The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutord2015-013WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO.20r4-r96 CLEARANCES Initiøl Date Døte Received in Councíl Offìce Asenda Døte Assisned to: Originator: Mqtl Aamol M.A.5/52014 RECIEüVED MAy t3 Z0trr WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 5/20/2014 Introductìon Divísion Head: Mark Personius u7 5'5'r1 6/3/20 I 4 P&D Committee and Councìl Dept. Head: Sam Ryan 5-7-l¿l r/27 /20rs Council - Concurrent Review Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham #f- 8- t4 3/3/t5 CouncÍI - Concurrent RevÍew Purchasing/Budget: ^ I 4/14/2015 Council -Concurrent Review Executíve: Jack L,ouws /)s./z/q TrTLE On në{tffinNr: Repeal the Eliza 6tän¿ Plan and amend provisions in the Whatcom Code relating to the subarea plan. County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ATTACHMENTS: 1. StaffMemo 2. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits 3. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action 4. Planning Commission minutes Other bøckground inþrmation is onfile at the Council ffice. SEPA review requíred? SEPA revíew completed? ( X )Yes( X )Yes ( ( ) ) NO NO ShouldClerkscheduleøhearing? ( )Yes (* )NO Requested DateI The Council must hold a hearing if rhey want to change the Planning Commissíon's recom m endatío n (WCC 2. I 60. I 00( B )). SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (f thìs ítem is øn ordínønce or requíres ø pubtìc heøríng, you must províde the lønguøge for use in the requíred pubtíc notíce. Be specífrc and cite RCW or WCC as øppropriate. Be cleqr ín explaínìng the intent of the øctíon.) Repeal theBliza Island Plan and amend provisions in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan andZoning Code relating to the subarea plan. The Eliza Island Plan was adoptedinlgg4,prior to the first Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan that was adopted under the GMA. NOTE: Finalapprovaloftheseamendmentswouldoccuraspartofconcurrentreviewofcomprehensiveplanamendmentsinearly20t5. COMMITTEE ACTION: 6/3/2014: Committee recommended that the Counci-l forward for concurrent review COUNCIL ACTION: 5/20/2OI4: Introduced 6-0, WeÍrner absent 6/3/2}l4z Recommended for concurrent review 7-O l/27/20752 Helcl to a later date 3/3/2OI5: Hetct in Councit to be adopted at a 1ater date 4/14/2O]-5z Attoptect 7-0, Ordinance 2015-013 Reløted Counþ Contract #:Related File Numbers:Ordínønce or Resolutíon Number: Ord. 2015-013 øre ava¡lable for víewing and príntíng onPleøse Note: Once adopted ønd signed, ordínønces ønd resolutìons the County's website øt: www.co.whatcom.wø.us/councí1. 5-05-20 l4 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: PDS INTRODUCTION DATE: 5/2O/2O14 ORDINANCE NO. 201s-013 REPEALING THE 1994 ELIZA ISLAND PLAN AND AMENDING PROVISIONS IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE RELATING TO THE PLAN WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in 2014; and \ilIIEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Apnl24, 2014; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recoÍìmended the comprehensive plan amendments on Apnl24,20l4; arrd WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT l. The subject proposal includes: Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to the subarea plan. Amending Whatcom County Zoning Code Plan provisions relating to the subarea plan. c Repealing theEliza Island Plan (1994). A determination of non-significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on March 25,2014. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was posted on the County website on April 8,2014. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media and other groups on the County's e-mail list on April 8,2014. a. b. 2. J 4. I 5 6. 7 Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on April 8,2014. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 11,2014. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on April 24, 2014. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the Countymust find all of the following a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county-wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the county andlor other service providers, such as cities, schools, water andlor sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning. e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. 8. c 2 9 Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows, but does not require, a county to adopt subarea plans under RCV/ 36.704.080 ("Comprehensive plans - Optional elements"). 10.However, the GMA requires that subarea plans must be consistent with a county's comprehensive plan. Specifically, RCV/ 36.704.080(2) states: "A comprehensive plan may include, where appropriate, subarea plans, each of which is consistent with the comprehensive plan." 11.The Eliza Island Plan was adopted in 1994. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was adoptedin 1997 and subsequently amended from time to time. The Subarea Plan's land use designation is not the same as the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan's land use designation. County-Wide Planning Policies 12. The County-Wide Planning Policies do not require the County to retain old subarea plans Interlocal Agreements 13. There are no interlocal agreements relating to the Eliza Island Plan. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 14. The Eliza Island Plan was adopted in 1994. 15.The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1997, artd subsequently amended. Adoption of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan constitutes a changed condition that warrants repealing the 1994 Eliza Island Plan. l7 t6 Public Interest Repealing the 1994 Eliza Island Plan will serve the public interest by removin g a 20 year old plan that is no longer necessary because of adoption of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Spot Zoning 18. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. J CONCLUSION The subject proposal is consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 (Land Use) is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. The Whatcom County ZoningCode is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The Eliza Island Plan (1994) is hereby repealed as shown on Exhibit C Section 4. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. ADOPTED this 14rh day of April ,2015. V/HATCOM COUNTY COI.INCIL V/HATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Chairperson rrl ¡íttt\\\\\ APPROVED as to form:o Civil Deputy Jack Lou Date: t(b 5 4 Exh¡b¡t A Amend Chapter 2 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: Policy 2L-2: 1 Retain and periodically review the adopted Subarea Plans (Lummi Island, Cherry Point-Ferndale, Lake Whatcom, Urban Fringe, Birch Bay Community Plan, Foothills, Point Roberts, and South Fork Valley¡-a¡+Etiz+tstand), Subarea Plans represent a long history of plan development in Whatcom County and provided the foundation for the county's first Growth Management comprehensive plan adopted in 1997. Utilize a process which ensures consistency between the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans. The subarea plan review process should include the following steps: a. Consistency Analysis. The County should review subarea plans based on the priority order in subsection\ìb" for 9aps, overlaps, or inconsistencies. Topics include, but are not limited to, plan boundaries, growth forecasts, land uses, capital facilities and services, horizon year, and other appropriate issues, b. Regional and Local Government Coordination. The County should consult and coordinate with cities where city-associated UGAs are included in subarea plan boundaries, c, Public Participation. Each subarea plan update process will be based on a public participation program that addresses citizen input on the key issues associated with the subarea plan update, d. Subarea Plan Amendment. Only those portions of existing subarea plans in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan are required to be amended. Local issues of concern or changed conditions may be addressed, e. Comprehensive Plan Revisions, Where the subarea plan process recommends growth levels, growth boundaries, or other essential features, Comprehensive Plan amendments will be considered in conjunction with the subarea plan update process. Land capacity analysis may also be updated if appropriate. Prioritize review of subarea plans. Subarea plans should be reviewed in the following order, a. Post-GMA Subarea Plans addressing UGAs, These subarea plans should be reviewed and amended, if necessary, during Whatcom County's periodic review of the comprehensive plan. Subarea plans addressing UGAs associated with a city should be coordinated with the city's comprehensive plan update process, b. Post-GMA Subarea Plans addressing Rural Areas. These subarea plans should subject to a consistency review. If significant inconsistencies are found, these should be considered for potential update during Whatcom County's periodic review of the comprehensive plan. Minor updates may be considered through the County's docket process in subsequent years. c. Pre-GMA Subarea Plans. These should be repealed or updated in accordance with County department work programs or the docketing process. Priority criteria may be used to determine the order of update. Example criteria include: i. whether update is needed for health, safety, or welfare concerns; ii. whether there is a city-associated UGA included in the subarea plan boundaries - in which case, the subarea plan update could be timed to be developed in association with or following city comprehensive plan update process; iii. whether the subarea plan would benefit from broader policy concepts to be completed in advance or in tandem, such as agricultural land protection measures; iv. whether a significant policy objective would be met by amending the plan. In the event there is an inconsistency between a Subarea Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, the Whatcom County Comprehensíve Plan shall prevail. 