HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 12 20021
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 12, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2002 -084)
2002 G AG TO RF - NELSON ROAD
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated this property is in the South Fork Valley.
The proposal would rezone 45 acres from agriculture to rural forestry. The
minimum lot size in the agricultural zone is 40 acres and 20 acres in the rural
forestry zone. One implication of the rezone is that the owner would be able to
divide the property. Much of the site is a pasture. The northern portion is wooded.
Agricultural zoning is to the north, west, and south. The rural, one unit per five
acres (R5A) zone is to the east. The entire site has agricultural soils. There is a
commercial forestry designation farther to the east.
The site is in an aquifer recharge area. These are areas that would produce
significant amounts of water if wells were drilled. They could be susceptible to
contamination. There are large areas of the county that are aquifer recharge areas.
The northwest portion of the site is a wetland.
Three - quarters of the property is in the 100 -year flood plain. Two pipelines
bisect the site. They are natural gas pipelines from Williams Company. There is
not much in terms of steep slopes.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she represents
the owner, Dwyer Dale. Mr. Dale wants to rezone. The property is zoned
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
agricultural, but it is not used for agriculture. The property is not in the Open
Space /Agricultural program. The most significant use has been to raise trees. A
portion of site is currently wooded. The site appears to be more manageable as a
wood lot than as an agricultural operation because of the location. There is
agricultural land on the two sides, but neither is in a large parcel ownership. This
parcel is an isolated parcel. There are no agricultural buildings on the property, so
the value of property for someone to buy it and begin a new 40 -acre agricultural
use is not likely. There is a significant residential development to the east and
cluster plats to the southeast.
The neighbors have been concerned about what Mr. Dale plans to do with the
property. The property has been an important wildlife habitat area, according to
area residents. The owner seeks a change to manage the property in a rural timber
use rather than in an agricultural use. The lot size allowed in the rural forestry
zone would allow the piece to be divided into two 20 -acre pieces. The owner could
market the wooded land to someone who wants to manage it, and market the
pastureland to someone else who wants to start a new tree farm. There are a
number of tree farms sprouting on agricultural and forestry parcels in the Acme
Valley. According to the definitions of agricultural land and rural forestry land by
the Growth Management Act (GMA), this property falls in line with the definition
and purpose of the rural forestry zone.
The Council's purpose today is to decide whether or not the proposal has
merit for consideration. The factors that should influence the Council's decision
include how this impacts resource land. This will impact resource land by shifting
agricultural acres to a protected class of rural forestry acres. That has merit. She
requested the committee to recommend to the full Council to docket this item.
Fleetwood ask if someone could cut trees in an agricultural zone.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated yes. The purpose of the agricultural zone is for the
production of food and fibers, with more emphasis on commercial agricultural being
animals and crops. This property would have to have the timberlands cut down and
the mitigation of wetlands to create a cultivated piece of property. No one is
interested in using it other than as pasture. It's not conducive to that use because
of the timber deposit and wetlands.
Fleetwood questioned whether property in the rural forestry zone has to be
20 acres. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the rural forestry zone property can be
divided into a minimum lot size of 20 acres.
Fleetwood asked if the primary reason for the request is to divide the parcel
into two parcels. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is not, but it is one of the factors.
It would allow more flexibility to provide full use of the property.
Roy asked if half of the property would be forested and half could be a tree
farm. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated half of the property is currently devoid of trees.
That property could be managed as a new tree farm or a rural pasture use.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated she was on Nelson Road recently. That area is perfect for
growing trees. It is convenient to the road. Forestry and agriculture are both
resources.
Roy moved to recommend to the full Council docketing item 2002 -G.
McShane stated he would support the motion if it included some direction to
the Planning Commission. One concern is about the loss of agricultural land due to
the fact that a lot of agricultural land has zoning overlays that are not necessarily
compatible with agricultural. This rezone creates opportunity for this individual to
subdivide. He is not concerned with that at this time. However, it is clearly a
financial benefit for the owner to do that. This is an opportunity for a transfer of
development right (TDR) from some other agricultural parcel to this parcel. He
asked if that would be something the applicant would be interested in.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they have not talked about it. The home on the parcel
is uninhabitable, and it would probably have to be torn down. Because the property
is over 40 acres, the owner has the right to build a primary dwelling and an
accessory dwelling. The owner would also have the right to divide the property in
accordance with the agricultural zone. The entire issue of TDR would have to take
into account what the owner can do currently as opposed to what he would receive.
McShane stated a second concern is that a forest plan be in place for the
entire 40 acres before this would proceed. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that is
something that the owner has already looked into. He has looked into placing this
property in the timber program for tax purposes. That would require a forest
management plan.
McShane stated he would be more receptive to this request when it comes to
the Council if the plan was in place so the Council can see it. He would recommend
having a discussion on the possibility of TDR from another agricultural parcel and to
require a forest plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked for clarification on the request to discuss TDR.
McShane stated it is a detail item for discussion by the Planning Commission.
This is an opportunity to create additional zoning, so the owner should help the
county by preserving agricultural land elsewhere.
