HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 15 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 15, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:10 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Tom Brown
Kathy Sutter
Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.28,
MANURE AND AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
(AB98 -254A)
Hoag stated that staff is preparing the ordinance as recommended by the farmers and the
Health Advisory Committee. A problem had arisen that there had not been sufficient State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review on the manure ordinance. She was disappointed
that it was not handled properly. They will address any concerns and then ensure that everything
is taken care of in the proper manner. They have been dealing with this for months and it is out
of line.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that it didn't go
through his department. That was part of the dilemma. When it goes through his department, it
gets SEPA review.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it is highly unusual that a land
use item didn't originate through Planning and Development Services.
Knapp stated that if they could determine it was an emergency, it could be exempted.
Frakes stated that this has been on -going for sometime. The County created its own emergency.
Hoag stated that October 1 is the date everyone agreed on. If it has to go through SEPA
review before it can be approved, then they can't meet the October 1 deadline. Frakes stated that
she anticipated a determination of non - significance (DNS) would be issued. That could be done
quite quickly.
Sutter asked if they can adopt subject to approval of SEPA.
Frakes stated that they couldn't. Once SEPA reviews the ordinance, they could adopt as
an emergency.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether the Council could pass the ordinance at the regular meeting that
night if it is done as an emergency. Knapp stated that they could.
Hoag questioned emergency designation requirements. Frakes stated that there is an
imminent public health danger. Council has stated that they didn't have enough time to go
through the SEPA process.
Brown stated that they have had adequate time to do the process right. They should not
declare an emergency because the SEPA process has not been done, other projects have been
held up due to SEPA. At least 4 agencies that issue fines, which have overseen manure pollution
in the water. That could be continued.
Sutter stated that they are not avoiding SEPA for a permanent ordinance, only for the
emergency.
Brown stated that Hoag has stated she won't pass items without enough time to review.
Brown had not seen the proposed ordinance.
Hoag stated that the proposed changes have already been seen. They were brought up at
the Health Board and they are in a letter from farmers. They are the ones they have been
considering. It puts them all in order.
Brown stated that he was not involved in the hearing with the farmers. Hoag responded
that he has a letter.
Hoag outlined the requested changes that were being made, including a date to October 1,
a change to the Whatcom Conservation Board, and establishing the Planning Department as the
enforcement agency.
Knapp stated that that they don't have staff to do water quality review. Enforcement is a
Health Department issue.
Hoag stated that if they are in charge of enforcement, he can delegate or hire out different
things. It doesn't exclude having the State Department of Ecology (DOE) do inspections for the
County. It simply says that he would be in charge of ensuring that inspections are done. As the
department in charge of the critical areas ordinance (CAO), his department was suggested for
this activity. Buffers on streams are an extension of what is in the CAO.
Nelson stated that the Conservation District takes care of the CAO.
Knapp stated that they take care of development, not health related issues.
George Boggs, Conservation District, stated that they provided technical assistance in the
agricultural uses attendant to the buffer areas. They do not inspect or enforce. That is delegated
to the Planning Department.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, Page 2
2 Bob VanWeerdhuizen, Dairy Farmers Advisory Committee, asked for an annual review
3 of the water quality data to gauge the success of the ordinance.
4
5 (Clerk's note: Chair moved to discuss an additional item under Other Business)
6
7 Hoag described the changes in the latest version of the ordinance, version four. She read
8 the first sentence of section 16.28.30(E). At the end of that sentence, language added is,
9 "...calendar year. For the year of 1998 only, the non - application period will begin October 1.
10 Any liquid manure applied prior to this date should be worked in, with a cover crop planted by
11 October 1 to help minimize run off and nitrate contamination of groundwater." The next
12 sentence should state, "Should favorable... Conservation District Board based..." That came
13 from the Health Advisory Committee to clarify who at the district had the authority to make the
14 approval. The Council expressed some concern that this would delay the approval process. The
15 Council was assured that this just clarifies that the Board would approve when the date arrives,
16 based on T Sum 200. Because the ordinance refers to "best available science ", the Board would
17 determine what constitutes best available science.