2 NOTE: The text of Policy 2L-2 above is also being amended in association with the proposed repeal of the Lake Whatcom Subarea Plan (file # 2074- OOOO2) and the South Fork Valley Subarea PIan (file # 2O74-OOOO3). The changes to Policy 2L-2 proposed in the subjed amendment are intended to be harmonious and compatible with the changes to Policy 2L-2 proposed in these other two amendments. Exh¡b¡t B Amend Chapter 20.35 of the Whatcom County Zoning Code as follows: 20.35.O10 Purpose. The Eliza Island District has been formed as a separate district due to its unique character, The purpose of this district is to allow for a harmonious mixture of residential, seasonal residential, recreational, and accessory uses. +a-a¿¿+t+oa-,+ne When making a determination about uses, consideration will be given to the rural land use policies as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as cumulative impacts of uses in this rural area. (Ord. 2011-013 $ 2 Exh. B,2OI1; Ord, 94-032, L994). Exh¡b¡t C (Repealing the Subarea Plan) ELTZA ISLAND PLAN A Component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Whatcom County, Washington May, 1994 ELIZA ISLAND PLAN A Component of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan WHATCOM COUNTY IS A NUCLEAR FREE ZONE As approved by the voters of Whatcom County, County lnitiative Measure #1-84, November 6, 1984; Adopted by Whatcom county Resolution #85-29, June 20, 1985. Whatcom County Executive Shirley Van Zanten Whatcom County Council Barbara E. Brenner Marlene Dawson Kenneth R. Henderson Larry Harris Whatcom County Planning Commission Emil Baijot Rod Erickson David Ernst Clare Fogelsong Leslie Hamilton Robert A. lmhof Ward Nelson Alvin Starkenburg Jerry Landcastle Elaine McRory David Simpson Phillip Urso Eliza lsland Citizen Advisory Committee David Boeringa Myrna Boeringa Linda Bothell Theo Hames Glenn Hawley Jack Hovde Lenny Hovde Robert Littleton Salvatore Papetti Joan Potter William Potter Hal Thurston Bert Webber Sue Webber Glenn Wielick Mary Writer Nicholas Zaferatos Dean Peterson Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department Nathan W. Brown, Director Daniel W. Taylor, Planning Division Manager Project Staff: Jeffrey R. Griffin, Project Planner Sarah Bussard Watts, Planner ll Elizabeth K. Olsen, Chief Cartographer Carole Magner, Clerk lllMord Processor Jane Doughty, Receptionist Whatcom County, Washington May, 1994 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Land Use Planning Citizen Advisory Committee Plan lmplementat¡on 2. LAND USE ELEMENT History Current Land Use Population Characteristics . . . . Land Use Goals and Policies , . . Land Use Designation COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES ELEMENT Transportation/Access . Fire Protection and Emergency Services Public Safety . . Power Supply and Communications Solid Waste Sewage Disposal WaterSupply... Community Facilities and Utilities Goals and Policies . . . 4.ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ELEMENT Climate Topography Shore Processes and Erosion Seismic Hazards Plants, Fish and Wildlife Habitat . . . . Environmental Goals and Policies 5 APPENDICES Appendix A: Geologic Conditions Appendix B: Marine Shoreforms Appendix C: Soils Appendix D: Hydrogeologic Conditions Appendix E: Biologic Conditions Appendix F: Bald Eagle History and Management 6.BIBLIOGRAPHY Publications and Documents Personal Contacts 7, ENABLING ORDINANCE & ZONING 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 I I I 9 11 11 11 12 12 13 15 15 16 16 17 19 22 23 24 introduction -'l I It L¡NGHA ¡! RES I t\n 'l -zilJA !ral¡ I RI E TT LUtllM 8A Y Polnl U¡ll 8AY8 ELLIN6HA M \ tce. \ \k) þ/-q/ cnuc,(a nur \// \ I 5 iles ll ELIZA TSLAND tt Lct, Lala)), "ta^ a I ¿- SCALE: .48'-rMILE VICTNITY MAP CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Land Use Planning The following document plans for the physical development and conservat¡on of Eliza lsland. lt ¡s intended to serve as a guide for the preparat¡on and adoption of official controls, such as zoning regulations, and to provide a basis for reviewing proposed public and private projects. Although comprehensive plans have been adopted for the majority of the County, planning for land use on Eliza lsland was never effected. This has not been a serious problem, however, as the existing subdivision and Beach Club restrictions, and apparent preference for vacation use by individual lot owners, have largely dictated the kind of land use the island has experienced over the last thirty or so years. Whether or not this preference and intensity of use will continue for the next thirty years is questionable due to increasing population and increasing ownership distribution, A comprehensive plan is a source of reference to a¡d in developing, correlating and coordinating official regulations and controls, and is a means for promoting the general welfare. It is also a means for anticipating and influencing the orderly and coordinated development of land and building uses. Statutory authority for county comprehensive land use planning is established in the Washington State Planning Enabling Act, which states that "each planning agency shall prepare a comprehensive plan for the orderly physical development of the county or any port¡on thereof ..." (RCW 36.70.320¡. The Eliza lsland Comprehensive Plan has been developed in response to statutory author¡ty as well as in recognition of the widely accepted principle that future Whatcom County land use decisions should be made in a coordinated and responsible manner by both the public and private sectors. Many planning elements are required by the Washington State Growth Management Act as well. These include planning for capital facilities, transportation, economic development, housing, industrial and commercial land, protect¡ng agricultural, mineral, and forestry resource lands, and critical environmental areas. These elements are being addressed under a broad County-wide Comprehensive Plan, a separate planning process that is currently in its formulative stages of development. Minimum requirements for the Eliza lsland Plan are: (1) the plan must contain a land use element, providing policies for and showing the general distr¡bution and location of land for various uses such as, for example, residential, recreational, commercial, and open space; and (21 a circulation element, setting policy for and outlining transportation and utility routes. The Eliza lsland Comprehensive Plan contains additional elements in light of its unique qualities, which is especially important where county-wide policies are or may be too generalized. Gitizen Advisory Committee A Citizen Advisory Committee, composed of property owners on Eliza lsland, was f ormed on April 17, 1 993 to work together with County planning staff in developing the proposed Eliza lsland Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning. Members fully participated in a consensus process throughout the course of eleven meet¡ngs over a one year period. The Committee chose to survey all property owners on Eliza lsland during the summer of 1993 on land use issues important to the development of the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee also coordinated with the Eliza lsland Beach Club Board, a property and homeowners association serving the island community. 1 Plan lmplementat¡on lmplementation of the plan will require and guide the amendment of existing zoning regulations for Eliza lsland. lt could also direct the County to address pertinent issues through other mechanisms, such as zoning regulations. Under the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning classifies land according to allowed uses. Generally accepted rationale for zoning includes the preservation of property values or community character and the more nebulous "promotion of the general welfare." The typical zoning ordinance, by zone district, establishes uses as either outright permitted, permitted conditionally (subject to additional review, a public hearing, and the imposition of conditions), or prohibited. Current zoning regulations on Eliza lsland were temporarily established in 1974. These regulations are very generalized and provide little or no assurance from the County as to future uses and character of the area. Other existing programs or land use controls are described below. Shoreline Management Program The Shoreline Management Program, established in 1976, contains policies and regulations for shore-front properties. The Conservancy Designation was applied to the majority of Eliza lsland shorelines in 1976. The purpose of the Conservancy Designation is to obtain long-term, wise use of natural resources, encourage multiple use whenever practical, and prevent forms of development which would be unsafe or incompatible with geo-hydraulic processes. Two areas on Eliza lsland received a Natural Designation in 1976, the Federal Reserve at the south end and the South Beach wetland area. The Natural Designation was applied to areas having high value in a natural condition. Development in these areas is limited to low key. compatible recreational facilities. Beach Club Rules and Covenants All property owners with¡n the Eliza lsland plat belong to the Eliza lsland Beach Club which was incorporated in 1961. Subdivision covenants l¡mit improvements to lots to a single family dwelling and appurtenant structures, and a guest house which may not be rented. Building plans must be submitted to the Board of Directors of the Beach Club who approve the general location and layout of proposed improvements w¡th regard to health and nuisance. ln July 1976, Rules of the lsland were adopted prohibiting private piers, mobile homes, or trailers. Private motorized vehicles, other than Beach Club owned ones, are not allowed on the island except for delivery of fuel, building materials, and for owners who require them for health reasons. Airplanes may not use trails or roads for travel to and from owners' lots. Federal Policy for Reserves The lighthouse reserve at the southern tip of the island is Federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Wenatchee. This agency plans to allow the property to remain in a natural state in the public interest. Tidelands adjacent to this property are State owned. Eliza Rock is located just southeast of Eliza lsland and is a San Juan lslands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. Federal guidelines recommend avoidance of this area by air and water craft, and prohibit public access on the Rock. 2 land use element ù ELIZA ISLAND PLAN g,l.a a, Gov'l Lol I figure 1 cov't Lol 2i c¡ov'l Lol ¡l o ctraôl oov'l Lol 5 LEGEND ll All lltlcl¡nd¡ r.. 2nd. cl.r¡ 2l lr¡cl¡ A'B,C rnd D atc Communlly Treclr. Tr¡cl D, nol thown, dcnol!! ¡ll 2ntl. cla¡¡ tldcl¡nd¡ ln 8.c1. 