2002 H RF TO R10A - MT. BAKER HIGHWAY
Aamot stated this parcel is north of the Mt. Baker Highway, beyond Nugent's
Corner. It is 31 acres. The proposal is to rezone from rural forestry to rural, one
unit per ten acres (R10A). The minimum lot size in rural forestry is 20 acres. The
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
owner could not divide the parcel under the current zone, but the new zone would
allow three lots.
The site was treed in 1998. There is logging activity to the east. There is a
railroad to the southwest. There is also an inactive County quarry to the west. The
Public Works Department indicates that it doesn't have plans to reactivate the
quarry, and they may surplus it.
The rural forestry zone surrounds the site. The R5A zone is to the west and
south. There are agricultural soils on the site. There are no significant wetlands or
streams.
Crawford questioned whether the surrounding forestry is commercial forestry
or rural forestry. Aamot stated it is commercial forestry.
There are no significant wetlands or streams on the site. There are steep
slopes on the site, both 15 to 35 percent and over 35 percent. There are pipelines
to the south and west of the site. The two natural gas pipelines are side -by -side.
Nelson asked if there is access to County roads to this area. Aamot stated
there is to the south.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the access to the property is an easement
through the County quarry. The easement runs through the middle of the quarry.
Nelson asked if people in the area have been contacted. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated neighbors to the north and south have been contacted.
Nelson asked the current use of the land. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated a
large part is currently wooded. There is a single - family dwelling.
Nelson asked if there is an open space application on the land. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated she would check.
Brenner asked about an area of different ownership with an odd shape.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated there is a separate lot of 3.2 acres. It is someone's
home site.
Brenner asked if the County could require that the property be kept wooded
if the Council approves the rezone. Aamot stated there are concomitant
agreements where conditions could be placed on rezones.
Nelson stated that would be an administrative nightmare.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated 20 acres of the property is in the forest tax
program. The balance of the property is in the Open Space /Agricultural tax
program. The property, if rezoned, would fall within the agricultural protection
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
overlay. The overlay zone would require that, in the event the property were
eligible for three densities, the densities would have to be clustered on 25 percent
of the property, and a minimum of 75 percent of the property would have to be left
as open space.
Brenner asked if the 75 percent would be Open Space /Agriculture or Open
Space /Forestry. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the difference between those is just
the Assessor's tax classification. Regarding the use, one is allowed to do anything
that is permitted in the agricultural zone or a permitted, conditional, or
administratively allowed use within the rural zone. One is not allowed any
additional land separation or densities.
Brenner stated that with an Open Space /Agricultural classification, the
property owner could cut the trees down, but not under the Open Space /Timber
classification. She would hate to see all that timber cut down for a lawn.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the applicant intends to do with the rezone.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated property is used as rural forestry, and his house is on
the property. The property is surrounded by a number of smaller parcels. In the
rural forestry zone, he's surrounded by a 4.4 -acre parcel, a 3.2 -acre parcel, a 13-
acre parcel, and a 16 -acre parcel. Each of those has a home on them. They all
share a driveway. The owner sought bids to determine whether he should manage
and harvest his timber. He has not been successful for a couple of reasons. One
reason is that the right -of -way is appropriate for trucks, but it is incompatible with
the residential traffic that the timber harvesters are reluctant to take on. Another
reason is that there is a steeper slope that is a higher cost to harvest. There are
pipelines in the area that the timber crews have expressed a concern about. The
property could be harvested, but at this point it's not practical. That's why the 20
acres would be placed into the forest program for tax purposes. Mr. Robson is
dying of cancer and his plan is to sell the property. He has not been able to sell
given the current configuration.
Fleetwood asked the pros and cons of a rural forestry zone and a commercial
forestry zone. Aamot stated commercial forestry is intended to be the large timber
owners with large parcels. It is not intended for residential development. Rural
forestry is intended for the small timber owners. They are 20 -acre parcels with a
house. A more flexible use is allowed.
Roy asked if the request is to rezone to R10A, and if the density would go
from one house per 20 acres to one house per ten acres. Aamot stated that is
correct. The owner has 30 acres, and would go from one allowed lot to three
allowed lots.
Roy asked if there are any restrictions on tree cutting in the R10A zone.
Aamot stated there are not. Timber management is a permitted use.
McShane asked the type of rock at the quarry.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he didn't recall.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated she didn't know. The rural forestry zone does
not have a restriction on harvesting trees. Harvesting trees is encouraged in
conjunction with permits. It's the tax program that places management guidelines
on the property. This property would be allowed three densities and would be
placed in the agricultural protection overlay if rezoned.
Brenner asked how close the property is to Nugent's Corner. Starkenburg-
Kroontje showed the location on a map.
Roy asked the County's obligation for providing roads through this process.
Aamot stated that if this were rezoned, and the owner divides, he would have to do
a short plat. Development standards would apply.
Fleetwood moved to recommend docketing item 2002 -H.
McShane stated he is on the fence of trying to preserve forestland.
According to the map on Council packet page 14, there is a mineral resource land
(MRL) to the north. An assessment of the bedrock in that area is important. There
are concerns about creating additional housing in an area where there is a potential
for mining.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
2002 K VARIOUS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS
Aamot stated this property is on the south fork of the Nooksack River,
between Mosquito Lake Road and Saxon Road. It is for the Nessett Farm and
related properties. The Nessett Farm is at the south end of the proposal. The
Goodyear Nelson property is adjacent to the north of the Nessett Farm. The East
Acme Farm is by Mosquito Lake Road. These have a variety of zoning districts.
