HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 13 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
July 13, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
Tom Brown
DISCUSSION
1. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM GUIDELINES (AB99 -266)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the
guidelines are exhaustive in efforts to review and take over local control. One
County review requirement is to find out how the County should respond to this.
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Manger,
stated the State's public hearing is scheduled for tomorrow evening. He plans on
giving testimony. He shares the same concerns with Pacific County. There are
several areas of contradiction and expansion of authority. He wants those
questions answered. The real question is whether the shorelines jurisdiction will be
at 200 feet or at certain headwaters. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) and
County have tried to work together to make sure it is followed to greatest extent
possible. There have been differences of opinion. The Attorney General (AG) has
agreed with County opinions and asked DOE to back off on some cases regarding
interpretation of local program. One case is where the shoreline jurisdiction stops.
He supported the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) because the Shoreline
Management Program does not address headwaters and non - associated wetlands.
The County has moved forward with the Growth Management Act to address those
areas. He was confused why the State was trying to expand the Shoreline Master
Program. That will be his testimony.
Sutter asked if it would change the definition of a shoreline. Middleton stated
it would.
Sutter questioned whether these are guidelines for Council to change the
Shoreline Management Plan. She questioned whether they are guidelines or
mandates.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they are referred to as
guidelines. As the County modifies it's Shoreline Management Master Program to
achieve congruity with the guidelines, the DOE determines if the County has been
successful.
Sutter requested they County call it a regulation if it is a regulation. Gibson
stated it is a guideline, but the degree of closeness to which the guideline is
followed is determined by DOE.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter questioned whether he foresees that determination ultimately going
into courts. Gibson stated it depends on how closely jurisdictions tow the line. In
the past, the County has not had a great deal of difficulty with the past revisions of
the Shorelines Master Plans.
Hoag asked if the reason Whatcom County has not had difficulty was because
other jurisdictions don't have critical areas ordinances that address these issues.
Gibson stated it is not. Regarding vegetation management corridors, there are
major changes in philosophy and practice.
Hoag questioned whether the guidelines expand the buffers beyond what is
currently being asked for. Middleton stated it depends. The County is going to
have to modify its program and have it approved by DOE. Until that is done, the
buffers may grow.
Hoag asked if they are proposing a buffer. Gibson read from a portion of the
plan. It discusses about one site potential tree height and width. That is from the
point of full bank width. Full bank width is also defined.
Hoag questioned whether they are applying that formula to all waters.
Gibson stated the jurisdiction, as defined under the law, is all shorelines and
shorelands. There are exceptions. Those with a mean annual flow of less than 20
cubic feet per second do not qualify. Also, lakes or bodies of water of less than 20
acres do not apply. Clearly, they are talking about the Nooksack River and the
lower reaches of tributaries. He read from a portion of the plan regarding the
vegetation management corridor in agricultural areas. Corridors must be sufficient
to ensure maintenance of ecological functions.
Middleton questioned, as administrator, who would do that.
Hoag asked who is currently enforcing the CAO and whether it would be the
same people. Middleton stated enforcing the CAO is substantially different than
what Gibson just read about.
Nelson stated this was similar to two years ago when DOE was asked that
the County be allowed management of the shorelines through the CAO. He
understands DOE trying to find an administrative mechanism that would be uniform
statewide. The question was who is going to assure the public there will be both
protection of water and of property owners. They need to raise a question at the
hearing about an appeal process. Middleton stated they are going to manage it by
changing the County's rules.
Nelson questioned the role that puts the County in regarding handling
complaints and concerns.
Gibson read from the plan. One of the things that is a concern is the
discounting of the value of local knowledge. If one had a reasonable measure of
assurance that people actively involved in administrative rules paid attention to
sound local knowledge, there wouldn't be a concern. For instance, the Nooksack
River floods differently than some rivers. Shoreline jurisdiction not only covers 200
feet, but also floodways. The concern is who would be making these calls, and
whether it will be people willing to listen to reason or who have an agenda. They
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
need to know if the County has significant precision to create a basis for a
challenge.
Brown stated he's heard concerns about upland areas that affect shorelands
are also subject, which means everything. Also, he thought the CAO was approved
as adequate. What he is seeing here is that the CAO will go out the window.
Middleton stated he didn't know.
Gibson stated critical areas and shoreline jurisdictions at some points
intersect, but generally cover different areas.
