stormwater maintenance sts_~ positions in the Street Division. · Request that the City's Water Utility fund groundwater and wellhead protection within the stormwater program to an ~mount of $20,000 to $40,000 per year. (Funding costs for groundwater and wellhead progr2ms are not well defined at this time. Intra-utility funding (e.g., water to stormwater) would likely need to be continually provided on an annual basis as the groundwater program continues to be developed and implemented in conjunction with the City's emerging Stormwater Program.) The Water Utility may also be a source of new revenue, along with a new Wastewater-Stormwater Utility to fund basin planning/source control programs, and water quality monitoring as part of the water utility's wellhead and groundwater protection programs. If only these most likely future revenue requirements were to be developed, the City's Stormwater Program could realize an additional $700,000 in operating revenues per year. These new funds could be used to supplement existing annual funding or "free up" funds that are now annually spent on stormwater (General and Street Funds). Recommended Funding Alternative In 1996, the annual budget proposal from City staff to the City Council included a suggestion to form a stormwater fund within the City's existing wastewater utility. This suggestion was presented to the Council in the form of a budget memorandum, which is presented in Appendix IC of Technical Appendix Volume I to this Stormwater Management Plan. The purpose of restructuring the wastewater utility to include a stormwater fee is to create an independent funding source to address the City's growing stormwater management problems and responsibilities. Under a combined wastewater- stormwater billing system, statements would be sent out using the City's current billing system. Three different levels or options of stormwater funding were proposed, ranging from $2 to $4 per month, for residential homeowners. Businesses and industries would pay proportionately more, based on the amount of impervious area on their individual lots. Residents on fixed incomes and/or small city lots would receive discounts, as discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and the City's Utility Advisory Committee, held on August 14, 1995. (The financial feasibility study, describing the proposed stormwater rate structure, is presented in Technical Appendix Volume Stormwater Management Plan 8-21 ¥ of the Final Report of this Stormwater Management Plan.) A discussion of the three different levels of funding follows. Option #1, at $4.00 per month, would generate $620,000 in projected annual revenue. The would allow the hiring of the two new staff, one in engineering and one in street maintenance. The major advantage of this level of funding is that it increases stormwater maintenance, allows the City to initiate a capital improvement program (through bonding), supports new development, assists in the City's program to control combined sewer overflows, achieves regulatory compliance, and frees up present stormwater funds of up to $135,000, presently allocated from the City's General Fund. Option #2, at $3.00 per month, generates $450,000 in new annual stormwater revenues. It allows the equivalent of one new staff person to hired, 0.5 FTE in Engineering and 0.5 FTE in Street Maintenance. The advantages are the same as Option #1 above, but the levels of maintenance and capital funding are less. Regulatory compliance would take longer and there would be less engineering and technical assistance available to support new development and respond to citizen requests. The General Fund would still be relieved of its revenue commitments to stormwater and up to $135,000 would be available for other appropriations. The third level of funding, Option #3, at $2.00 per month generates about $310,000 in annual revenue. It does not permit the hiring of any new staff or allow any improvements to the annual maintenance program. A small amount of funding ($38,000) would be available for a limited ~mount of capital facility construction. The primary advantage of this level of funding is that it relieves the General Fund of any stormwater appropriations and makes the existing level of sto~-mwater activities within the City self-supporting. The fourth option, not discussed in the 1996 budget memorandum, is to continue to fund the City's stormwater activities at about the same level of $235,000 per year from the City's General Fund and $55,000 from the City's Street Fund. This