They are all currently designated as resource lands. The Nessett Farm has some
agriculture and rural forestry zone. The Goodyear Nelson property is mostly
commercial forestry. The East Acme Farm has agricultural and rural forestry zones.
There are agricultural soils.
The acreage figures on the documents are approximate. The western
boundary of the site is the Nooksack River, which meanders. They can't determine
the exact acreage without a survey. The Nooksack River here is used for Chinook
habitat. Spawning occurs in the area. Wetlands and streams are on the site. It is
in an aquifer recharge area, and is partially in the flood plain. Steep slopes are on
the site.
This is a significant proposal. The County purchased these properties for
park and public uses. There is an agreement with the State because the County
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
received State funds. In exchange for receiving those funds, the property is to be
open to the people of the state for recreation. A significant Supreme Court case
determined that one cannot put park land on agricultural land because it doesn't
conserve the designated agricultural lands. County attorneys should look at that
issue. There may be agricultural demonstrations that would occur on the property.
It is something to look at. Last year, the County changed the agricultural zone to
prohibit parks. At this time, the County has property planned for park use in
designated agricultural use areas.
Brenner stated she recalled that the Council wanted to leave the property in
an agricultural use. She asked what the County gains if it is a park, rather than a
restricted designated resource land. Aamot stated the County gains the ability to
open the area as a park.
Brenner stated this is County -owned property, and asked if people can go on
it. Aamot stated the County is subject to zoning like anyone else. The County
would have to use the property according to the zoning code, which does not allow
parks facilities.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to see a park facility. She wants to
preserve it as a farm.
Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the
Nessett Farm would be similar to Hovander Homestead Park. People would come to
see the wetlands. The barn and implements would be the same. It would be
historical in nature. The question is whether it is a park, and whether it falls into
the agricultural, commercial, and forestry zones. That is where the dilemma is.
The plan for the use is the same as it was when the properties were purchased.
The only area that would be more active would be the Galbreath and East Acme
Farm area. It would contain the more active recreational use, including more
camping and park facilities. The remainder would be trails and historical use. His
goals haven't changed; it is just a question of zoning.
Brenner asked what the County would not be able to do if it was left the way
it is. DeSpain stated the ability to bring people onto the farm makes it, by
definition, a park. It is a logistics problem. It would be managed as it has in the
past, but it would now have the flavor of being a park. There seems to be
confusion about what a public park is.
McShane moved to recommend docketing the item.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood out of the room.
2002 L MRL - MINAKER ROAD
McShane stated this was before the Council last year. The Council
recommended docketing this item last year. There were road access issues. This
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
request is related to the next item. Apparently, the two applicants have agreed on
the access issues.
Aamot stated the area is south of Sumas. The two sites are adjacent. The
middle site is the Benner site. The sites to the west and east are the Killam sites.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot stated the total acreage is approximately 85 acres that would be
designated as an MRL. There is currently an MRL to the north and west. It is the
Killam MRL. There are agricultural soils on the site. The majority of the site has
agricultural soils. There is an agricultural zone to the north and west. The areas to
the south and east are designated as R10A. This would be an overlay on the R10A
zone. The Sumas River is to the northwest, and is used by Chinook salmon. The
site is in an aquifer recharge area, which many gravel areas are. There are no
significant wetlands on the site. Pipelines are an issue. There are four pipelines
that run through the area. Two are Williams natural gas pipelines on the eastern
side of the site. The Cascade Natural Gas pipeline runs parallel to the Williams line.
Also, the Cascade Natural Gas pipeline runs through the southwest portion of the
site. The owners agreed last year to eliminate the southern portion of the site with
the pipelines.
The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identified the area as a
potential sand and gravel reserve area in its 2001 gravel study. An earlier study
from 1994 indicated a larger area as a potential sand and gravel area. The
Benner's did tests on their site, and verified that there is a gravel resource.
Crawford asked if the upper portion that isn't included in the application has
been an active mine. Aamot stated there is some mining, but it is not very active.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is a 36 -acre permitted site that is largely
inactive. However, there has been significant activity this last year.
Brenner asked if the Killam's are the two side parcels. Starkenburg - Kroontje
stated they are. The Benner parcel is in the middle.
Roy asked if the County or someone is in the process of doing an aggregate
study of the county.
McShane stated that is correct. A scoping committee will meet to scope the
consultant's investigation to put parameters on the extent of the study.
Roy stated it seems that there is a relationship between these proposals and
knowing how much aggregate the county has, needs, and where it should go.
McShane stated he agreed. There are two ways of looking at it. One way is
to wait for the study and see what it says. Another way is to grant the rezone if the
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
applicant fits the criteria for an MRL designation. The MRL's might help in the
broader study by providing additional information about gravel resources. In order
to meet the current criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, it will be up to the applicant
to provide information that they do meet the criteria to be designated as an MRL.
The criteria now is a certain volume or value of the resource.
Roy asked if the County would have this information sometime in the process
if it decides to docket the item.