Middleton stated the CAO overlays the Shoreline Management Act. The areas
for which the CAO has larger buffers are included, such as areas in which the
shoreline has a 45 -foot setback or buffer, the CAO has 100 -foot. The County goes
with the more restrictive buffer. The review process of any development within the
shoreline area happens differently than any other process.
Brown stated this is a new layer of process. Middleton stated it is a change
in the process the County already has. The effective administration won't be known
until the DOE approves the County's plan of administration.
Brenner stated there are a lot of the same rules that currently exist, but the
question is who will be in charge. The questions are very general. If guidelines
don't cover a force of law, then the County is already doing what is necessary
through its current legislation. Gibson stated guidelines are a template for the
County's proposed master plan changes. Those proposed master plan changes will
be measured to the guidelines. There is no question the County will have to change
it's regulations. It is driven in large part by the ESA listing. There is a degree of
uncertainty in that area.
Sutter found that the County has to achieve, sustain, increase all ecological
functions, and prevent impacts to ecological function's, etc. She questioned who is
going to determine what the ecological functions are. Middleton stated that is his
concern.
Sutter stated the County will go bankrupt if they have to go to all shorelines
and determine their ecological function. DOE is not proposing a definition of an
ecological function.
Gibson urged the Council to read through the plan carefully and comment by
the end of the comment period.
Hoag asked the impact of this on the floodways and floodplains. Gibson
stated someone could argue certain areas are shorelines or shorelands, which
require a vegetation management corridor. Consequently, what is currently
occurring in those areas is affecting the ecological function. That would be
ridiculous.
Hoag stated the area of the farms is not typically viewed as a flood corridor.
On the other hand, when the water does come through, it takes stuff with it from
the farms, and has to be treated differently than a place where the river water
doesn't course through. Gibson stated that is why they have severe restrictions on
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
building within floodways. At the same time, as a farmer, one doesn't give up 30-
40 acres for a five or ten year flood event.
Hoag asked what is different in the document in terms of floodways. Gibson
stated there is stronger emphasis on maintaining a broad band of vegetation in
relationship to shorelines and shorelands. In all likelihood, the County will be
dealing with someone who will understand the County's situation.
Hoag asked if the floodways have been defined as a shoreline in the past.
Gibson stated that hadn't changed. It 's an expansion of scope on the management
of the shoreline lands.
Brenner stated the language about what must be done implies the same
thing the County is doing. Knapp stated the intent of the legislature was to ask the
DOE to rewrite the procedures relative to regulatory reform. Regulatory reform
was intended to shorten and simplify the process. What has happened is the
process has become more complex, and there are mandated timeframes the
County is required to comply with. What is happening here is further complexity
and more questions from staff. The geography is expanded. The ESA needs to be
considered. Their intent was to link endangered species to regulations. They need
to walk through the process with staff. It lengthens the complexity and timeframe.
Brenner stated they are saying the same thing. Her concern was about
whom would be in charge, rather than the proposed guidelines. Knapp stated there
are lots of questions that need to be addressed for clarification.
Brenner stated a lot of the wording sounded positive. She was concerned
about the vague wording. She questioned whether this would fall in with all the
regulations such as GMA, CAO, and other regulations the County has.
Knapp stated the Council should add in their testimony regarding concerns
on processing and review requirements.
Barry Wenger, DOE, stated he worked with the County for 12 years on
various issues. The whole thing is being pushed forward by ESA. Shoreline
management is a key in the salmon effort. The idea is that the bar of protection is
being raised. If the State doesn't raise it, the State will be liable for takings if the
fish aren't protected. Balance with private property rights. The Shoreline
Management act was passed 28 years ago. It has not changed. The statute sets
jurisdiction, and is not changing by this rule.
Hoag asked about upland areas. Wenger stated that refers to the 200 feet.
It is defined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which takes precedence
over any WAC. There are three things to look at; streams, lakes, and marine
shorelines. On lakes and marine shorelines, the limit is 200 feet back from the
ordinary high water mark. Regarding streams, it is also 200 feet back from the
ordinary high water mark, except for large rivers like the Nooksack. The
jurisdiction used to be the entire 100 -year flood plain. In 1975, that was reduced
to the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) floodway, plus 200 feet. It also
includes all the wetlands that are associated with that stream and are also located
within the 100 -year flood plain. It is identical to the way it was in 1975. Any
associated wetlands around lakes or marine waters that go beyond 200 feet are
also included. 60% of small streams are not shoreline management streams
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
because they are less than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) annual flow. The only
jurisdiction would be the CAO. He described the jurisdictions of some of the
streams in the County. They are all mapped out and described in detail.