32,Twp. 37, R.2E.,W.M. --==== Welkwtyr and Ullllly El..m.nl 37. F2€.wt/t 3q R¿ÊW¡'l alra ñrct I ., r,1,;¡,y-.Or."Jsan l.l.ôár ra.fill wllailla naa.traDaplh. ln trlhom. Soufcer: t986 Aerlal Pholo,Wheloom Counly Pltnnlng Otpl, Pht M.p.ìlhalcom county Enclncerlnc DcDl., NOAA N.ullcrl Chrrl #t8¡l2t,USgS ToDog. M.p'Elazl lsl.nd' Ou¡drrnglc. 2rl I - I I II - - at¡aHrrrH lryh.lcom oounlt Philsñc O.p.?lmanl Aprll l00l lr¡ol ! 1 GoY'l Lol 3 US. l-kûüu.Éo Rca.rr. cov'l Lol t ELIZA ISLAND PLAT MAP CHAPTER 2. LAND USE ELEMENT History For many years, the island, named by the Natíve Americans "Tukwitch" for its bow shape, was frequented often by members of the Lummi Nation. These people found the island's surrounding waters attracted a healthy population of herring during the spring when the fish spawn. lt was in 1791 that an early Spanish explorer, Lieutenant Francisco Eliza, came upon the San Juan lslands and provided for the island's present name. ln the late 188O's, the island was purchased by lllinois Senator Eugene Canf ield and developed into a large chicken ranch. After smugglers depleted the poultry supply, a potato farm was started but soon abandoned. Pacific American Fisheries lncorporated (P.A.F.) purchased the island in 1899 for storage and fish trap construction, and repair of fish traps, boats, and other gear. P.A.F also put a large reduction plant into operation which produced commercial fertilizers from fish scraps from the local canneries. During this period, several hundred people lived on the island. The banning of fish traps substantially slowed all activity, and a fire in 1938 closed the site. ln 1940, the Navy purchased Eliza and used it as a bombing range for military aircraft during World War ll. ln 1948, Oregon State University leased the island and conducted a study of pheasants. ln the early 1950's, the island was again purchased and selectively logged (mostly second growth) for timber. Eliza lsland Development Company acquired most of Eliza in 1961 and subdivided it into 139 residential parcels and five common tracts, covering all the island except for a Federal lighthouse reserve at the southern tip. The subdivision was extensively advertised as a recreational get-away and is now owned by a number of private individuals and managed by the Eliza lsland Beach Club. Current Land Use Of the 139 residential lots on Eliza, approximately 55 structures have been built, ranging in size from small cabins to three bedroom houses. Most of the lots are owned separately and are in the 25-30,000 square footage range. Actual buildable lot area, however, is much smaller on most of the shoreline lots. The five community tracts are owned and managed by the Eliza lsland Beach Club. These tracts include the airstrip (Tract A), a community area which includes a large marsh and playground area (Tract B), an eroding "isthmus" to the south of the island (Tract C), the intertidal area encompassing the island except for the south end (Tract D), and the caretaker/equipment storage community area (Tract El. The Club allows only members and guests access to their community owned tidelands. The lighthouse reserve at the southern tip of the island is Federally owned. Tidelands adjacent to this property are State owned. State and Federal laws allow public access to the tidelands and uplands for low intensity, recreational use. Population Characteristics The current population ranges from two year-round residents (the caretakersl to approximately 144 people over the Fourth of July holiday. Although there are no zoning restr¡ctions prohibiting permanent occupancy, the islanders have chosen, thus far, to use their lots and cabins for seasonal and recreational purposes only. 3 1 2 2 3 4 The zoning adopted in the 197Os allows a density of one unit per acre, which would not allow further subdivision of the existing lots unless the islanders decided to change the use of the community tracts, or the Federal government sold the southern end, both of which are unlikely. Therefore, under existing zoning and covenant restrictions, the maximum theoretical population on the island could become 417 persons, assuming permanent occupancy of 139 lots at three persons per household. The accustomed recreational use of the lots, along with limitations on the cost of potable water, however, should limit population growth. Land Use Goals and Policies Goals: Given the exceptional natural and wildlife resources of the island, and a strong desire by islanders to preserve these resources for future generations to enjoy, Eliza lsland should maintain its uníque qualities through the continued development of modest sized structures designed and located in a manner which minimizes impacts to the island's character. Encourage the dedication of land for both passive and active recreation, preserve the environmental quality of the island and maintain the island character. Policies: Physical Development Site design and building layout should take advantage of natural topography, vegetation and solar access. Vegetated buffers should be utilized between cabins and other developments. Non-porous surfaces should be minimized and directed away from marine bluffs to prevent erosion Development should be limited in height and size in order to maintain the islands rural and scenic qualities, reduce cumulative environmental impacts occurring from full buildout, and encourage a recreational island lifestyle. Material used for development on the island should be compatible with the islends scenic qualities. Trailers and mobile homes should be prohibited. Commercial land uses on the island should be prohibited Applicants for development on Eliza lsland should not be required to transport County personnel. The County should be responsible for their own transportation to the ¡sland. Open Space The aesthetic value and open views of the beaches and shoreline areas should be preserved, Eliza Rock should continue to be utilized as a natural open space area and wildlife refuge. 5 6 2 4 3 4 Whatcom County and the Eliza lsland Beach Club should acknowledge the lighthouse reserve at the south end of the island as publicly owned and a permanent open space area for passive recreational use. The community tracts of the island subdivisions should continue to be utilized for passive recreation, natural open space, caretaker facilities, and small plane access. Recreation Recreational camping should be allowed on individually owned lots provided all health related concerns are addressed. Noise Uses on the island should not present incompatible noise nuisances to residents I and ljse fresignafion An "lsland" plan designation has been formed for Eliza lsland. This new designation was created because no other existing plan designat¡on appropriately characterized the lsland and its' seasonal residential, residential, and recreational mixture of land uses. 5 community facilities and utilities element w tlct le 1'í' -" r t\ELIZA^ ISLAND PLAN I I ; ligure 2 I a .oe s 0 borl dct rllnl r¡llon prlv¡lc *,ltoorf e. i I I I l I I * ) I * s I ) LEGEND a Vaottlon Hom¡ ==l!= y¡21¡,11ry. ¡nd Ulllltt E.lcmrnt. SDutc.!.: whllcom co. As3crôor'r Ollloe Elltr ht'od Boloñ club' -1003' ì / El¡ri iocl COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES ,\I - 'l I - -I lñnD wholcoil counly Plânnlng Dop6rlmonl Aprll tg9a CHAPTER 3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES ELEMENT Transportatio n/Access Access is by private or chartered boat or plane, with the majority using private boats. The island has one boat dock and an airstrip for the residents' use. The 2S-foot long dock is located atthe end of a 1OO-foot pier on the mid-west shore of the island and is primarily used for loading and unloading. Boats are then moored at one of the sixty personally owned buoys. During the summer months, Eliza lsland may be serviced by the lsland Shuttle Express, a privately operated ferry that departs daily from Bellingham with the San Juan lslands as its destination, but may stop at Eliza lsland upon request. The airstrip, located in the mid-west center of the island, is unpaved and 1 5 1 0 feet long, and is suitable for small propeller plane use only. The lack of night-time lighting restricts landings to daylight hours. Several air taxis service the island with commuter planes upon request. Eliza Rock is designated as a National Wildlife Reserve and as such is closed to the public to protect breeding colonies of seabirds, endangered and threatened species, and marine mammals. Boaters are requested to stay at least 2OO yards away from these islands to avoid disturbance to these animals. ln addition, Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) guidelines state all aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 20OO feet over refuges, wilderness areas, and primitive areas (FAA Advisory Circular 91-36C1. Low-flying aircraft may pose a threat to marine birds whíle nesting or wintering on Eliza Rock by causing stress to the birds at critical times. Motorized vehicles on the island are restricted to various community-owned ut¡lity equipment. Other motorized vehicles are only allowed under unique situations. Dirt and gravel road easements lead to cabins, common tracts, and facilities. Fire Protect¡on and Emergency Services Present fire protection for improvements cons¡sts of a tank/pump tra¡ler with a capacity of 500 gallons, several fire extinguishers, and nine standpipes located throughout the island. The island is not within a fire district boundary. An attempt to form a district was made in 1979, however the proponents only had two commissioners. The formation of a district requires at least three residents who are registered voters to serve as commissioners. Until Eliza lsland annexes into a fire district or forms its own, it will not qualify for mutual aid from other d¡stricts nor from the Bellingham Fire Department and its water boat. The Bellingham Fire Department will, however, perform fee based emergency medical service to the islanders. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required by State law to suppress all wildfires on unimproved land regardless of parcel size. The DNR estimates that it would take at least two or three hours for the department to reach the island and coordinate boat, land, or helicopter operations. The Coast Guard might assist in these efforts by providing transport for fire fighters. The DNR is prohibited, however, from entering or leaning ladders against any improvements because the responsibility of protecting improvements is left to the local fire districts, or, in this case, the Eliza lsland Beach Club. 6 Fire Flow Standards Building and fire codes require certain levels of water service for each building type and use and are applied when long subdivisions are being developed, When the Eliza lsland plat was approved in 1961, however, such standards were not required. Current codes exempt from fire flow standards single family houses and all secondary buildings under 2,5O0 square feet. Public Safety Law enforcement on Eliza lsland is provided by the Whatcom County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is located in the Whatcom County Courthouse in Bellingham and serves an area of approximately 2,O87 square miles including all of Whatcom County with the exception of Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, Sumas, and parts of the Lummi Reservation. The estimated service area population in 1991 was approximately 62,57 I persons. The department currently employs 82 full-time paid personnel assigned to the entire county and consists of four divisions: Corrections, Civil, Criminal, and Emergency Managemênt. ln additíon, there are 48 full-time deputies; 36 of whom are assigned to patrolling and responding to service calls; the remaining 12 deputies perform administrative and supervisory tasks at the main station, although they are also available to respond to calls, There are 13 administrative staff and approximately 45 jail staff . Currently the Sheriff's Department is conducting a staffing survey to determine whether the department has enough personnel to provide an adequate level of service. The Sheriff's Department will respond to calls from the island. lt is est¡mated, however, that the response time for in-progress crimes would be at least one hour. Transportation would have to be arranged either by Coast Guard escort or by flight services at the Bellingham lnternational Airport. The Sheriff 's Department does not have adequately sized boats of their own to respond to calls outside of the harbor area. Power Supply and Communications There is no public source of electricity supplied to Eliza lsland, Some individual cabins are powered by privately owned generators and some cabins operate low voltage, 12 volt systems supplied from storage batteries which are charged by generator or solar collection arrays. Other cabins have no electricity. Heat is produced by wood burning stoves and propane heaters. A phone CB at the caretaker's house can be used to contact the Coast Guard in the event of an emergency. Cellular phones are also available to the caretakers and private owners. Television and radio reception are limited. The island has the potential for wind and/or solar energy generation which might serve as an appropriate energy alternative for the islanders' seasonal recreation usage, resulting in a reduced reliance on imported fuels. Due to the unique nature of Eliza lsland, the limited services available and the seasonal use of many structures, Whatcom County is authorized under the Uniform Building Code to allow some flexibility when issuing construction permits for projects on Eliza lsland. This may include the allowance for pier and post foundations, wood stoves as the primary heating source, and reduced energy code compliance. 7 Solid Waste Solid waste is either burned or packed off the island and disposed on the mainland, Most burning activ¡tíes require a permit from Whatcom County Fire Division. Only burning of natural vegetation and untreated lumber materials is permissible. Any act¡vity releasing airborne particulates must also comply with the regulations of Northwest Air Pollution Authority, ln addition, activity may be suspended whenever the County or the Department of Natural Resources declare a burn ban, The Beach Club also monitors burning activity. Sewage Disposal Sewage disposal is by septic tank with individual drainfields. lncreased use from existing drainfields designed for limited use may become problematic. New systems require full compliance w¡th the Whatcom County Health Department standards. Some systems may require careful design to account for slow or rapid infiltration rates, depending upon soil conditions (see Appendix C for soils information.) One of the principal criterion used to determine whether an area is urban or rural in character is the availability of a public sewer system. Development of a public sewer system would be costly and would conflict with the goals of keeping the island rural and recreational. A more appropriate solution lor Eliza lsland is to continue the use of sept¡c systems, but at a level of intensity which maintains the environmental integrity of the island. Water Supply Up until 1993, water had been supplied to residents from a single well treated by a chlorination system and stored within five fiberglass boat molds and one steel tank with a total capacity of 1OO,O0O gallons. Although this system provided the water necessary to the island lot owners for 30 years, it failed to meet current health standards due to limitations in both quantity and guality. During August 1991, water became unavailable because the well yield became too low during the summer to meet daily demand and sufficient quantities had not been stored in the tanks when water was available during the winter and spring months. Amendments to the Growth Management Act were adopted in 1991 through House Bill 1025. Section 63 of the leg¡slation, including the amendments, states that local jurisdictions shall require: "Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable water shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use of the building..." Accordingly, in July 1991, the County established an ¡nterim policy to address this mandate. Due to the water situation on Eliza lsland, the County would not issue new residential building permits until evidence of an adequate water supply is demonstrated. ln this case, it must be approved by the State Department of Health because ¡t has jurisdiction for approving public water systems. ln 1991, the El¡za lsland Beach Club appointed a water committee to investigate opt¡ons available to provide potable water for island lot owners. After a review of alternatives, this committee decided that turning salt water ¡nto potable water was the best alternative (see Appendix D for a discussion of ground-water resources on the island) and was the f¡rst in the State of Washington to receive state and local agency endorsement. This consent was based upon part-time, recreational use of the cabins on the island, at a water rate to be determined based upon demonstrated usage. The reverse osmosis, de-salinization plant was constructed in 1993 and began service to a portion of the lot owners that year. As a requirement of state approval, a Water Conservation Plan must be followed in order to foster water conservation practices. I 1 Community Facilities and Utilities Goals and Policies Goal: lncreased populat¡on on the islarid could necessitate improved or additional transportation systems, fire and police protection, power supplies, communication systems, solid waste disposal methods, sewage disposal, and water supply. These improvements and/or additions should be designed in keeping with the overall goal of maintaining a low intensive recreational use of the island. Policies: Transportation/Access Shoreline accessory developments, such as piers and docks, should be limited to those that are owned by and accessíble to the communíty. Federal Aviation Administration guidelines with respect to National Wildlife Refuges should be observed by those utilizing the airstrip facilities on the island and for any future expansions to avoid impacts to sensitive marine animals on Eliza Rock. The use of motorized vehicles should be minimized and in accordance with island covenants, conditions, and restrictions, Transportation routes on the island should continue to be of the low intensive trails type. Fire Protection and Emergency Services The island is poorly equipped to handle an emergency fire situation, especially under dry weather and high wind conditions. Whatcom County should support the lslanders efforts to develop a fire protection plan. Public Safety Whatcom County should ensure that the necessary staff and equipment are available in the Whatcom County Sheriff's Department to provide adequate protective services for the Eliza lsland population. Power Supply - Energy Code Whatcom County should encourage the physical development of passive or active solar heating and water heating, and wind power plants for residential uses on the island. Whatcom County should allow code flexibility to the extent permissible for construction of cabins that will be used on a part-time recreational basis. Solid Waste lslanders are encouraged to follow the "carry in, carry out" rule in the handling of waste. Disposal on the island should be prohibited. 2 3 4 1 2 9 Sewer Systems Whatcom County should discourage the siting of a public sewer system on Eliza lsland. The use of individual septic systems should be encouraged in accordance with Whatcom County Health Department standards. Water Systems 1 Whatcom County encourages the Eliza lsland Water Conservation Plan 2 Whatcom County should coordinate with Washington State Department of Health by encouraging recreat¡onal land use on the island which is consistent w¡th the capabilities of the island's approved watef system. 10 environmental char acteri stic s e I ement s ...r:t>l¡äö"ãï"mcan ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ELIZA ISLAND PLAN figure 3 + # +Fl åÊì *; * +F * # +ç tç 'lÊ' I : J ) ¡ ¡ : I*o * LEGEND a Vrc¡tlon Homc - Crl.lrk.t'.