option has no real advantage other than maintaining the status quo. There would be little stormwater improvements realized with this approach. The City would continue to be out of compliance with the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. Existing drainage problems would not be addressed and there would be little support available to guide and support new development. Stormwater Management Plan 8-22 Funding Conclusion The City's Stormwater ProgrAm has a 1995 and 1996 operating budget of $290,000. Almost all of these revenues are from the City's existing General and Street Funds. The current funding level is not adequate to meet all existing Stormwater Program needs. Because the' preferred management approach is to have stormwater management be as self- supporting as possible, a n-tuber of new revenue options have been recommended. The additional revenue sources include bonding, creating an expanded wastewater-sto~-~uwater fee, setting up new fees for new inspection/enforcement services, and increasing wastewater and water utility support. If each of these five or six most likely revenue options were implemented, as discussed above, additional anrtual operating revenues could be realized by as much as $600,000 to $700,000 per year. This would be more than enough to meet the short- term staffing, program, and regulatory recommendations which would required an increase of $360,000 over the current funding level. An annual funding level of $1,745,000 per year has been identified to implement the long-term program recommendations and capital projects presented in this Sto~mwater Management Plan. New revenue sources need to be realized by the City to address these drainage infrastructure needs. The future obligations of the City, to implement the regional watershed plan and undertake groundwater management planning, are not well defined at this time and could require additional staffing and financial resources in addition to those discussed in the management review. Future NPDES permits and compliance with the State's Comprehensive Program may also require additional funding. It is recommended that the City conduct, within the next six months, a review of potential new future revenue sources. This review should address, as a minim~m, establishing a wastewater-sto~mwater utility fee, establishing new fees for development review, inspection, and enforcement, securing outside bonding for capital needs and increasing internal support from the City's Water Utility for groundwater related activities. These new revenues could add as much as $700,000 per year to the operating budget of the City's annual Stormwater Program. 8.5 Implementation 8.5.1 Future Stormwater Program and Priorities The responsibilities and services of the City's new stormwater program are conceptually displayed in Exhibit 8-2. Program priorities for the Stormwater Management Plan 8-23 EXhibit 8-2- -- --' Conceptual Schemati~_of~a~;lespon~bilities -' and Services of the Port Angeles Storrnwater Program Beain Planning Responsibilities: Coordination ~nd ~ Stormwater Utility Fees Regulatory Compliance and Grants · Water Resources Management and Planning · WatersYmds, Wetlancts, Fish, Streams, and Habitat · Regional Coordination · Public Involvement and Developer Permit Awareness Water/Wastewster Utility Support and Inspection Fees ~ Groundwater Development Review and Program Management Management and Design Standards Technical Direction Wellhead Protection end Funding · Source Controls · Plan Review · Program Priorities and · Developer Fees Workplan · Water Quality · Monitoring · Land Use Controls · Staffing/Workload · Public Education · Design Standards/Manual · Legal Authority and · CSO Separation · Policies Funding Maintenance ~ ClP Bonding Inspection Fees ~ (from private facilities) Services: City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program i / -~ G~Or~~--'~oatner R !t Storrnmater Management Plan 8-,2,1 implementation of the recommended Stormwater Management Program for the City are as follows: 1. Regulatory compliance 2. Maintenance 3. Establishing new funding sources 4. Hiring needed staff and developing an effective program 5. Funding and building capital projects 6. Water quality monitoring, as needed Schedule The Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan has been designed to be developed and implemented over approximately a ten year period of time, as shown in Table 8-3. The three phases of implementation are graphically shown in Exhibit 8-3. Table 8-3 Approach for