Knapp stated County Planning and Development Services had that map.
Brown asked about the wetlands that are effected. Wenger stated on small
streams without a FEMA floodway, such as Fish Trap Creek, it is under Shoreline
jurisdiction within 200 feet. Any wetland outside the 200 feet is not under shoreline
jurisdiction, except for the edge of the wetland only.
Brown questioned whether wetlands not attached to the shoreline creeks are
under the shoreline jurisdictions. Wenger stated they are not. It is anything
subject to the shorelines.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Wenger continued to state that in the current master plan, the County has no
buffers, only setbacks, which are different. It is covered under the CAO, which has
the buffers.
Sutter addressed the vegetative management corridor and the site potential
tree height. She questioned the tree height of a Douglas Fir. Wenger stated it is
150 feet.
Sutter questioned whether a vegetation management corridor of 150 feet will
be required around all shoreline areas, and whether floodways are considered
shoreline areas. Wenger stated that is in the guideline. It is 150 feet from the
bank full width, not the floodway. A floodway is not a shoreline. A shoreline is a
body of water, such as a lake, stream, or body of water.
Sutter stated it is not clear and creates confusion. She questioned whether
they are required to have a vegetation management corridor around floodways.
Wenger stated they are not. That is not what the guidelines intend.
Hoag stated there is a ditch or creek running through a floodway with farms
on either side. She questioned whether it would or would not require a 150 -foot
vegetative buffer on either side, since it is a floodway. Wenger stated they are
measuring from the bank full width of the Nooksack.
Hoag questioned whether a ditch running through a floodway would require a
150 -foot vegetative buffer because it is within shoreline jurisdiction, or would it go
back to the standard of 20 cfs. Wenger stated the ditch is not the body of water
that creates the floodway.
Hoag stated it is a body of water within shorelines jurisdiction. Wenger
stated they are not saying there is a 150 -foot buffer on every shoreline stream.
Hoag asked the reasoning behind the site potential tree height. Wenger
stated it is a scientific application used by Timber, Fish, and Wildlife in a forestry
application. They are trying to get the system to function as it did naturally.
Buffers have different functions. One function is to provide large woody debris.
Scientists came up with the site potential tree height index as the best method to
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
calculate buffer. On the lowlands, the buffer is about 75 feet. Most of the trees are
fir and hemlock. They look at what species grew there historically and the soils
that currently exist.
Hoag asked if there is any wording about dominant species. Wenger stated
the site index and ecological functions are well defined. They also need to think
about how this document will meet National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) needs
for protecting fish. The State will have to sign off on a 4(d) rule or a habitat
conservation plan, which will say that following the plan will allow certain activities.
If they don't, then everything becomes a potential take.
Hoag stated timber usually in the hills. A buffer in the hills has different
requirements than a buffer on flatland where water doesn't travel at the same kinds
of speeds and inclines. She questioned why they would apply the same buffer
requirements from the hills to the flatlands. Wenger stated that is a good question
to raise. There are some similarities, such as the contribution of woody debris.
Even on the main stem, the Nooksack River meanders slightly back and forth.
Hoag asked where they came up with height of the tree and the distance on
the ground. Wenger stated because of the shade it casts, the proximity for
material coming off the trees providing the food, and the potential for large wood
debris.
Knapp asked about the principles being proposed regarding the management
of the entire length of the riparian corridor. In principle, they would want to look at
everything coming into the stream, but he questioned how it translates into the
current effort by Planning with limited interpretation of how to review applications.
The County does not review all the way to the headwaters. Yet, the guidelines
direct them to do that. That significantly changes the Act. Wenger stated the
principle is one thing. The jurisdiction is still not going to change. Jurisdiction still
stops at 20 cfs.
Hoag questioned how the management of the entire length of the riparian
corridor stops once they are below 20 cfs. Wenger stated the permits can only
apply below 20 cfs. If they are looking at, for example, a flood project in a
shoreline jurisdiction, then they have to get a shoreline permit. When making a
decision on jurisdiction, the County has jurisdiction over the whole watershed,
except for federal properties. It doesn't change the Act. A WAC cannot legally
change the Act.