ßc.ld.nc./CommunltyFeclllty ffi Forc.t H.blt.l [t or¡orl¡nd ffi 8¡llm¡r¡h/t{rttlend æ rÊ # Rock., b.rc or âwmh, ¡l Mc¡n lowcr Low wat.? Ø Eclgrerr bcd É¿ Kcrp b.d Sourcc: t988 tyhttoom Co, A.rl.l photo,Flcld Survct Aprll lggo I ìrYh¡loorn CounlÍ Pl.mlñe Dap¡tlñanl APtll f 99¡1 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ELEMENT Climate The lsland experiences a temperate marine climate, characterized by mild temperatures, muted extremes, and narrow diurnal fluctuations. Winters are wet and mild, with an average daily temperature of 36 degrees F in January, Summers are relatively cool and dry, with average daily temperatures in July of 63 degrees F. The Vancouver lsland mountains and the Olympic Mountain Range in northwestern Washington shelter the island from major storms moving landward off the Pacific Ocean and produce a rain shadow effect. Based on the nearest available formal weather stations, Olga on Orcas lsland and Bellingham Airport, average annual precipitation is estimated to be less than 32 inches per year, most of which falls between October 1 and March 31. Topography The irregularly shaped island has an area of 158 acres, or approximately one-quarter square mile, enclosed by approximately 3.1 miles of shoreline. The island is T-shaped with different surface features on each peninsula (see figure 3). The western bedrock knob is fairly flat with the highest elevation being twenty feet above sea level. The rocks of the southern bedrock knob have an elevation up to 87 Íeet with a slope of 12 percent. The central region has the highest elevation of 88 feet. The northern point of the island consists of a narrow ridge that descends northward from the high point of the island. The eastern shore consists of a marine bluff created by wave erosion and small slope failures. The eastern part of the island is connected to the western knob by a low-lying area bounded by beach berms and containing a saltwater marsh. Shore Processes and Erosion Rates of erosion and shoreline retreat are undocumented on Eliza lsland, but based on similar shorelines in other parts of the region, the glacial bluffs might be expected to retreat at approximately one foot per decade, but will do so in an episodic fashion, losing a few feet in a small slide every several decades, lt will be centuries before the south end is cut off from the rest of the island. Two aspects of shore processes bear directly on development practices on Eliza lsland. The first concerns development of the low-lying barrier beach. The berms that form portions of both the south and north beaches were built by wave action and as a result are subject to further wave action in the future. The berms have been modified by human act¡vity as well. Although flooding does not occur frequently, it can and will occur again. Serious damage may occur if high water is accompanied by wave action. The south beach is retracting gradually over time and this will accelerate if feeder bluffs are bulk-headed. ln addition, short term erosion may occur as a response to large storms. Erosion will put any structure near the berm at risk and will increase pressure to armor the shoreline. The impact of a small earthquake- generated tsunami could be devastating to structures built on or adjacent to the berm. The second concern involves development of the bluffs. Although erosion rates are slow, small landslides can be expected to continue. Armoring of the shoreline with bulkheads or rip rap to limit erosion or stab¡l¡ze bluffs will result in the loss of sediment supply to the beach and may result in greater erosion down-drift. All efforts should be made to locate structures so that the pressure to bulkhead is minimized. Clearly, bulkheading represents a significant change to the natural character of the shoreline and is accompanied by loss of important shoreline habitat. 11 Many of the problems property owners have with erosion and slope failure on shoreline sites can be traced to clearing of vegetation. Much of the stab¡lity of shoreline bluffs is due to the root strength created by bluff top and bluff slope vegetation. Just as importantly, veg€tation controls bluff hydrology and prevents slope failures due to soil saturation. Trees prevent the infiltration of water during rainstorms and remove large amounts of water from the soil through evapotranspiration. When the vegetation is removed, the stability is weakened, increasing the natural rate of erosion. This acceleration can lead a property owner to consider protections such as bulkheads, seawalls, and rip-rap. However, because shoreline environments are a balance of large and changing forces, disruption can have unforeseen consequences. Not only is the delicate interplay between geologic, hydrologic and biologic systems easily damaged, but a structural modification at one point along a shoreline can have impacts to other areas away from the site. An alternative method of bank stabilization is to re-introduce vegetation to the area and locate improvements as far from the bluff edge as possible, Seismic Hazards The Uniform Ruilding Code includes a Seismic Risk Map for the United States which considers potent¡al earthquake intensity and resulting damage. Five zones are identified with the following relationships to potent¡al damage: Zone 0 - no damage, Zone 1- minor damage, Zone 2 - moderate damage, Zone3 - major damage, and Zone 4 - areas within Zone 3 that are in proximity to malor fault systems. The Puget Sound Basin lies in the Circum-Pacific earthquake belt that extends along the west coast of North and south America. Based upon this and the geologic structure of the region, it has been categorized as within seismic risk Zone 3. There are no known faults within the island that are cons¡dered active (movement having occurred within the past 1O,0OO years). Seismic vibration would be the major result from an earthquake. The degree of shaking is primarily dependent on two variables, the geologic unit involved and the degree of water saturation (see Appendix A, Geologic Conditions). The sand and gravel deposits of the Out- wash and Undifferentiated Glacial deposits are susceptible to seismic shaking. Organic soils in the wetland area and any areas of artificial fill are highly susceptible to shaking, especially in thick deposits. The fine soil components of deposits within the lowland, central area of the island are highly susceptible to lÍquefaction when shaken because of the high water table. Plants, Fish, and Wildlife Habitat The habitats on Eliza lsland provide plants, fish, and wíldlife with their basic requirements for survival, such as food, water, and cover, as well as special seasonal requirements related to growth and reproduction. The open waters offshore provide important habitat for thousands of organisms, including phytoplankton and zooplankton, subtidal macroalgae (seaweed), benthic invertebrates, fish, and marine birds and mammals. Many species require both marine and non-marine habitats at different times in their lif e cycles. The physical features of the irregular shoreline including promontories, bluffs, cliffs, cobble and sandy beaches and marshes create a variety of habitat and forage opportun¡ties for many species. Rich marine bird habitat is found in shallow bays where the birds forage on eelgrass plants, small fish, and invertebrates. . A wide variety of life inhabits the uplands of Eliza lsland both seasonally and year- around. The assortment of vegetation provides habitat for many species of birds and insects as they utilize several differing types of habitat; one species may forage for a variety of insects in lowland clearings including the salt marsh and return to forested areas for shelter, while another may visit the nearshore environment from a nesting site on another island (see also Appendix E, for further discussion of habitat types). 12 1 2 Planning for habitat protection on Eliza lsland requires that act¡vities affecting habitat be managed ín a comprehensive manner to insure that the best representation and distribution of habitats remain to preserve the natural values and functions of those habitats, Virtually every land use action affects wildlife habitat. When recognizing the dependency of wildlife on soils, vegetat¡on, clean air and water, one can appreciate the importance of minimizing the adverse impacts on wildlife through careful land use. lncremental habitat loss results in cumulative impacts and ultimately the need for crisis management. Cumulative adverse impacts on habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife, generally, and species diversity, specifically. Potential cumulative impacts must be identified in the planning process. Further, the creation of clearly stated policies directly linking various land use elements with wildlife requirements is needed. Environmental Goals and Policies Goals: Protect and preserve the diversity of plant and animal species on Eliza lsland and the surrounding shoreline areas. Protect the general health, safety and welfare by insuring that development in geological hazardous areas minimizes the danger to life and property and is environmentally sound. Prevent erosion and landslides on steep slopes. Promote residential landscaping that preserves and is compatible with natural vegetat¡on and requires low levels of water consumption. Policies: Shoreline Bluffs Vegetation removal on eroding shoreline bluffs and banks should be prohibited to maintain bank stability. Natural vegetation should be retained along marine bluffs. The dumping of any vegetation or debrís over the edge of a bluff will increase the potential for landslide and should be prohibited. The visual integrity of the shoreline should be protected. Encroachment on geohydraulic processes should be prohibited. Developments should be located well away from the waters edge. Shore defense works should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner which pressrves or enhances the quality of affected waters, and conserves or enhances fish and wildlife resources and the¡r respective habitats. Non-structural, non-obtrusive shore defense works are preferred over artificial, structural alternatives. Saturating so¡ls along bluffs should be prevented by minimizing watering and mainta¡ning natural vegetat¡on in order to help prevent slope failure. 