18
19 Boggs stated that the technicians would track the T Sum 200, the mean average
20 temperature accumulations. They would apprise the Board, who would issue a resolution. The
21 CD will anticipate that beginning January 1 and track the information.
22
23 Hoag stated 16.28.30(G) was a new definition of T Sum 200.
24
25 Hoag stated that, regarding the section on Penalties and Enforcement, the new language
26 should say, "violations of the provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Whatcom
27 County Planning and Development Services Department." Knapp responded they would need
28 additional staff to enforce.
29
30 Nelson reminded Hoag of additional language regarding annual review.
31
32 Sutter stated that it needs to be defined which water quality results would be reviewed.
33 Boggs stated the Northwest Indian College would be doing the studies within the Nooksack main
34 stem and tributaries. That is the body that will continue the Total Maximum Daily Load
35 (TMDL) study. That should be appropriate information in addition to the State Department of
36 Health (DOH) monitoring.
37
38 Hoag suggested that it would be appropriate to add language to state, "water quality data
39 pursuant to the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District."
40
41 Jim Heeringa, 9463 Hill Road, Sumas, asked Boggs if they would do DNA testing to
42 ensure dairy sources are the problem. If Council should fund enforcement, then they should also
43 do DNA testing. Hoag stated that DNA testing is not useable. If the enforcement provisions
44 reduce the fecal coliform, then testing would be a moot point.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, Page 3
I Heeringa questioned what would happen if it doesn't reduce coliform.
2
3 McKay stated that they have to have the right input before solving the problem. They
4 need to determine what species of animal is causing the problem. Hoag stated that historically
5 DNA testing has not been reliable. Hoag explained the items in the Portage Bay response
6 strategy. There are other indicators that show dairy is a problem. Dairy is not the only problem.
7 The Portage Bay Response Strategy addresses the other problems.
8
9 (Clerk's Note: End of tap one, side A)
10
11 Brown stated that the sewer treatment plants do contribute. Also, the City of Blaine is
12 doing DNA testing.
13
14 Sutter stated that the Council has been accused of picking on people with septic tanks,
15 this year it's the farmers, next year something else. The problem is bigger than dairy farms,
16 septic tanks, and natural causes. The Council is not picking on dairy problems, they are working
17 on other factors as well.
18
19 Hoag clarified that the items covered are being covered. Items included are already best
20 management practices.
21
22 McKay stated that tax dollars should be spent wisely. He didn't feel he is being picked
23 on. He was concerned about over - regulation.
24
25 Hoag stated that with freedom comes responsibility. Regulation steps in when there is an
26 abuse of responsibility. The majority of the farmers are not causing a problem. There are a few
27 farmers that are not practicing best management. They have to address the problem as a
28 responsible government. Voluntary action hasn't worked, so they must enforce regulations
29 because of the lack of responsibility of a few.
30
31 Brown stated that the farmers this spring knew that they had to come into compliance,
32 they had four years to take steps. The County jumped in and took away four years and required
33 it now. Some farmers will go out of business because they would be hit with fines. Not all
34 farmers have had input. The County needs to implement the ordinance, but not the financial
35 penalty until next spring.
36
37 Hoag stated that people that are going to be affected are people applying manure within
38 50 feet of the ditch, or applying manure to bare ground or corn stubble. This is not going to be
39 implemented until October 1, 1998. No one will be run out of business. High nitrates and closed
40 shellfish beds can't wait four years. The County has an imminent problem.
41
42 Boggs stated that at the previous County Council meeting, it was tabled so the dairy
43 industry could review and comment. It has been reviewed by all producers and has been
44 endorsed. The ordinance has support, the issues are the changes.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Hoag stated that a major concern is the enforcement.
Sutter reminded Hoag to add emergency language.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that they would need to do
accompanying findings.
Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance as an emergency with accompanying findings.
Brown stated that he didn't see any findings to support the emergency adoption. There is
no imminent risk to public health and safety. It has been, and is, a gradual process.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
Frakes stated that she would draw up findings.
Heeringa questioned whether they could apply nutrients on early, before crops. Sutter
stated that they could if they get a CD plan.
Boggs stated that the T Sum 200 approval is year by year. The decision will be made at
the time that it's appropriate. Flexibility is built in.
Hoag clarified that a CD plan would allow certain other activities.
Boggs stated that there can also be a management plan, which would not be as
comprehensive as a conservation/farming plan. What is reflected in the ordinance is site
specific, field by field, and is not a plan for the entire farming operation.
Brown clarified that farm plans do not allow manure being placed on grass in the winter.