McShane stated that's what he expects.
Goodwin stated the preliminary study from DNR indicates that there is a
shortage of gravel. The County needs to verify that. Internally, they talked about
stretching out the Planning Commission schedule and not attempting to complete
the entire update and these items by the end of the year. Stretch out the docket to
June, and give the staff time to do the aggregate study and other work needed for
other items. That is going to be a major amount of study. It would mean a slower
schedule to take the time to do the gravel aggregate study and postpone some of
the MRL's. Postpone hearings until after the aggregate study is done. The two
could proceed together.
Brenner stated the study could show the Council how much mineral the
county has and how much the county needs. The County cannot force the minerals
to stay in Whatcom County. She preferred to look at these applications to see if
they are good for MRL designation now, rather than wait.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she is concerned about gravel mining where there
are pipelines. She asked if it is common practice to issue MRL's where pipelines are
located. She also asked about the history of this happening successfully.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that in 1997, when the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, it contained a goal that the County would designate and protect a 50
years worth supply of construction aggregate. When the councilmembers look at a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, they will ask if the amendment is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. At that point, the councilmembers will
have to have enough information to determine whether adding the additional MRL
area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to obtain a 50 -year supply.
Both the Killam and Benner properties are designated currently as rural lands, and
are zoned R10A. Therefore, there could be applications now for platting the lands.
By moving forward with the docket, it indicates to the property owners that this
may be an appropriate place to look for minerals, which would protect the area
from residential development while the County takes that look. If the property
were designated as an MRL for the purposes of Comprehensive Plan and zoning,
then the minimum lot size is 20- acres. That is twice the size of the current R10A
zone.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The issues with pipelines were looked at with the original Killam site. In
1992, during the initial designation of the MRL, the County designated a larger
portion of the Killam site. In 1997, there was a discussion about the safety of
pipelines. The Council felt they should stay to one side until there was additional
information on the safety. When the applicants apply for permits, it will be
discussed in detail. In order to obtain a permit, the pipeline company is consulted
and reviews the reclamation plan. Also, the County has had two applications in the
past where a pipeline was in the vicinity, and the County required a complete slope
stability analysis, so it could issue permits.
Nelson asked if 50 years worth of aggregate was the maximum or minimum
that must be planned for. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is the minimum.
Nelson stated he didn't think there was any requirement to stay within a
certain level. There was just a request for a plan for the County's future.
McShane stated Skagit County set aside much more than 50 years worth of
aggregate.
Brenner asked if the County could put in restrictions on blasting if this is
good mineral resource, and they are concerned about the pipeline.
Jon Sitkin, attorney, stated he represented the Benners. The Benners came
forward last year with their MRL request. The State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) process imposed certain conditions that include no blasting within 200 feet,
a 125 -foot buffer from any activity, two -to -one slopes, and a series of SEPA
mitigation conditions to address the pipeline issues in that area. That is addressed
in the MRL designation and also the mining permit process. These applications
came forward before. Neither has moved forward because the two parties weren't
present at the same time as each other. Last fall, the Council asked to put these
into this year's docket rather than last year's docket so the applicants could get
together. The timing of the aggregate study is not a concern, as long as the
request is docketed. There is more site - specific information that has been
developed and would be further developed in this process that would not
necessarily be developed in the overall aggregate study. There may be information
revealed when looking at these sites in particular. He asked the committee to
docket the MRL change for this area.
McShane moved to recommend docketing.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Roy opposed.
2002 M MRL - TELEGRAPH /MINAKER ROAD AREA
McShane moved to recommend docketing.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Roy opposed.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
2002 N MRL - H STREET ROAD
McShane stated the property owner contacted him a little over a year ago
about this property. The owner had been referred to him as a consultant. He
denied the job because of the conflict. The owner described the situation, and as a
County councilmember, he offered to help her. It sounded like the area had been
inadvertently left out of the MRL. In December, as a councilmember he filled out
an application for the owner to request designating this area. He has a concern
about appearance of fairness. This is not a conflict, and he was not working for her.
He may abstain on the vote, unless there is a tie. He would turn the meeting over
to Councilmember Roy for this discussion.
Aamot stated this is a 10 -acre site. The site is mostly wooded. There may
be development at the south end of the site. The area to the east and north is an
existing MRL. There is also an MRL to the southwest. The City of Blaine is not too
far to the west also. The property is within an aquifer recharge area. There are
wetlands on the northern portion of the site. It is a wildlife habitat conservation
area because of the shellfish beds. There are no pipelines on this one. Staff
evaluated all mineral sites, and this is the only site in a wellhead protection area.
The City of Blaine wellhead protection area is to the west .4 of a mile. One could
mine in a wellhead protection area, but can't get within 10 feet of the water table.
Fleetwood asked the zone to the east. Aamot stated there is an MRL with an
R10A underlying zone.
Aamot continued to state that the DNR and the old 1994 County study
identified the area as a potential sand and gravel reserve area.
Brenner stated Mrs. Jordan contacted her also. She sent information out to
Mrs. Jordan and the councilmembers. She did not put herself in a situation where
she could not vote on the request. It is an important issue to look at. It falls in
with the prerequisites for an MRL.
Fleetwood moved to recommend docketing.