3 2 3 4 5 6 13 1 2 3 4 5 2 Land Clearing The visual integrity of the uplands should be protected, Land clearing on the island should be minimized. Mínor tree de-limbing and small tree thinning is emphasized as preferable to clearing for view access and to decrease shading. Because of erosion problems caused by large areas of exposed soil, construction sites should not be cleared until shortly before actual construction is to begin. Land clearing, grading, and filling should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the primary purpose of the development. Seismic When located within areas of high seismic risk, new construction should be reviewed to minimize damage due to earthquakes. Flooding Flood prevention activities should rely upon appropriate placement and construction of developments to minimize the necessity for artificial defense systems. Maintenance of flood protect¡on berms should minimize disruption to natural shore processes and sensitive environmental areas. Gravel used to rebuild berms should not be excavated from below the ordinary high water level. Plants and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Natural vegetation should be reta¡ned as much as possible when developing sites in order to provide a continuous wildlife habitat. Large trees and snags should be preserved. Kelp and eelgrass beds and other mar¡ne plants surrounding the island should be protected and enhanced. Critical habitat of threatened, rare and endangered wildlife species should be preserved and protected. Whatcom County should work with the property owners of Eliza lsland, citizen groups, the State of Washington, and other agencies in identifying and protecting bald eagle habitat, near shore habitat, and general environmental quality of the island. Whatcom County should encourage island property owners to use the current use tax assessment provisions of RCW 84,34, and/or conservation easements to reduce taxation and retaín important wildlife habitats, such as bald eagle nest areas, in open space. MarshArVetland Whatcom County should work with the property owners of Eliza lsland, citizen groups, the State of Washington, and other agencies in developing management pract¡ces to restore and enhance the salt water marsh on Eliza lsland. 1 2 3 14 appendices KJs KJe ù ELIZA ISLAND PLAN figure 4 Ua.!a 0 o u a.c.l, tll.. noo¡ ôañ Ju.n lrl.nda È.llcñal flldlll. ¡.a.rta DLEGEN tffiffi Llü"ält't'l O¡l Alluvl.l DrPo.ll. Ol Fr¡¡cr Drlll. Undlll.tcnlhl ql'clrl D'Po'll' KJ. Jur.r!lc 8.dlm.nl"Y Abrolulc scclor Eound¡rt Nrl Hlgh Îld. Dtllt Dlr.olþn Nrlurrl Acct.llon sñotc Ero¡lon¡l Elull Rocly thorc ,s rô/¡ô rñ aoooo Sourot: €lllalbrool. Doñ J'Otoloelc l¡¡p ol wetlc'n wh¡loom cou,llt, w'" u's'o's' t9t3 Ad¡pled lrom woll E'ucr'P'€" t975 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND MARINE SHOREFORMS lvhalcon Counlt Planrlng Dcperlncnl Aprll loe¡l Appendix A: Geologic Gonditions Eliza lsland consists of three basic geologic formations: 1) bedrock, 2) glacial deposits, and 3) alluvial deposits. The bedrock forms the rocky knobs at the south and the west ends of the island and underlies glacial materials along portions of the northeastern shore. The bedrock consists of phyllite of Jurassic and Cretaceous Age (many tens of millions of years olà). This phyllite is slightly recrystallized sandstone and shale that preserves some sedimentary characteristics but is unfossiliferous. The glacial deposits overlie the bedrock and form most of the eastern part of the island. These poorly exposed sed¡ments were deposited during the Fraser glaciation, approximately 15,0O0 years ago. The Coastal Atlas suggests (but is uncertain) that these materials consist of advance outwash, glacial till, and glacial-marine drift. Alluvial deposits make up the central, lowland area and are composed of stratified sands, silts, and gravels. These deposits are largely the result of the building of a barrier beach system between the eastern and western port¡ons of the island, which may have originally been separated by water. This beach building occurred during the Holocene, the last 10,OOO years, and continues today. The bedrock provides generally stable building sites and erodes extremely slowly, but may present dífficulties in excavation and construction of septic systems. The glacial deposits are subject to greater rates of shoreline erosion and are less stable, part¡cularly on steep slopes or where ground-water is abundant. The low-lying alluvial deposits may be subject to flooding and though soils may perk, the high water table may limit their application for septic systems. Appendix B: Marine Shoreforms South shore: The south shore of Eliza lsland consists of a broad crescent-shaped barrier beach backed by a broad backshore and marsh/meadow. This beach comprises a single drift cell, contained between the rocky promontories at the southern and western ends of the island. The material that forms this beach is derived from the erosion of the glacial bluffs at the southeast end of the embayment. This beach retreats landward slowly as the bluff erodes and eventually may cut off the narrow neck of land at the south end, creating an island of the southern tip of the island. Eroded material is moved by shore-drift along the beach to the west, although reversals will occur depending on wind and wave dírections. East shore: The eastern shore consists of a north-south trending shore bluff of glacial mater¡al. This shore forms a drift cell bounded by the rocky southern point and by the sharp point at the northeastern end of the island. The bluffs are generally less than fifty feet high and a narrow beach has formed at the base of the bluffs. Eroded material is moved both north and south along the shore depending on wave conditions, but the predominant movement ¡s toward the north as a result of the greater fetch from the south. North shore: The western half of the north beach is an accretion beach terminating at the rocky western promontory. The berm is higher and broader than the berm on the south shore and may be older. The beach is fed by erosion of the bluff at the northern end of the island and by erosion of the low terrace between the bluff and the accret¡on beach, Exposure to the north is protected somewhat by Lummi and Portage lslands. 15 s ELIZA ISLAND PLAN u,a,o.a figure 5 0 o úaoa LEGEND 8o Klcke¡vllle slll Lo.m, 3s lo ES rlopcr El Klckcrvllle Sllr Lorm, 8S lo l5S tlopc. I I t N.ptuno vcry gravclly S¡ndy Loam, OS lo 3¡ !lop'! ll7 Plckrtl - Roch oulcrop complcx, 6t lo 0OS .lopc! t40 Sh¡lcar Muct, dr¡lncd, Ol to 2i .tlop.. l8¿l Whllthorn lllr Lo¡m, 0i to 2S llop.r Sllr¡ Âoat 'ur¡r ¡g¡rs''o ern Jo¡ñ 1.1.tr!t. N.llon.l wlldllla naaarl' Sourc€: Soll Cons€rytllon Servlco. U.S.O.A. tnd We. Slrle o.N.ß., Mty 1002 Wh!lcoñ Counlt Plannlne Depârlmrnl Aprfi I90t SOIL UNITS Appendix C: Soils The northwest shoreline contains the Neptune soil type. lt consists of very deep, excessively drained soil, on a marine terrace. Permeabílity of this soil is very rapid. lt has a slope of 0-3 percent. The soil is subject to rare periods of flooding from tidal inundation. The rapid permeabílity does not allow proper filtration of septic field overflow. The absorption fields need to be surrounded by Health Department approved fill to compensate for this problem. The south central region contains Shalcar muck. lt is a very deep well drained soil common in depressional areas on outwash terraces, till plains, and stream terraces. This soil was formed from herbaceous and woody organic material that was deposited upon rock materials. Permeability is moderately slow near the surface and rapid through underlying material, lt has a slope of O-2 percent. The high water table and the low strength make this soil unsuited for homesite development. White Horn silt loam is located in the center of the island. lt is poorly drained on wave eroded, glacial marine drift plains. Slope is between O-2 percent. Permeability is very slow and water capacity is high. Nearly fifty percent of the island is composed of Kickerville silt loam. There are two variations of the soil depending on its slope. Kickerville with a slope of 3-8 percent is located on the tips of the north and south peninsulas. Kickerville with a slope of 8-15 percent is located in between. Both soiltypes are very deep, and well drained on outwash terraces. The main limitations to homesite development ¡s the steepness of slope, especially with slope of 8- 15 percent. The limitations for septic tank absorption fields is the poor filter ability of the underlying rock. Placing the drainfield in approved fill helps compensate for this problem. On the west peninsula there is a small region of Pickett Rock soil. lt is on glacially eroded backslopes and ridgetops, The soil is well-drained and moderately deep. Permeability is moderate. lt has a slope of 5-3O percent. Appendix D: Hydrogeologic Conditions The geology has two types of water-bearing material: the bedrock of sandstone and conglomerate where water is stored principally in fractures and fissures, and the overlying glacial material, where water ¡s stored in both the permeable sands and gravel and in the less permeable but still porous clays and tills. The storage capacity of the latter materials is judged to be at least ten times as good as the bedrock and the transmissivity (abil¡ty of the water to move through the materials) generally is judged to be higher and much less variable. A 1961 report by Leland R. Jones characterized the island's potable water as follows: Explorations consisted of reconnaissance, three churn drill holes, and electrical resistivity geophysical explorations, These explorations showed that there is only one potent¡al source of potable domestic water. This area is roughly the northern half of the main body of the island. ln this area, the water can be obtained from a relatively thin sand stratum confined between layers of clay. The sand stratum evidently connects with or drains overlying gravel and clay strata which collect rain water. Because of its relatively low permeability, special measures are necessary to obtain an adequate water supply in the area. 16 Ground Water Recharge Precipitation falling on the land surface