Gibson stated they cannot expand jurisdiction by expanding a management
guideline. The interpretation is affected by the view of things upstream. Wenger is
correct.
Wenger stated there is a federal law called the Coastal Zone Management
Act. In Whatcom County, everything from the Cascade crest to the water is in the
Coastal Zone management Act jurisdiction. That is a federal law in which the State
and local laws are based.
Sutter questioned the string that ties all the current regulations together. By
having so many regulations, there is potential for conflict and overlap. She
questioned the guiding piece of legislation. She also questioned the timeline.
Wenger stated by the end of the year the rule will be adopted. Then there will be
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
review by the State Department of Ecology with local jurisdictions to see if their
master plans will need to be updated.
Sutter stated that the County is going to come up with measures that may
be far more effective at restoring salmon than what is being done with the
Shoreline Management Act, through Engrossed Substitute House Bills (ESHB) 2514
and ESHB 2496. She questioned what would happen when those regulations come
into conflict with each other. Wenger stated they have also had instances where
there are regulatory and non - regulatory approaches. The County is in the driver's
seat, because it comes together at the local level. DOE has worked through the
years with the local jurisdictions. They have used local knowledge in putting their
information together. It also must stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Brenner questioned whether the Shoreline Management Plan's vegetative
management corridor is a buffer. Wenger stated it is.
Brenner stated she was concerned about jurisdictions, who was in charge,
and duplication of efforts. She questioned whether local jurisdictions would
continue to handle their current activities as long as everything stays consistent
with the Shoreline Management Plan. Wenger stated that was correct.
Performance standards are changing, not who is in charge.
Brenner questioned why the County would have to work with DOE attorneys
for legal interpretation instead of with the County's own attorneys. Wenger stated
they have worked 28 years on the Shoreline Act in all the jurisdictions. The
Attorney General's office has expertise in what works and what doesn't work.
Brenner stated they have expertise in all these areas. It still seems it would
be better to work with the County's attorneys, who could contact the AG's office if
they need to. It still seems as if the County is being required to ask the DOE's
permission, rather than working the way they have been working. Wenger stated
he spent many years working on the County's existing master program. It was a
joint project. Nothing has changed in 28 years. They still have to approve the
master program and whether it fits the guidelines, and it is still a negotiation
process. If there is a legal difference in interpretation, the Shoreline Hearings
Board is available. However, there are very few permits that the DOE appeals from
Whatcom County.
Gibson stated there is a definition of ecological functions, which is #12 in the
definitions.
Middleton stated what draws everything all together is the Constitution of the
United States. However, staff's job is to pull the regulations together and resolve
conflicting portions. That is his major concern. He is not concerned about Wenger.
He is concerned about the people in Olympia. Furthermore, each buffer that has
it's own definition and interpretation takes more staff time on the ground. Right
now, the Land Use Division has 16 staff, and he needs more. At the same time, the
decisions that normally would take 180 days to two years, now are required to be
made in 90 to 120 days. The items that don't have timelines get put on the back
burner because they have to make the decisions. He was not worried about adding
buffers. The staff will incorporate those. The time it takes to process and practice
due diligence was his concern.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Hoag stated it is important to not have a one - size - fits -all process. The
County should not take one inch more than needed from productive farmland. The
County should do only enough, not more. The guidelines need to be grounded in
improved data.
Hoag read Dawson's proposed letter into the record. They could also add
Knapp's concerns on the complexity of processing applications and whether or not
they can be processed in the timeframes required by regulatory reform. Knapp
stated the effectiveness of this, relative to the legislature's intent of asking them to
link what they were doing with regulatory reform, which has a very constrained
timeframe, was the legislatures intent. The County is faced with locally meeting
the timeframes with more complexity and buffers. It increases the time a staff
member needs to review an application. That is at the heart of the staff's concerns.
Hoag stated she would also like to include the question about buffers
designated for the hills being applied to the flatlands and the correlation of the
height of trees with the buffer width.
Brenner stated that there needs to be emphasis on initial discussions about
funding. They need to request the money be forthcoming. She suggested, " ... We,
in good faith, held discussion with the State agencies regarding available federal
and state dollars..." The legislators implied the County would be getting funding.
Brown stated they need to address the shoreline moving and eroding. He
would like to see a stipulation included that addresses the meander limits.
Hoag stated she will incorporate the suggestions and bring a letter forward to
the Council at the night meeting. Also, she wanted the 200 feet upland area
specified.