It is not a blanket thing. Hoag stated that is not anything new.
Sutter stated that if manure was applied year round appropriately, there would not be a
storage problem in the winter.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant, Bellingham, stated that the last sentence in section
16.28.030(G) regarding soil condition is ambiguous. Boggs stated that they will look at rainfall
and various conditions.
McShane questioned whether the T Sum 200 and soil conditions would both apply. Hoag
stated that the farmer would not be taking the soil conditions into consideration. They would
have to call the CD Board for approval.
McShane suggested moving the last sentence into the last sentence in subsection (E).
Boggs stated that it was not necessary.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Sutter moved that the last sentence in section 16.28.030(G) would become the last
sentence would become 16.28.030(E). The sentence states, "Soil condition must also be
considered when deciding when to apply nitrogen."
Motion carried unanimously.
VanWeerdhuizan was concerned about planting cover crop seed in dry ground and being
unable to follow with wet nutrients, because it is powder dry and seed won't grow in powder.
Boggs stated that doesn't mandate the use of a cover crop by the word "should ".
McKay questioned whether solids are included in this regulation. Hoag clarified that the
regulation is only for liquids.
Hoag stated that there are activities occurring that aren't covered by state law.
Sutter stated that the County water quality data is public. It is not needed in the
ordinance to allow farmers to see water quality test results.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that Health and Human
Services will be able to do an annual report on that information.
Brown moved to add a sunset date of December 31, 2004 to the ordinance, unless the
County Council determines HB 6161 does not mitigate the contamination issue. This will
eliminate a duplication of regulation. It gives state law 6161 a year to be in effect.
Hoag questioned how he would determine if it was 6161 or the manure ordinance that
was mitigating. Brown stated that it would be based on whether 6161 was controlling the
applications. 6161 requires a complete farm plan. If the Council holds a review that shows that
6161 effectively handles the problem, then the County could reduce funding.
Brenner stated that the review should be received before a sunset date.
Sutter questioned whether 6161 would address individual site - specific areas. Boggs
stated it will address site - specific areas and will likely be more restrictive. The ordinance is
based upon the Shellfish Protection District and the Closure Response Strategy which sunsets in
2000, and would require review.
Hoag stated that 6161 does not address beef farms. The DOE has concerns with 6161
and its enforcement. It is also impossible to determine which farm in an area contributes. 6161
has to test the water to prove a violation.
Brenner stated that a review process by the Council would detennine if 6161 is effective.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Brown in favor.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Brenner asked about annual review. She received a letter from the dairy producers and
she wants the review period in.
Boggs stated that Whatcom County Code section 16.28.040 should instruct the Shellfish
Advisory Committee to review the bacteria water quality data on an annual basis and make a
recommendation as to whether the ordinance should continue.
Brown stated that they should add that the information should be forwarded to the Dairy
Federation.
Sutter stated that the specific source of the data should also be included.
Boggs stated he would craft language to amend 16.28.040.
Hoag moved to add language to identify the source of the data, the review process, and to
ensure that the information would be forwarded to the Dairy Producer Advisory Committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Knapp stated that regulation has risen since 1970, yet enforcement staffing levels have
remained the same. The County has one enforcement officer currently and needs at least two for
current regulation. This ordinance would require at least one more person for enforcement and
another person for clerical staffing. They need someone with technical expertise.
Sutter stated that there would not be any water quality monitoring in enforcement. It is
not an issue for enforcement. Also, the Portage Bay Closure Response included two positions
for inspection and enforcement for manure.
Hoag stated that DOE may be able to do inspections, but it is questionable.
Knapp stated that there is not enough enforcement staff for current regulations.
Boggs stated that the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay response strategies call for
enforcement and recommended $135,000 a year for an inspector and enforcement.
Sutter stated that if an enforcement person was hired for manure management, that person
could take up slack on other code enforcement issues, as time allows.
VanWeerdhuizen thanked the committee for approving their request. Also, he asked if
there is an ordinance that septic tanks will be checked. Brown stated that there is an ordinance
for Drayton Harbor, then the entire County has mandatory checks beginning in the year 2000
under State law.
Knapp questioned how the enforcement needs would be addressed through the budget.