Aamot asked if the applicant would be the County Council.
McShane stated the applicant in this case was a councilmember, and there
would be no fee.
Motion carried 2 -0 with McShane abstaining.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (AB2002 -085)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated two pieces are coming
forward that he needs guidance on. One item is the final draft of the phase III
scope of work for technical studies for Utah State University (USU). This is the
fourth or fifth draft. It will be scheduled for the water resources work session next
week. Another item is the Parametrix scope of work, which will come forward by
the week's end. Depending on the timing, the Council may discuss that also at the
work session. Otherwise, he requested that it be rolled over into the next Natural
Resources Committee meeting. He needs Council guidance on both of those issues
by the time he attends the Planning Unit meeting at the end of the month.
2. UPDATE ON THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION
DISTRICT (AB2002 -111)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manger, stated there are many
activities that tie into this. He would describe some of the activities. The Council
should be aware that there are many activities that tie into this work. The Water
Resources Division's charge was to coordinate the activities in such a way that they
get the value added across all the different programs. Some of the activities are
linked to widespread community support. Examples of the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) watershed early action projects include the Blaine sewer
overflow fix and Dorrie Belisle's seed money for her riparian planting project. Other
pieces include issues related to acquiring long -term data monitoring. The Water
Resources Division received a $250,000 grant to establish a WRIA -wide long -term
monitoring strategy. Another piece was an application from Lummi Natural
Resources to collect more data on fecal coliform and flow information in the WRIA.
There has collectively been $600,000 for this need and that goes across all
disciplines. One of the areas that the technical studies has touched on for land use
planning, water quantity, water quality, instream flows, and fisheries habitat is the
Drayton Harbor watershed. Along with that comes the modeling for water quality
aspects for shellfish.
The Marine Resources Committee and other groups are working together
collectively on marine resources. The Bellingham Bay Pilot Study has a component
of source protection. That is an example of linking the Bellingham Bay marine
environment with the riparian areas associated with the WRIA project and other
marine pieces. Collectively, there is over $1 million to $2 million worth of work.
Amy Stillings, Shellfish Resource Planner, stated there are currently two
shellfish protection districts in the county, Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay. These
districts were created because water quality problems caused a decline in the
quality of the shellfish beds. The beds were closed to harvesting. Drayton Harbor
has experienced a short -term closure as far back as the 1950's. The first big
closure in 1988 was due to pollution issues. By 1999, the entire bay was prohibited
from shellfish harvesting. The advisory committee was created in 1995.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Portage Bay had closures in 1995, 1997, and 1999. The district was created
in 1997. To date, both districts remain closed to shellfish harvesting.
The purpose of creating the districts was to delineate the areas of impact.
The districts cover the watersheds of Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay where water
quality may have an impact on the shellfish beds. The advisory committees were
formed to address potential pollution sources, identify pollution sources, and to
make suggestions on how to protect and improve the water quality. The
committees are to advise the County Council and other agencies in terms of actions
that can take place to help correct the potential pollution sources, with the purpose
of getting the classification removed. Both of the districts developed closure
response strategies to list the potential pollution sources and possible actions that
could be taken to address those issues. The committees each came up with four
categories of potential pollution sources in those districts, which were onsite septic
systems, municipal sewer systems, agricultural practices, and stormwater runoff.
Drayton Harbor, in its initial closure response strategy, also included boat marinas
and possible Canadian sources as additional sources of pollution.
Many ongoing or completed projects have occurred, including the Ten Mile
Creek project, the Marine Drive repairs in Blaine, and the mutt mitt program.
Regarding onsite septic systems, the County Health and Human Services
Department does inspections of these systems. In the past, there was a special
shellfish grant that allowed for repairs of failing onsite septic systems. In the
second half of 2001, ten inspections were done in Portage Bay. Four of those that
failed were given loans for repairs at a cost of $106,000. Materials have been given
to septic system owners educating them on the maintenance and repair of their
systems. In Drayton Harbor in all of 2001, there were 11 complaints. Five were
not violations. Five violations were found and corrected. One violation is going
through the court system.
The State Department of Ecology (DOE) and Conservation District deal with
most of the agricultural issues. In 2001, there were 53 dairy farm inspections by
DOE. There were six referrals to other agencies for correction issues. Two
inspections were done in Drayton Harbor in 2001. There are 18 dairy farms that
are completely within the Drayton Harbor watershed and don't overlap into other
areas. They have all been inspected. These two inspections in 2001 were actually
re- inspections. There are 209 dairy farms in Whatcom County. Of those, 166 have
approved nutrient management plans. Also, 28 of the plans are certified plans.
The Conservation District has put $900,000 toward this effort since 1997.
Many efforts are going on in the Portage Bay district dealing with riparian
buffers. Dorrie Belisle is doing a project to reestablish riparian buffers. It does not
have the strict guidelines of the other programs in terms of what the buffer needs
to be. There is a lot of interest in this program. The program was initially funded
with WRIA early action money. It has since received additional funding from Inland
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fisheries and Wildlife and DOE. It has been a great project for increasing
community awareness to efforts that the individual person can do to affect change
in water quality. The program shows that people do have the commitment to doing
their part to help the effort.