of the island is the only known source of recharge for which figures can be computed (estimated at 32 inches per yearl. The amount of this precipitation actually reaching the ground water supply varies from place to place on the island according to surface topography, extent and type of vegetation, and characteristics of the soil and geologic material. Saltwater lntrusion The proximity of saltwater makes island ground water resources among the most fragile and sensitive systems in nature. Beneath the surface are both fresh ground water and salt ground water with a diffusion zone ín between. The fresh ground water is constantly moving seaward, "leaking out." lf fresh ground water is also removed by pumping, then, unless an equivalent amount of water is returned to the aquifer in the vicinity of the well, or, unless there is an impervious layer separatíng the fresh water from the saltwater, the net effect is to raise the level of the saltwater in the ground due to reduced head. To insure against saltwater intrusion, the well depth must be within the fresh water zone and recharge must be suff¡c¡ent both to offset "leakage" and pumping, and to keep the saltwater a safe distance from the bottom of the well. ln 1961, Leland R, Jones conducted a ground water investigation on Eliza lsland to determine what ground water supplies, in addition to the existing well, were available. Three wells were drilled at different locations and all encountered saltwater between 46-54 feet. No attempt to drill deeper was performed although there are reports that a very deep privately owned well on the island supplies freshwater. It was determined after this study that a horizontal trench well would provide the desired quant¡ty of water. An attempt then followed to build a trench filled with gravel that would intercept fresh ground water as it moved along the gradient from the higher areas of the island to the flat marsh area. lt was estimated from salinity tests taken from the lowland ponds that "at least 40 or 5O gallons per minute (of fresh water) are flowing to the pond." The finished horizontal trench well, however, was abandoned due to high salinity levels. Appendix E: Biologic Conditions The greatest díversity of species occurs in "edge" areas where different habitat zones adjoin or overlap, Prime examples of edge areas are the forest/aquatic interface and the marsh/thicket/woodland interface where greater diversity of vegetation results in the presence of many insect and bird species. This island, with its forested areas, shorelines, open space areas, and marsh and estuaries, provides many areas of edge habitat. Categorized below are five habitat zones within or around Eliza lsland: Forest; Field-and-Thicket; Wetlands; Shorelands; and Open Salt Water. Forest Habitat The dominant tree species on the island is Douglas fir. Other important constituent trees are western hemlock, western red cedar, madrone and bigleaf maple. Willow, vine maple, and western yew are also present. Shrubs commonly found in association with deciduous and mixed coniferous and deciduous forests include wild rose, ocean spray, elderberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, wild gooseberry, chokecherry, and hazelnut. Typical herbaceous plants include deer fern, vanilla leaf, twisted stalk, trillium, false Solomon's seal, star flower, bleeding heart, yellow violst, stínging nettle and buttercup in moderately moist areas. 17 åÈ , ELIZA ISLAND " PLAN (0act \+Ê t I I I o ) .ctoI I I \ I \ r"" LEGEND ffi Fo?ltt Hrbltrt # figure 6 # \ I I tç ,e \ì I * t\¿åç * {ç otn, \ 6/¡._I l Flrld rnd Thlck¡l H¡bltrl E woltend H¡bltst 8ho¡cllnc H!bltat €olgr¡¡¡ Bcd¡ æ Kctp gcdr æ rÊ # Roch!. br?c or ¡wa¡h, lt Mcan Low.? Low lVrtct lr, l¡thom (8 lcct) Fclugc lalanda BIOLOGIC CONDITIONS Whalcom Counl!' Pl¡nnlîg ocpttlmrtrl Aprll te9a Birds generally associated with forest habitats in the region include hawks, bald eagles, ospreys, grouse, owls, band-tailed pigeons, Vaux's swifts, hummingbirds, woodpeckers, flycatchers, swallows, ravens, jays, crows, chickadees, bushtits, nuthatches, brown creepers, wrens, robins, thrushes, kinglets, waxwings, starlings, vireos, wood warblers, Bullock's orioles, brown-headed cowbirds, Western tanagers, grosbeaks, finches, siskins, rufous-sided towhees, red crossbills, juncos, sparrows and the great blue heron. Field-and-Thicket Habitat The field and thicket habitat encompasses open space areas, yards and hedge rows, trail thickets and dense underbrush which grows along banks and cliffs above the beaches. Flora commonly includes English ivy, honeysuckle, and scotchbroom and native species such as the wild rose, salmonberry and red elderberry. Birds commonly found in shrub and thicket habitats include California quail, ring-necked pheasants, swallows, chickadees, bushtits, wrens, wood warblers, brown-headed cowbirds, rufous-sided towhees, juncos, and sparrows, Wetland Habitat A relatively large salt marsh, one of the few in Whatcom County, is located in the island's south central area. The bottom of the mudflat consists of rich organic sediment while numerous amphipods, plankton, and other organisms live in the mudflat's shallow water, Along ihe northern perimeter of the mudflat, in a few centimeters of standing water, grow sedges. The ground immediately surrounding the mudflat is thoroughly saturated with salt water. This area is character¡zed by mats of pickleweed interlaced with orange dodder, salt grass, salt weed, gum weed, and various grasses, including the exotic Reed canary grass. Between the south beach and the entire grass lowland lie three meter high dunes, all of which are covered with dune grass. Aquatic birds visiting the wetland may include great blue herons, loons, grebes, swans, geese, ducks, bald eagles, falcons, ospreys, hawks, coots, rails, plovers, killdeer, snipes, sand- pipers, phalaropes, gulls, terns, kingfishers, swallows, crows, long-billed marsh wrens, water pipits, common yellowthroats, and blackbirds. Due to a number of drainage ditches, wet meadows, the saltmarsh, and vacationers, the island supports a large number of mosquitos. Because of th¡s, the Beach Club has maintained a practice of draining these areas and spraying with pesticides. Unfortunately, this has a detrimental effect on the hab¡tat and aesthetic value of the wetland. The loss of open water restricts its use by a variety of birdlife and aquatic insects, and leaves the site more vulnerable to invasive noxious weeds such as Reed canary grass. Shoreland Hab¡tat The shoreland habitat includes all of the beaches on Eliza lsland, along with the tidelands. This area provides habitat for many species of plants and animals and serves as rearing grounds for species from other habitat areas. Lichens and surfgrass typically grow on the marine shorelines of Eliza lsland. Various algae also are found, including sea lettuce, sea staghorn, rockweed, bull kelp, and sea moss. The sea grasses and algae species, especially the kelp beds, are vital links in the marine food cycle. They provide shelter as well as feeding areas for birds and spawning areas for fish. Marine fishes inhabiting nearshore waters adjacent to shorelines include several varieties of surf perches, rockfishes, greenlings, lingcod, and sculpins. Many of these species are important 18 food sources for marine birds and mammals, Shellfish include crabs, shrimp, clams, mussels, and scallops which are collected along shorelines. Area tidepools host a variety of marine life including periwinkles, limpets, barnacles, rock crabs, S€â â11êtnones, chitons, sponges, tunicates, and starfish. The tidal flats on the north and south bays of Eliza lsland appear to support a rich growth of marine flora. Of these, perhaps the most ímportant species is the eelgrass. Eelgrass typically grows on sandy or muddy substrates in the outer edge of the intertidal region of Puget Sound. Dense beds of eelgrass support a diverse assemblage of species. Several types of epiph¡ic plants (plants that grow on other plants) as well as animals can live on the eelgrass blades, and an array of diatoms, protozoans, worms, small crustaceans, and other organisms thrive on the food material found in or on the substrate around eelgrass communities. These organisms in turn provide food and cover for invertebrates and larger animals, such as rockfish, shellfish, and juvenile salmonids. Eelgrass also benefits larger mammals, such as orcâs, seals, and sea lions, which feed on species of fish and crab that rely on eelgrass for cover of food. Black brant rely heavily on eelgrass during the winter. Additionally, eelgrass bed provide a substrate for spawning herring, and help to buffer eros¡onal impacts from wave action. Open Salt Water The salt water surround¡ng Eliza lsland provides a path for many migratory fish such as pink, sockeye, coho, chum, and chinook salmon. These waters also provide spawning and feeding grounds for herring, shrimp, Dungeness crab, and many other organisms. Anadromous as well as local fish and plankton species attract such marine mammal spec¡es as harbor seals, river otters, minke whales, and several different bird species. There are a number of birds that use this habitat in quite different ways. Kingfishers, crows, oyster catchers, sandpipers and great blue herons are not birds of open salt water. However, they do use the edges for feeding. Eagles and osprey sometimes feed over open water. There are a number of other birds that use the open water more or less extensively, Some, like the murres, guillemots, auklets, and brants live most of their lives there. Others, such as the loons, geese, saltwater ducks, sandpipers, phalaropes, gulls, terns and cormorants may only use open salt water seasonally and may spend considerable time either in fresh water habitats or on land. Eliza Rock Eliza Rock is designated as a National Wildlife Reserve and as such is closed to the public to protect breeding colonies of seabirds, endangered and threatened species, and marine mammals. According to the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, this particular area is the nesting site of black oyster catchers, glacous-winged gulls, and pigeon guillemonts. Harbor seals are also known to haul out on this small island. Appendix F: Bald Eagle History and Management lntroduction The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is classified as a threatened species and is protected by both state and federal laws. The Washington Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 23212-2921 and enabling legislation (RCW 77.12,6551 were enacted in 1986 to protect bald eagles and their habitat. The goal is to eventually de-list bald eagles from the threatened category. To meet this goal, criteria outl¡ned in the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan must be met. The North Puget Sound Region has "recovered", but minimum criteria have not been met statewide or ¡n 19 Location of Viable Nests and Protective Buffer on Eliza Island, L993 lf figure 7 I -.