Implementation of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Phase I (0-1 years) Establish Policies, Standards and Controls, includi~, g Council adoption of the plan and new legal authority as defined in: · the new stormwater ordinance, · the new maintenance ordinance, · the new drainage design standards, and · new inspection/enforcement ordinance (if needed). ~ Identifying and Securing Needed Financial Support, including such financial options as: ·new developer fees, · new maintenance fees, · new inspection/enforcement fees, · creating a stormwater utility service charge, · grants and loans, and · revenue bonds. ~! Developing and Implementing An Effective Maintenance (O/M) Program, including · continuing to inventory and map facilities, · ident~y~ng annual O/M needs, and · performing annual maintenance based on an snnual management plan, as priorities and funding allow. Stormwater Management Plan 8-25 - Table 8-3 (continued) Approach for Implementation of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan r~ Enhancing Water Quality by: · Conducting Drainage Basin Assessments and establishing source control programs. ·Requiring Construction Treatment Controls and best management practices (BMPs). · Providing site inspection and enforcement Phase II (1-2 years) Developing the Stormwater Program O Developing Internal Program by hiring identified short-term staff (1.8 FTE). r~ Contin-i-g to Perform A-nual Inspections and Maintenance. ~! Contin-lng Drainage Basin Assessments and Source Control Planning, and Construction Treatment Controls and BMPs. O Securing Funding for Capital Projects ($9.3M) r~ Establishing Inspection/Enforcement Programs. ~3 Achieve Regulatory Compliance with the Basic Stormwater Program by completing the above activities Phase I~ (3-10 years) Operating the Program and Building Facilities Designing and Building Capital Improvements. Securing additional funding. Hiring Long-Term Staff, as identified in the Plan (4.5 FTE). Continuing and enhancing the Annual Mzlntenance Progrsm. Implementing Source Control Plans. Continuing the Established Inspection/Enforcement Programs. Securing Grants and Loans, as appropriate. Preparing to meet future NPDES Permit requirements, if needed. Stormwater Management Plan 8-26 - Stormwater Management Plan 8-27 Section 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusions · Groundwater and surface water quality are important to the quality of life for the citizens of the City of Port Angeles (City) and the region, making the City's Stormwater ProgrAm an important activity. · The City has adopted and is committed to the implementation of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. · The City is not in compliance with the State's Basic Stormwater Program and should take immediate action to be in full compliance as soon as practicable (1-2 years). · A "Letter of Compliance" has been sent to the Director of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) acknowledging the January 1, 1995, date of compliance, and the City's commitment to comply with and locally implement the requirements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management (PSWQM) Plan. · The City may wish to send a "Letter of Clarification" to the Director of Ecology and the PSWQA requesting clarification of their authority to enforce the Puget Sound Plan, their intentions to require stormwater NPDES permits for small cities by 1997 or 1998 and their approach to provide local funding for State mandated requirements. · The StoL~cawater ProgrAm is presently underfunded to meet existing and future Stormwater Progrsrn and regulatory compliance responsibilities. · The current budget of the City's Stormwater Program is not adequate to properly: · Accomplish the City's responsibilities under the Puget Sound Water Quality Management (PSWQM) Plan requirements · Adequately address new development · Maintain the existing drainage system · Protect streams, wetlands and habitat areas Conclusions and Recommendations 9-1 · Identify urban pollutants and control programs to enhance local water quality and protect groundwater · Staff the Stormwater Program ® The City does not have adequate legal authority to develop an effective stormwater program or meet regulatory requirements. The adoption of new drainage design standards and new stormwater and maintenance ordinances (equivalent to the Department of Ecology Technical Manual) are needed. · New and additional staffing and funding alternatives should be considered for the Stormwater Program. 