Regarding municipal sewage systems and the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permit status for cities in the Portage Bay watershed,
the Everson NPDES permit has been issued. The Lynden permit is in the review
stage, and Ferndale's will have revisions done in 2002. One change in the new
permits is a marked decrease in the amount of fecal coliform allowed in the outfall.
There is a lot of effort on the parts of Everson and Lynden to reach the new
guidelines. The City of Lynden put in a new ultraviolet system to reach their goal.
The Lummi Nation dye tested its outfall and determined that the discharge from
their plant does not enter the Portage Bay area from Hale Passage.
The Drayton Harbor NPDES permit is coming up for review. It is in the initial
stages. The treatment plant in Blaine has had a lot of work done on it. They've
checked for cross connections to the system and made corrections. They've also
dye tested for leaks, pressure tested the force main, and installed overflow bladders
at the pump station on Marine Drive.
The big success in Drayton Harbor has been the repair to the Marine Drive
sewer lines. It was a great partnering effort. Funding came from WRIA, DOE, and
Semiahmoo First Nation. The City of Blaine contributed man - hours. Puget Sound
Restoration also did work.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, stated they found that old pilings were under the lines during two
of the repairs along Marine Drive. The whole area was built out. The sewer lines
settled over time. That was a reason the sewer lines broke.
Stillings stated the Port of Bellingham, in its marina, has installed pump out
facilities, handed out educational brochures, installed mutt mitt stations, done dye
testing, done water quality monitoring, and created a conceptual model to prioritize
work where effort should be done.
The Canadian source was another issue of the Drayton Harbor district.
Members of the advisory committee participate in the Shared Waters meetings.
They are looking at doing a circulation study of Semiahmoo Bay. They would
consider Drayton Harbor as part of that program. A circulation study would help
them see where the water is flowing and where pollution sources come from.
Regarding stormwater runoff, Drayton Harbor was made a stormwater
special district in 1999. Education is a big part of getting people to understand that
their actions have an impact. The stormwater system repairs are another issue
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
that needs to be dealt with to reduce stormwater impacts. Riparian buffers is
another way to go. That is one area they want to focus on, to look at ways to
affect change in this area. The volunteer shoreline monitoring program also deals
with stormwater runoff.
Regarding the mutt mitt program, some of the parks in Portage Bay have
mutt mitt stations installed. In Drayton Harbor, two stations were installed in
2001. The Water Resources Division initiated the process by purchasing the
stations. The City of Blaine now maintains the program. Based on the number of
mutt mitts used, 2.6 trillion fecal coliform have been removed from the watershed.
Brenner asked what the amount of fecal coliform is that causes a concern.
Stillings stated the amount that has been removed is a significant amount.
Roll stated the benchmark is 14 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters. It doesn't
take much to cause havoc, given the strict standards.
Stillings stated the Drayton Harbor open house is a highlight of the
committee. The one scheduled in January was a great success. People are
interested in learning what the problems are in Drayton Harbor, Over 100 people
showed up for the event. Seventeen people displayed at the event. The Port
facilities got crowded, and they may need to go to a bigger venue next year. The
Marine Resources Committee (MRC) contributed funds to the event.
Regarding the current status, the classification guidelines require that the
previous 30 water samples be used to classify an area. Currently, four of the six
sites in Drayton Harbor do not meet the standards. One issue at a Portage Bay
meeting was that many on- the - ground efforts have occurred. They had asked if
they can remove some of the older data. Thirty samples puts them back to the
data from September 1997.
Fleetwood asked why they only do samples on the northwest part of the
harbor. Stillings stated the map is skewed to make that area look farther from the
other areas of the harbor.
Menzies stated the State Department of Health (DOH) used to have ten
stations in Drayton Harbor. As water quality declined, they reduced the number of
their sampling stations. Stations four and six represent the historical commercial
oyster growing part of the harbor. A reduced budget is mostly the reason for
reduced monitoring. The entire harbor is prohibited under their mandate, so they
have no obligation to continue sampling in Drayton Harbor. The district is lucky
that it has the stations it does.
Roll stated they must monitor at a frequency that can show change over time
to show progress. A dilemma is that resources are pulled out, and in return they
don't have as good information as they should have to see how they are
progressing over time. The district hopes to provide guidance on the appropriate
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
number of samples in particular locations in order to gauge the changes that have
occurred.
Stillings stated that using the last 15 samples for Drayton Harbor doesn't
help. The water is still pretty bad and needs work. Now the DOH samples every
other month. The Port of Bellingham has a sampling program in the marina.
Crawford asked if the improvements in the Blaine sewer system that have
occurred in the last 18 months had a positive impact on the data. That data
wouldn't necessarily show up because they look at the last 15 samples. He
assumes those improvements have helped. He would like to know how much
they've helped. He asked the timeframe when they can correlate a rate
improvement to those upgrades. Stillings stated an issue is that over the past
year, they did see better numbers in the harbor. However, they don't know if the
better numbers are because of dry weather conditions or other reasons. Last
month, the numbers were terrible across the harbor. Any benefit they had in 2001
was negated by that one set of bad data. If they see a consistent improvement in
the numbers, then they can point towards the on- the - ground efforts. Every year,
the State looks at the number and may reclassify the status. The Blaine harbor has
had really high numbers. They want to focus on that area this next year.