Hoag stated that it could come through a supplemental budget request through committee.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Brown stated that he would only support it if there was a grace period on fines.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Knapp stated that typically they enforce by giving two correction notices first, before a
fine is issued. Hoag clarified that this is being enforced pursuant to the CAO, which is different.
If the fines are not in place, they will continue to have a problem.
Sutter moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as amended.
Motion to recommend as amended carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
Boggs stated that he would generate new language regarding annual review and change
the numbering. Hoag will add planning language.
(Clerk's Note: The committee continued discussion of draft language after completing
discussion regarding Drayton Harbor.)
Hoag read the suggested language regarding review. The request was to monitor the
effectiveness of the ordinance.
Boggs stated that the committee, having the benefit of the data, would make a
recommendation regarding whether or not to repeal the ordinance.
Sutter stated that they can deal with that in the next three years.
Benjamin suggested that they add the Whatcom County Health and Human Services
Department as one of the agencies with data.
Sutter moved to strike the sentence about repealing the ordinance, and add language
about monitoring the effectiveness of the ordinance.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
Benjamin restated that he would like to add Health and Human Services Department to
the list of agencies that have data.
Delahunt stated that at this time, they are not planning to collect bacterial data.
Hoag questioned whether they could not specify data sources. Boggs stated that he
believed they were concerned about the integrity of the data. These are the sources that are
doing the sampling and are recognized as being relevant.
Sutter questioned whether they wanted data only on the river, or also on the groundwater.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Heeringa stated that dairy producers would not deal with the City of the Blaine. They
may have to do their own DNA testing. They would like that also reviewed by the committee.
They would not like to specify data sources.
Hoag stated the committee can take into account the credibility of the data. Boggs stated
that if the ordinance states all available data, it will show from levels from high to low. He
didn't get the sense that anyone would be excluded. They would want to know about the
considerations. He encouraged a dairy producer to be on the committee.
Hoag suggested language, stating data pursuant to the Shellfish Closure Response
Strategy.
Brown stated that they also mentioned more than the Shellfish Protection District, such as
groundwater.
Sutter questioned whether they were just concerned about the river and Portage Bay, or
also the groundwater. The ordinance is designed to protect all of that. If the dairy industry
wants to review the results of the ordinance, then it needs to be more inclusive.
Hoag questioned whether the committee was more concerned with nitrates in the
groundwater or fecal coliform in the river.
Brown stated that he was mostly concerned with the fecal coliform.
Sutter stated that was mostly for the Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Boggs stated that when they get into groundwater interpretation, either collection or data,
they are getting beyond a citizens advisory group's capabilities. This is not a groundwater
protection measure. It is to avoid exacerbating the problem. The fundamental goal is to reverse
the closure. The basis for the closure was bacterial loading. He strongly discouraged
authorizing the group to review the groundwater as well. That is more appropriately dealt with
by a special inquiry of groundwater.
Hoag questioned Boggs whether he would have a problem not specifying the data
sources. Boggs responded that it makes good sense to specify whose data would be looked at.
VanWeerdhuizen stated that the dairy industry would like to review the new data in
addition to the data that they already have.
Hoag stated that the State Departments of Health and Ecology, which were covered under
the current language, collected the data VanWeerdhuizen referenced.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Boggs suggested adding language that the data collected would "at least" be from the
sources listed. There could be more sources of data that could be reviewed.
Sutter questioned whether they would still look at the data if the language was not in the
ordinance. They could still review the language.
Brown stated that it gives emphasis to the review.
Sutter moved to add language "at least" prior to listing the data sources.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown moved to adopt the language.
Motion to adopt the language as amended approved unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee adjourned.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE FROM THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND DISCUSSION OF THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE DISTRICT (AB98 -099)
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
that in June they presented the committee update. It included requests that were made to the
Council by the Advisory Committee. Two requests were to extend the sunset date of the
Advisory Committee to the end of the year 2000, and to also adopt an updated Closure Response
Strategy.
Brenner questioned Exhibit A. Delahunt confirmed that the Status Report is an update of
the Plan and is Exhibit A.
report.
Brenner stated that a plan should not include findings. It is more of a comprehensive
Sutter stated that they could change the title.
Sutter moved to change the title of Exhibit A to state, "Drayton Harbor Shellfish
Protection District Status Report and Water Quality Recovery Plan."