- a -.\ I II \/ ./\ùJ ^lr rÀr{¡lñ E E-tr É Jå,\ +Ê \ I i a I (- +i .inalb ?4 -os\9 Od.¡r. y'u.s.c.s. ---- -o- Nest #6 (No Protectivc Bnffers) ----./ofô le. Nest ¡fE5 \ est *4 " t.ù5 the Pacific Recovery Region (Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, ldaho, and Nevada), ln fact, only 49o/o (24 of 51)and 7Oo/o (7 of 1O) of the subregions have met minimum breeding population recovery goals in the Pacific region and Washington respectively. The outlook is optimistic, but it w¡ll be well into the 21st century before bald eagles are de-listed. It will always be important, ¡f not required, to maintain bald eagle habitat. Currently, under Washington's Bald Eagle Protection Rules, site-specific management plans are developed when land use changes are proposed which may affect bald eagle habitat. Landowners are often unaware of potential land use restrictions until they apply for a county or state permit to alter the landscape. Developing a management plan often involves a site visit between the landowner and eagle biologist. The process can be very time consuming and frustrating for both the landowner and biologist. Through planning, eagle habitat can be maintained over the entire island without causing undue burden on individual landowners. Management condítions, if accepted by the landowner, will become a condition of development permits. Only landowners within 400 feet of a viable nest site and those objecting to conditions set forth in this plan will site specific plans be developed with the Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). Eliza lsland Bald Eagle History Residents report nesting bald eagles on Eliza lsland since at least the early 197O's, although WDW has only been documenting nesting since 198O. Of seven historic nest sites, only 3 currently contain nests lFigure 7l.. Three of the nests have fallen since 1989 and nest #4 recently lost a supporting branch and is partially fallen. Nest #6 is believed to have been built at least 20 years ago, although it has never been documented or reported as active. The eagles last used nest #5 during the summer of 1993. Nest #5 is in a "white" or "grand" fir which break or blow down relatively easily. Although the tree has made it through recent strong winds, it is not considered to be a good long term nest tree. Reports of a nest on the north end of the island have not been confirmed despite aerial surveys and ground searches. Theeagleshaveapparentlytried building a new nest on lot 134 in 1993. Only a few sticks remain and it does not appear to be a preferable nest tree. Eagle Habitat Management The nest history on Eliza lsland eagles emphasizes the dynamic nature of forest habitat and the need for long term planning. Wind storms have removed three nest trees and numerous perch and potential nest trees. Construction and land clearing has added to the net loss in eagle habitat. Lots have also been landscaped to exclude forest regeneration. The overall result is increased wind throw and reduced recruitment of new trees. Although there may apFrear to be enough trees to support nesting eagles, suitable eagle trees are being lost at a rapid rate. The goal is to maintain suitable habitat 50, 1OO, and 2OO years from now. Landowners who landscape to eliminate forest regeneration often fail to recognize the long term consequences of their actions. As eagle habitat is lost, it forces even more restrictive measures on adjacent landowners to protect remaining habitat. The key is to plan ahead and spread the responsibility over numerous landowners before the major¡ty of the habitat disappears. Disturbance must also be considered in eagle management. Human activity can cause a nest site to fail or be abandoned. However, determining what is "disturbing" to an individual or pair of eagles is difficult. Every eagle has a different tolerance level for a given activity. Some birds will perch next to a running bulldozer while others will flush at the sight of a kayak 10OO feet away. Some eagles may acclimate while others may completely abandon the area if an activity 20 is persistent. Few studies have been conducted and recommended "disturbance free" nest buffers have been "best guess" estimates. Seasonal considerations are also important when determining the potential impact of an activity. The nesting season is generally January 1 through August 15th in Washington, The most critical time is late February through early June. From just prior to incubation until the eaglets are about 4 weeks old, adult eagles are more prone to flush f rom disturbance with more serious consequences. Eggs and young eaglets need persistent adult attention. Adults flushed from the nest expose the eggs and young to predation (gulls, ravens, etc.) and potential hypothermia, Once the eaglets reach about 4 weeks old (late May or early June), the importance of adult attendance diminishes and nestling mortality is generally low. However, there ¡s still a concern that human activity may cause fewer food deliveries or premature fledgling. Reduced food or early fledgling would result in increased mortality and would not be obvious to an observer. The mortality would probably occur after fledgling, miles from the nest, leading an observer to conclude human activity had no impact on the eagles, Since reaction to disturbance is so variable and difficult to document, the only alternative is a conservative approach. The most widely accepted disturbance free buffer recommendations for during the nesting season vary from 660 to over 12OO feet. Given the relative small scale construction that is likely to occur on Eliza lsland and apparent tolerance of the eagles, it is reasonable to use the smaller buffer. 21 bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Publications and Documents Arthur, Ji¡¡. Eliza lsland Report. Whatcom County, CZM Contract, 1978 Bauer, Wolf . Drift Sectors of Whatcom Corrnty Marine Shorelines. Whatcom County Planning Commission. Bellingham, 1974. Bauer, Wolf. The Drift Sectors of Whatcom Corrnty Marine Shores, Their Shoreforms anr{ Gee- Hydraulic Status- (unpublished manuscript) Seattle,'|'974. Bernatowicz, Je'ff. Washington State Department of Wildlife. Eliza lslanrl Rald Eagle Management Plan (Draft). Mill Creek, January 21, 1994. Easterbrook, Donald, J. Fnvironmental Geology of Western Whatcom County, Washington- Bellingham, 1973. Easterbrook, Donald, J. Series of maFs on geolosy nf wesfern Wháteom Corrnfy (USGS Miscellaneous lnvestigations l-8548,C,D). Eliza lsland Beach Club, Water Committee Members. Project Repr¡rt fo¡ Reverse Osmosis Water Prrrification Plant- Submitted to Washington State Department of Hoalth, April 1992. Hitchcock and Cronquist. Flora of thefacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, 1973. Huxley College of Environmental Studies, Western Washington University. Eliza lsland Environmpntal lmfract Assessment. Bellingham, Spring Ouarter 1991. Jone5, Leland B. Preliminary Ground Water ReFort- Fliza lslanrt. Washington. July 25, 1961 . Puget Sound Water Ouality Authority. 1991 Puget Snrrnrl Water OrralifY Manegement Plan Seattle, November, 1 990. Puget Sound Water Ouality Author¡ty. lSStrF PAPFR Proteeting Fish and Wilrllifp Hahifat in Puget Sorrnrl Seattle, March, 1990. Puget Sound Water Ouality Authority and Department of Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Lands. The 1992 Prrget Sound Fnvironmental Atlas Ufr{afe- Olympia, May 1992. Scott, Robert Falcon. Results of a ring-neekerl pheasant liheratinn on Fliza lsland. Washington- Oregon State College masters thesis. June 1948. Snohomish County Planning Department. Draft Hat lsland ComFrehensive Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Whatcom Cor¡nty Area. Washing.tton- 1 992. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Nortbwest Sfraits-VVashingrnn Nafional Marinp Sanefuary. Discussion Paper. Seattle, November 1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. State of Washington Heritage Plan. 1991 22 Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Zone Atlas of W-ashington--Volume 1, Whatcom County. Olympia, 1977, Whatcom County Planning Department, Draft Crirical Areas Background Documents. Bellingham, 1991 , Whatcom County Planning Department, Lummi lsland Plan. Bellingham, 1979 Whatcom County Planning Department. Whateom County Shoreline Management Program- 1 986. Whatcom County Planning Department. Whatcom Corrnty Shoreline Management Prngram Rackground fiocument- 1 992. Whatcom County Natural Heritage Task Force. "Preserving a Way of Life"' A Natrrral Heritage Plan for Whatcom County- 1991. Personal Contacts Atkeson, Anne. Environmental Health Specialist, Whatcom County Department of Health. Barriball, John. Deputy, Whatcom County Sheriff 's Department. December 1, 1992. Bernatowicz, Jeft. Wildlife Biologist, Washington State Department of Wildlife, Cummings, Richard. Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire lnspector, Whatcom County Division of Buildings and Code Administration. Gunzales, Jay. Fire Chief , City of Bellingham. Novembar 30, 1992. Fischer, Jim. Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management. Wenatchee. Forslof, Shirley. Auditor, Whatcom County Auditors Department. March 17, 1993. Reis, Bob. Fire Prevention Specialist, Department of Natural Resources Northwest Region. November 30, 1992. Shipman, Hugh. Coastal Geologist, Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Suttles, Wayne. Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, Portland Stat€ University. November 4, 1 992. 23