In terms of Portage Bay, three of the four stations within the restricted area
do not meet the standards. The station near Gooseberry Point was close to being
restricted. They are hopeful with Portage Bay, and the numbers have come down
markedly. The Nooksack River is sampled extensively. The Northwest Indian
College (NWIC) site at Marine Drive has been very good over the last year. It's
exceeded the freshwater limit only twice in the last year. The two events where it
was over the limit were during rainy times of the year.
Crawford asked if the homes along Lummi Shore Drive are on a sewer
system. Roll stated some are on sewer and some are on septic tanks.
George Boggs, Conservation District, stated they just added a sewer line.
McShane stated they were putting a sewer line in a year ago.
Crawford asked if the long -term speculation has been the proximity to the
mouth of the Nooksack, or if there is a combination of factors, one of which could
be leakage of septic systems. Roll stated the data predominantly shows that the
problem comes from the Nooksack River. Drayton Harbor is a much smaller
watershed. It is easier to focus on the various issues. They lack enough data to
hone in on all the drainages for Portage Bay. It is another example of needing to
move into the basin to acquire the information they need to remove the sources
from the list.
Crawford asked if site - specific corrections to onsite septic systems are
happening in the Portage Bay district. Stillings stated the State Department of
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Ecology keeps track on a quarterly basis of what has occurred in terms of the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Regarding onsite septic (OSS) in Portage Bay, the
County Health Department will inspect ten problems per quarter. In the last half of
2001, they did ten, not twenty.
Crawford asked the outcome of the ten inspections. Stillings stated she only
knows that four of them were repaired.
Brenner asked how many of the management plans are in Drayton Harbor
and in Portage Bay. Stillings stated 27 out of 30 farms in Drayton Harbor have
approved plans. Not all of those farms are exclusively in Drayton Harbor. In
Portage Bay, 171 of 197 dairies have approved plans.
Brenner asked if there is a deadline for the farms to submit a plan. Boggs
stated yes.
Brenner asked if the results of the Drayton Harbor stations have been going
up. Stillings stated they have. That's why they need to focus on Drayton Harbor.
They are not able to say with any clarity that a particular issue is occurring to cause
the increased numbers. The results will be good for awhile, and then the numbers
go bad for no particular reason that they can determine.
Brenner asked what kind of revision Ferndale was supposed to do for the
NPDES permit in 2002. Stillings stated DOE reviews the permit and decides what
revisions will take place. The DOE will give the City of Ferndale the opportunity to
address the changes that the City would like to make. The DOE is in the process of
looking at the City of Ferndale to decide what changes the DOE wants to make.
Stillings discussed future direction. They want to focus on Drayton Harbor.
Portage Bay can link with other programs such as WRIA. Continue links with
groups like WRIA, Marine Resource Committee (MRC), Salmon Recovery Fund (SRF)
Board, Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, and Semiahmoo First Nation. She wants to
improve how the progress is tracked. Determining what has been done takes a lot
of work right now. The goal is greater public education and outreach. She also
wants to look at areas like Birch Bay that are currently open for shellfish
harvesting. Make sure those places don't get to the point where they are
downgraded.
Roll thanked Geoff Menzies for helping the County make great strides. Mr.
Menzies is instrumental in crafting the proposal for the programs.
Menzies submitted a handout on the Drayton Harbor Community Oyster Farm
project. He is the project manager for this project and works under contract with
the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, supported largely by the Trillium Corporation.
He showed a map of Drayton Harbor and noted the areas that have been harvested
traditionally. The Drayton was one of the first oyster dredges on the Pacific Coast.
The last harvest was done in 1997.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked if the prohibition is a fecal coliform issue. Menzies stated it
is.
Menzies continued to state that key projects that have occurred include an
approved watershed action plan approved by the DOE. The DOE completed it as
the oyster beds were closed down. They attempted in 1994 to develop a protection
district at the time, but it didn't go through. The next process was the closure
response strategy, which is under a memorandum of agreement by the DOE and
State Department of Health. They convened the stakeholders to develop this series
of recommendations to upgrade the closed area. It is that closure response
strategy and some components of the watershed plan that the Drayton Harbor
Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee continues to work toward.
The Advisory Committee did an exhaustive survey of 250 septic systems
within two miles of the shoreline in the Drayton Harbor watershed in 1997. That
was done because of an effort to find funding to do that survey and make those
fixes. Onsite systems had been identified as a major problem there, and it was a
grant that they took advantage of. The program allowed the community to fix most
of the systems. The program was finished in 1997 or 1998. Owners have to have
an operations and maintenance plan for onsite septic systems in the watershed.
Efforts since 1999 include the Drayton Harbor Community Oyster Farm
Project. It is to get people out there to appreciate and experience the harbor.
People will protect those things that they understand and have a vested interest in.
A broad spectrum of people are involved. The idea is to provide a timeline to bring
the problem around. The community seeding project started last summer. The
project goal is to open Drayton Harbor to commercial, recreational, and tribal
shellfish harvesting. They are building a sense of community around the resource.