9.2 i~ecommenclations The City should: · Enhance the existing Stormwater Program to reduce and eliminate local drainage problems and reduce pollutant loadings into Port Angeles Harbor, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound by increasing annual funding for maintenance, regulatory compliance, and capital projects. · Develop and implement a stormwater program that meets or exceeds the State's Basic StoLmwater Program and prepares the City for compliance with a possible future State NPDES permit by 1997-2000. · Establish needed legal authority by revising existing ordinances for stormwater, water quality, maintenance, inspection/enforcement, and erosion/sedimentation (clearing/grading), as appropriate. · Adopt drainage standards for new development that meet or exceed the design requirements presented in Ecology Technical Manuals, Volumes I and H. · Continue to reduce or eliminate combined sewer overflows into Port Angeles, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. · Continue to eliminate illicit connections to the City's storm sewer system. · Establish a City-wide source control program to reduce the amounts of pollutants entering the City's stormwater system based on the results of Drainage Basin Assessments conducted in each of the City's urban drainage basins. · Investigate the establishment of new funding sources for stormwater management, including developer fees, connection charges, and establishing a City-wide Stormwater Utility. Conclusions and Recommendations 9-2 · Work effectively with the County to adopt common land use and drainage design criteria, establish common pe~-~it review procedures, and jointly implement the policies and recommendations of the Port Angeles Watershed Plan. · Work with the Port of Port Angeles, the County, major businesses of the Port Angeles Harbor area, and the U.S. Coast Guard to establish specific monitoring and source control programs to reduce pollutant loadings from commercial/industrial d~scharges into the region's marine receiving waters. Conclusions and Recommendations 9-3 Section 10 Public Involvement 10.1 Overview Early in the scoping process for the development of[ the preceding Stormwater Management Plan, the City of Port Angeles selected a n-tuber of qualified individuals from the community and formed the Stormwater Management Plan Committee. The members were from diverse backgrounds including engineers, biologists and interested citizens from both the business sector as well as the general public. These 10 individuals, listed in Table 10-1, met biweekly initially and later on an as needed basis during the life of the project. Table 10-1 List of the Names of the Members of the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Committee 1. Warren Young, Individual 2. Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles 3. Nancy McHenry, Northest Territories, Inc.(local engingeering firm) 4. Cindy Souders, IndividaYPlanning Commission 5. Jim Reed, Individual 6. Leanne Jenkins, Clallam County 7. Carol Brown, Lower S'Klallam Tribe 8. Tim German, Planning Commission 9. Steve Zenovic, Polaris Engineering (local engineering firm) 10. Pat Powers, Department of Fisheries 10.2 Approach The City's Stormwater Management Plan Committee (SWPC) was led by the City's Stormwater Project Manager, Dave Sawyer, who is also the senior planner of the City's Planning Department. Mr. Sawyer routinely developed the agenda, with input from the various members, led each of the meetings and wrote up the minutes. Exsmple agendas and minutes are presented in Exhibits 10-1 and 10-2, respectively. Typically, the Public Works Director, Jack Pittis, and City Engineer, Gary Kenworthy, also attended each of the meetings and actively participated in the discussions. Public Involvement 10-1 10.3 Methodology and Results The SWPC reviewed the draft wetland report and stream and fish survey doc,,ments. Later in the project they developed a Sto,-.-water Brochure, as shown in Exhibit 10-3. One of the assignments presented to the committee was to form a long-term public education progr-m .for the City's stormwater program. The resulting outline is presented in Table 10-2. At the end of the project, the SWPC reviewed and commented on the ~inal drai~ of the preceding Stormwater Management Plan. Table 10-2 Stormwater Public Education Program Project Schedule 1. Identify/implement an ongoing funding 1996 source for continued stormwater public education. 2. Continue Stormwater Citizen Committee 1996/Ongoing with purpose of implementing the public education program. 