Brenner stated it should also be clear the jurisdictions will not be changing.
Gibson suggested they address Public Works within the vegetation
management corridor. He questioned whether the corridor is permeable to
accommodate necessary public works activities.
Nelson questioned whether an opportunity for people to set up a
management plan within the shorelines is being considered. Gibson stated the
County could provide for management plans regarding certain activities within the
buffer. It would be up to DOE to determine whether or not that was sufficient to
protect the water.
Nelson asked how they apply management plans within the requirements
and guidelines. Wenger stated he would look at the guidelines, but thought it could
occur.
Nelson stated it is easier to administer guidelines, but it is easier for the
public to be able to create a management plan, as long as it accomplishes the same
goal. Wenger stated there are different kinds of standards. One is called a bulk
standard, which is, for example, a 45 -foot setback. The other type of standard is a
performance standard that cites a goal. The application could be variable,
depending on site conditions.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Nelson questioned whether the DOE could allow local jurisdictions and private
property owners to establish performance standards. He wanted that included in
the letter. Wenger stated they could work on that.
Sutter stated they need to know if a Shoreline Management Act requirement
is already covered in a different County regulation, would the County need to add it
to the revised plan. Wenger stated they look at whether the regulations are
enforceable policies. If it is the master program, the DOE has the right to enforce
it. The DOE doesn't have any control of the County CAO, and can't tell the federal
government that there are enforceable policies.
Sutter stated that brings up the issue of dual enforcement. People are
getting hit twice for the same offense, which isn't fair. Wenger stated, if it is part
of the State's salmon strategy, then it would be covered under a 4(d) rule.
Sutter stated the County would have to take out the enforceable regulations
from the County regulations, and let the State be solely responsible for
enforcement. Wenger stated the County and State would be jointly responsible,
because it is a jointly administered program.
Hoag asked if they could incorporate it by reference. Wenger stated those
are legal questions.
2. REVIEW OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH'S DRAFT
SANITARY SURVEY OF DRAYTON HARBOR (AB99 -267)
Chris Chesson, Health and Human Services On -Site Sewage Supervisor,
stated the report was published by the State Department of Health. He was
available for questions.
Hoag asked for a summary and whether there are any concerns or if it is
adequately covered. She questioned whether the Drayton Harbor Shellfish
Protection District Advisory Committee had an opinion. Chesson stated the water
quality is not improving in Drayton Harbor. In the areas currently approved, recent
sampling indicates fecal coliform is still high and the area needs to be downgraded.
Hoag asked about a permanent prohibition or downgrade. Chesson stated
the downgrade would only be until the area improves.
Sutter asked how long they have been collecting data on coliform in Drayton
Harbor. Chesson stated they have been collecting data since 1993 or 1994.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Sutter stated there is not a real clear historical picture. There is not any data
from 50 years ago.
Chris Woodward, Shellfish Protection District Facilitator, stated the official
closure was in 1995. Data would have been collected from two or three years
before that.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter questioned whether the information in the report was correct by
saying the flood tide is the adverse tidal condition. Woodward stated Don
Lenertson had said the most pollution is not occurring on the ebb tide, the tide
going out. Most of it is occurring on flood tide, from the harbor mouth itself, or
from the marina areas at Blaine and Semiahmoo. It would come more from the
Blaine marina area more than Semiahmoo marina.
Sutter questioned whether that was an indication that agricultural runoff into
Dakota and California creeks is not the major contributor. Woodward stated it
does, but it does not rule it out. According to the last water quality monitoring
report, the counts are very high.
Sutter asked how much sampling had been done in upstream areas.
Woodward stated Western Washington University (WWU), the Northwest Indian
College, DOE, and others have done sampling. They are working on a map with
that data.
Sutter asked if they will use that data to pinpoint sources. Woodward stated
that is an enforcement issue. The DOE has just done a survey of all the dairies in
that location. All but one came out pretty good.