Tribes include Lummi, Nooksack, and Semiahmoo First Nation, which is just across
the border. Much of their territory is in Whatcom County. The idea is to build
community involvement. Through that education, they left it to those individuals to
be active in whatever ways they need to be to support on- the - ground
improvements. There are many private partners and citizen volunteers. Trillium
has volunteered major backing.
Brenner asked why the Lummi's are not involved. Menzies stated
Councilmember Brenner would have to ask them. The Advisory Committee made
an effort trying to gain their support for this project. The tribe hasn't been active in
the program, but they generally support it. Several public partners include the City
of Blaine. This project is a driving force for the City of Blaine's efforts. The State
DOH allowed the project to plant oysters on prohibited ground because it's a great
community program. Also, the DNR has provided a right -of -entry permit on the
oyster bed for the program.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The plan of action is to seed two acres, involve the community, clean up the
harbor, and celebrate. Revenue from the sale of oysters will finance ongoing
shellfish protection projects.
Brenner asked if other areas have been successful in cleaning up and
opening closed areas. Menzies stated there have been some successes, such as at
Hood Canal and one other place.
McShane stated the other place is a location in Shelton.
Menzies stated the program provides a focus and timeline that might not
occur otherwise. They've arranged to do quarterly reports with the Bellingham
Herald on this project, which will provide updates to the broader community on
their activities, what's happening with the rate of growth, the trends in water
quality, and to publicly acknowledge the projects that are completed on the ground.
They acknowledged the work done to clean up the Marine Drive sewer. The 90th
percentile, which is the way they look at water quality, is 43. They want that result
to be below 43. The trend in Samish Bay is well below that number. Their highest
data point was 20.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Menzies continued to state that most of the results from Drayton Harbor are
above that result, and significantly higher. They affect the 90th percentile trend.
It's important to keep DOH involved in Drayton Harbor. The only reason the DOH is
still here is because of the partnering they've seen in the last year or two.
One project is a spin -off of the community oyster farm project, and is the
volunteer shoreline sampling program. It was done with a contract between the
Puget Sound Restoration Fund and the Whatcom County Water Resources Division.
It was a six -month sampling program that included folks who had been involved in
the community oyster farm and other people. The City of Blaine provided the lab
analysis work. The DOH trained the volunteers in proper sample collection and
handling. Environment Canada was involved to coordinate sampling of shoreline
drains and tidal conditions on the same day. Monthly samples were taken to look
at fecal coliform concentrations, to measure flows, and to measure temperature.
They also had the DOH out within one hour of when these samples were taken.
The marine samples were taken when the shoreline samples were taken.
The program implemented a couple components of the shellfish plan. One is
to control stormwater sources from priority drainage and to increase community
involvement through education. They hope to identify the urban drainages from
Blaine that have the biggest impact. The numbers at the marine sites looked nice.
However, the results in the marine waters in the marina are very high. These
results were gathered prior to the completion of the Marine Drive sewer repairs.
They hope to see that the numbers are reduced. They need to focus on fish
processors, the concentration of wildlife, and boat owners.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy asked if the results are typical in a marina. Menzies stated they are not.
Stillings stated the Port of Bellingham does sampling inside of the
Semiahmoo marina. It meets the standards.
Menzies stated there are more live - aboards in the Blaine marina. The Blaine
marina does not have good circulation. The Semiahmoo marina is a floating
breakwater, so there is no restriction.
The next step of the shoreline project is to convene the partners to review
the report. The community needs to decide what the priority drainages are and
whether they want to work on source identification or stormwater retention and
control. They would like to continue the volunteer sampling program. Identify
funding sources to continue sampling and reporting. There is some money
available through the Pledge Program to do monitoring in Drayton Harbor. He
believes that they will be able to continue this program through a monitoring
component of a Pledge Program project.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY GEORGE BOGGS, WHATCOM
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ON THE AGRICULTURE, FISH, AND
WILDLIFE PROCESS (AB2002 -112)
George Boggs, Conservation District, thanked the Water Resources Division
for its efforts in continuing the shellfish project manager position and sampling.
The Conservation District lead the Portage Bay Shellfish District Response Team.
Those were two critical items that were identified. The Conservation District was
able to get Centennial Funding for that initial start for Portage Bay.
Regarding his presentation, he wanted to amplify some of the discussion
about the dairies. Given the time constraints of this meeting, he offered to the
committee the Conservation District's closing report to the Conservation
Commission regarding dairy waste. The report will show the efforts of the dairy
farmers, technical assistant, design team, and other water quality reports. They
are heading in the right direction. The last 14 samples have met the objective for
reopening the beds. He is cautiously optimistic that they've addressed the
significant contributor of fecal coliform in Portage Bay, and that Portage Bay will
reopen soon.
McShane stated he would like to reschedule Mr. Boggs' presentation on the
Ag, Fish and Wildlife process.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
OTHER BUSINESS
Crawford asked how the Conservation District is doing in lobbying to get the
change for not having to pay the County for their District Board election. He was
shocked that the Conservation District had to pay $20,000. Boggs stated it is going
to go back to the old system, so they won't have a general election for which they
have to contribute eleven percent of the cost this next time. The $20,000 was a
big hit on their budget. It equals their match for the Centennial Grant for one year.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 21