3. Develop and implement a storm dr,in 1996 stenciling program. 4. Develop public service ~nnouncements for 1996 local radio and TV stations, including prepared press releases for stormwater flooding events. 5. Develop display/presentation materials for 1996/Ongoing use at fairs and other public settings, including at least two additional brochures, the first geared toward homeowners and the second geared toward contractors. Participate and display materials at various public events throughout the year. 6. Conduct one major stormwater related 1996/Ongoing community project per year. 7. Develop and implement a local school 1997/Ongoing involvement program which includes monitoring and cleanup of local streams. 8. Develop local videos for use on local TV and 1997/1998/1999 special events. 10.4 Local Media Articles During the course of' the project there were two major articles in the local newspaper about urban pollution and the need to restore some of the natural qualities of the City's numerous urban streams. These two articles are presented in Exhibits 10-4 and 10-5. Public Involuement 10-2 10.5 Long-Term Public Education and Involvement Plan The adoption, funding and implementation of a long-term public involvement program is critical to the success of this Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Presented in Table 10-2 is a draft Public Involvement Plan to be reviewed, edited, and adopted by the City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Committee. It is the intent of presenting the draf~ public involvement plan (PIP) with this Stormwater Management Plan, that the PIP be adopted, funded and implemented as a key element of the City's new stormwater management program. Costs and relative priority of the proposed PIP are to be determined by City staff working together with the various members of the above Stormwater Management Plan Committee. 10.6 Acknowledgment The City of Port Angeles and especially the City staff working on this stormwater planning project would like to personally thank each member of the SWM committee for their time and patience during the rather lengthy duration of this project. Thank you! Your input was appreciated. The City staff hope members of this Committee would like to participate in the future in the continuation of the City's Stormwater Advisory Committee, as the City begins to fund and implement the plan and enhance its stormwater program. Public Involvement 10-3 AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANG~ STORMWATEK MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMI'I-I'P2~ 321 East Fifth Street Public Works/Planning Conference Room October 5, 1995 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER. Il'. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINLrI'ES ITt. LONG RANGE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM V. ADJOURNMENT - 5:00 Well, Summer is over and it time to get back together and begin to wrap this project up. This tm,__e_'_ng we are going to put together a long range public involvement program and next month we are scheduled to start reviewing the draft plan. See you Thursday. Exhibit 10-1A Example SWP Committee Agenda #1 I0-4 AGENDA CITY OF PORT ANGh-n' STORMWATER MA2qA~ PLAN COMMI'FFEE 321 East Fifth Stre~ Public Wol'ks/Plnnnin~ Conference Room Februar~ 16, 1995 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF ~S FOR JANUARY 19 AND FEBRUARY 2, 1995 ITt. R.E~'~EW OF THE COUNTY'S DR. AFT PORT ANG~"t-~:S REGIONAL WA~~ P~ W. ~JO~ - 5:30 ~ Exhibit 1 ~1 B Example SWP Commiffee Agenda $2 10-5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington 98362 January 19, 199S L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Present: Cindy Souders, Nancy McHemy, Tim German, Steve Zenovic and Joel Freudenthal. StaffPresent: David Sawyer IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for December 15, 1994 were approved. IH. REVIEW OF WATERSHIE~D/WATER QUALrrY ASSESSMIiNT REPORT The Committee reviewed the draft Watershed Assessment Report noting the following comments. 1. Include field work sheets as an appendix: 2. Are there photos of the individual reaches: 3. Assign some type of scale to slope/ravine stability for each reach (so k can be graphically represented); 4. Include some graphics, particularly a typical ravine section drawing; 5. Gen~ description ofhow the RR bed has hripagted the streams where they intersect (also rip-rap); 6. D~scuss the fiat areas that do not drain into a stream; 7. ~ Hoypus soils in ravines 0Ennis) that is susceptible to erosion. (Can reference the River Basin Report); $. I~scuss LOD's role as an energy dissipator and how wood reduces a stream's conveyance capacity, 9. Reference examples of storm drainage hnpacts where discussed in ~E~dsting Stormwater Facilities Section', ~lso identify 2 'private' facilities; Exhibit 10-2A Minutes of the January 19, J995 SWP Committee Meetinf] 10. Correct "Critical Drainag~ Issues' section r~,arding sh~.ll6.