Brown stated the gentleman from the State Department of Health (DOH)
spoke to them previously about the new sewer line that went under the harbor. He
was adamant the problem was not from Dakota Creek or California Creek. All the
information bears that out. They are wasting time and money by going after those
creeks, when they contribute such a minute amount of water to the bay. He was
interested in the study from the sewer treatment plant out fall. They've mentioned
over and over the problems coming from Canada. There are no studies showing
those effects. He questioned whether anyone was testing that issue. Woodward
stated there are two people in the group representing the Semiahmoo First Nation,
a Native American tribe to the north. They also show the same concerns. When
their shellfish beds are prohibited, it is against the law for anyone to harvest
shellfish. They've received a small grant from Environment British Columbia (B.C.)
to do water quality study work in the two watersheds directly north of Whatcom
County. Hopefully, that study will provide information. The group is also trying to
do work with the White Rock /Boundary Bay Health Committee. They are giving the
committee their data on the water quality in their waters. The committee is also
trying to work with the Georgia Basin Initiative project, a joint effort between
Canada and the United States. This is just beginning in the Boundary Bay area, so
they are just getting to it.
Brown stated he was interested in tidal flow direction. He questioned
whether the same tidal flow is coming down from B.C. waters. Woodward stated
they don't have that type of a circulation study. It is a request that had been
made.
Hoag stated Geoff Menzies did a small study of his own on that issue. The
initial thought was that Dakota and California creeks and the dairies were going to
be the major contributors. The studies didn't back that up. Next, they thought the
problem was failing septic systems, but those have been repaired and there are still
problems. There have been some other studies done. Regarding the flood tide and
municipal sewer, there are a number of places where there is a question whether or
not municipal sewage is coming into the bay. Fish processors are also a concern.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
They are getting very high counts at the marina. She questioned what happened
with the marina expansion project. She hadn't seen any of the studies that were
supposed to be done prior to the expansion project. Woodward stated they
received a technical memorandum from the Port of Bellingham that answered a
couple of the issues. They haven't addressed all of the issues. They are planning
on putting a boat in the harbor beginning August 1. The committee is trying to set
up a meeting with the Port and address that issue. The committee is also looking
at a possible project in the marina. August 1 is the date they are supposed to be
able to open up the new marina and begin allowing boats in. The committee would
like all of the data done before there are any more possible problems that could be
adding to this.
Hoag questioned whether there were any concerns the committee identified
from the report. Woodward stated it was a thorough report.
Brown stated that in 1994 they observed several hundred harbor seals. The
report doesn't mention all the birds that are in the area. The flood tide from
Canada is also a problem. There is a lot of waste coming in from these areas. Over
the long term, they will find there is more impact from this than from other
considerations. The report doesn't address the birds. Woodward stated it only
mentions that they are there. The study done by the State Department of Health
took some samples directly from where the seals haul out. It showed no significant
increase in bacteria levels in those areas.
Brown stated Alki Beach was closed, and they had substantially fewer seals.
Woodward stated they are trying to look at all the issues that could have a negative
impact. Birds and seals are definitely one of the sources. The committee is more
concerned with the possibility there could be some leakage within the sanitary
sewer line itself. That is where they are going to focus their efforts with their first
project.
Hoag stated if the Council is happy with the report, they can say that. She
wanted to add more attention on the seals and birds.
Sutter questioned how the annual flows in Dakota Creek could have doubled
from the 1950s.
Hoag stated it was due to impervious surfaces.
Brown stated there might have been more people taking water directly out of
the creek.
Sutter stated they may need to determine the average annual flow.
Woodward stated she wasn't sure whether the United Stated Geological Service has
a flow station on those creeks.
Brown stated he agreed with the recommendations, but hoped emphasis on
Dakota and California creeks and the failing septic systems would not be as high a
priority.
OTHER BUSINESS
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, 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
Dawson stated Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director,
spoke with the State's archeological department. They are willing to work directly
with the Planning Department to address archeological sites for the entire County.
Planning would be required to have a secure site for the archeological records. He
needs to okay to develop that policy direction.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they
would look at the resources countywide. When they review applications, they
would look at any site in the County that the application would be for. Currently, it
takes two weeks or longer to hear back from the Lummi Tribe regarding their sites.
Instead, it would only take minutes to get the same information. That requires a
memorandum of understanding from the Office of Historic and Archeological
Resources.
Hoag questioned whether there is a rush on this issue. Knapp stated it could
be delayed for two weeks.
Nelson suggested delaying it for two weeks. There are also spiritual sites, in
addition to archeological sites. It is a major concern of the Lummi Nation. They
are studying these sites in the Lake Whatcom watershed and other areas, not just
the reservation.
Knapp stated they would look at what has been identified by the State, based
on the State's criteria. There may be new historic resources identified, and it needs
careful consideration before it is done.
Hoag stated this would be discussed at the next meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 7/13/99, Page 12