~h prohibition due to. physical conditions of streams, sh~lfish prohibition is due to lack of mbnitoring; 11. Expand on source of streams sections (snowmelt vs. precipitation only); 12. When describing physical dements of each stream, reference which reach it is located 13. Identify what the number (WRIA #18-0185) after creek name is; 14. Discuss floodplain of Morse Creek and how it relates with stream; 15. How does overall program address near-shore marine life (as effected by storm-water nm off); and 16. How does the program/plan address pollution sources. The Committee ended their review on p. 26 and decided to continue at the February 16th meeting.. IV. ADJOLrRNMENT The next meeting was scheduled as a field trip on Februavj 2, 1995 at 3:00. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm. c:~*~.~~-~.~ David Sawyer, SeniorJ~anner Exhibit 10-2A (continued) Minutes of the January 19, 1995 SWP Committee Meeting ]0-7 STORMWA~R MANAGEMENT PLAN COM1VnTI~.E Port Angeles, Washington 98362 February 2, 199~ L CA ~.~ TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM. Present: Ken Sweeney, Nancy McI-IemT, Steve Zenovic and Mike Sorenson. Sta~Present: David Sawyer, Gary Ke~worthy IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of January 19, 1995 were continued to the n~'t meeting. The Committee visited several areas of the City that have stormwater related problems or issues effecting them. Areas visited included the 10/M, l~filwaukee/Butler, Penn Park, 0Id M~ll/l~odes, Porter/McDougal, and upper Golf Course Road sub-basir~. The next meeting was scheduled for February 16, 1995 at 4:00. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm Exhibit 10-2B Minutes of the February 2, 1995 SWP Committee Meeting 10-8 Where does stormwatir m I pllkmi~, m m the m · come from end where .... ow ~ am,eli,uoy mml ~ ~ amamdem, mm~ IX: ,C~IIII~~' .... . .. · mwd,i,d~mml \ ~JIIIII -]11 ~ ~ woere oo =~,~,.,,q.m ~ ~.'T' \ City's storm immdmmBgtmemm~. \ \ ~ / ;Nci"'m*'~I --' - mm,,,~mir \ [ ,~'"~T',.~ /\~, f~iumI.eIdO.~ ,em.~Umd \ k~.J~..X '--\ ikmTmmmmllM' ,..., .,o,., ... \r¢~.',~ M,..,.~ ,,... do,... How (:In ~ ~ our drinking wItir? immuilmnmamlm~d /Bo mid dl~ into m ~mm kMerqmmmddqlmmrem, mokmmmwiihmsmiwmlmmmmmb. the Immmckum* mhd aik& umimmfm dmmllmo lie em mdmkdmgm Cmdmsaml dm me tim tim W nmdJ Imm mw m wmmh Immmumt m°edc'kmldumPmmmmmlmmqmmktlflL W m tm c~J~ mumm~ m m t Mmdm tbqlqh CBmb'a klmim m dray d ~mm k a bY fmmmmgmllg W d led ddemmm~y kl eg hminl Jura dgum. mmmd SlmaP..qmd~ It mmmgmemm. Jerome doudmmmul mmmdkm mm emiup m amd Imm imk Why does stormweter brute the Hmrbor? ~m llm~ msim den sram 1 lmmr knm dm d ddm4m. become · problem? IwmedO. mlmm, mwuum dlkL ~ m m mmm~ dm I mm ikon pm& lke m dmim d m u amls dlKmmmkdmdm mmlka ams msdmmdmmimmm ~mmmd ..sm...,.,. Who should you dis- ,,d~ m Im mid Ira, uimmL .ms ~w. Imw "IB in ed~ ~m& ~ -,m -m km ,~ md ~hay dl imddL dummso~rmm~tpidmmupmmJmm mymmmmmmd~Md~omWum ~t Rdlu~ym~ zF £l ~3mmmygmimlmmminmmaedu. mmm~ m m Immm. m ummm. dlmqmln, fmmemulme m dm msim pdbmms m mm d. d o mit mmmm4d..d C3dlmm Cmaw~ Nam~h ~ Om~ Im~ mmk: dmmmkab m W Immm I irs mm o ask. ~ m m gmum. dod fo. ~m~f k~ Exhibit 10-3 Stormwater Brochure Developed by the Port Angeles Stormwater Management Plan Committee .. 10-9 Co~o~ low ~~A water ~o~ S~eet ~ ~ea~h of s~age ~~~14,~~ 10~- ~ ~k w~ ~ples ~d m ~ ~le ~ f~ ~. Wa ~'t Exhibit 10-4 Stormwater Newspaper Article #1 from the Peninsula Daily News, January 30, 1995 10-10 make a~Z~reacel Possible aedons I~. to improve water --.~ =. .- .., = --'"" '"~- '- ...,.~-. _--,,,,~,~-.. ,-..., c,., ,.d .0,,.,, . qmmimy Idm, oki i~ midmmm · Make fesmdml Morn Stream" proje¢ll with · , of COlllBilltld soils bmdmmuM m in dm ~ Chmdc · Conduct m volaotlry ,~' --~. .... ~- S,mmmml · .mmimdfom. · Identify pollmliom Water Jm cio Fuc~- camm&m M6 we~-.~ ~~ which mu- Imb md 312 milm of m Many ~ am q,~ m a Jenkins s~l ~ combined w~. hilb m ;* b ia am Em hd. wl~m M~.h. 'l'hm coumy m m hlv~ ,h~ "Anlflhing you dump oa fflmd, wim~ it's fe~b-- ar oil or Exhibit 10-$ Stormwat~r hl®~p~l~r Arti¢l~ from th~ ~nin~ul~ D~fl¥ 10-I1