Brenner requested that the plan be separated in the future and not be included together.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, Page 10
I Sutter moved to insert the Implementation Strategy prior to Appendix A, after Council
2 packet page 240.
3
4 Sutter questioned the implementation strategy and the sharing of the funds. Delahunt
5 stated that there was a sharing of funds. That was one of the requests from the committee last
6 time, to specify those shared funds.
7
8 Hoag questioned the unfunded amount for Task two, Objective one. Delahunt stated that
9 would also be a sharing of funds. They have submitted an additional services request to the
10 County Executive for their budget, which would all that they accept the Centennial Clean Water
1 I dollars and matching funds. The $20,000 is total for the two districts together. The grant is to
12 coordinate all the shellfish protection tasks.
13
14 Hoag questioned the unfunded $250,000 in Objective 6, Task 1.
15
16 George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, stated that is an estimate of bringing
17 dairies into compliance. It is an estimate, not a specific request. Those are designated for state
18 programs.
19
20 Brenner stated that there were a lot of different entities and some existing funding. The
21 Port of Bellingham needs to pay their share. The Port can do their own funding.
22
23 Sutter agreed. The Port has some responsibility. That's how they decide the funding.
24 They need to decide for which tasks the Port is responsible. If they don't have a responsibility
25 for it, then the County can't reasonably expect them to fund it. The responsible parties have
26 been identified under the `Assignment' column. It may be that the Port should take
27 responsibility.
28
29 Hoag requested clarification on the reason for the double - asterisk items on the
30 Implementation Strategy for Drayton Harbor. The Port stated that they could not support those
31 items in their budget. She believed that the Port could support those items.
32
33 Brenner stated that she assumed that the intent of the double- asterisk was that the City of
34 Blaine and the Port have acknowledged some responsibility, but they don't have the money to
35 address the items. She disagreed that the Port doesn't have the money.
36
37 Hoag questioned whether the County would be responsible for funding the unfunded,
38 unknown items.
39
40 Brown stated that the County could look at these items through the budget process.
41
42 Boggs stated that the Advisory Committee believed that these activities need to happen.
43 They are asking for the County to encourage those two entities to engage in these activities so
44 that they can deal with the water quality problem. They are not asking for the County to fund it.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Brenner stated that the County has legal avenues because it is in charge. Brenner asked
what the Council's legal recourse would be if they assign a task to the Port and the Port doesn't
pay.
Sutter stated that the items marked with the double asterisk are not items that the Port
would be responsible for.
Brenner stated that the Port should not be included in the double asterisk. It needs
correction.
Sutter moved to remove the Port from the double asterisk footnote.
Delahunt stated that the Port, at the eleventh hour, revised their section of the table. The
double- asterisk used to apply, but the table was revised and it no longer applies.
Brenner stated that she changed her mind and that the City of Blaine should be
responsible for paying.
Hoag asked Frakes whether the County could require the City of Blaine to do their
activities. Frakes stated that she didn't think so.
Hoag stated that they can only apply political pressure.
Brenner questioned whether the State could force the City of Blaine to pay for their tasks.
Delahunt stated that the State could only if there is a violation of a regulation.
Brown questioned whether the Board of Health could enforce the regulation. Delahunt
stated that they must pass an ordinance. It would be better to coordinate with the City instead of
hammering them.
Hoag stated that the Health Department is the lead agency. She questioned whether they
would sit down with the City.
Benjamin recommended changing the reference from the Health Department to Health
and Human Services.
Brown questioned whether the $135,000 in Object 6, Task 4 was the same as referenced
in the manure ordinance discussion. Delahunt stated that it was.
Hoag stated that it was also the same money as specified in the Portage Bay Closure
Response Strategy. Delahunt stated that it was.
Brenner questioned whether the reference to the "County general fund" and also to "general
fund" was the same source. They should use the same language.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Hoag stated that when an entity is listed as the source of funding, and reference is made
to a general fund, it refers to general fund of entity. Brenner suggested that all reference to
general funds should identify which agency's general fund.
Brown moved to identify the source as the "Whatcom County General Fund."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown moved to remove the comma in references to Port of Bellingham's general fund.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned whether there are any new County funds attached to this or it is only
tying into the Portage Bay Closure Response Strategy. Delahunt stated that there are no new
funds separate from the Portage Bay strategy.
Brenner questioned which funds are going to be accessed. Delahunt stated that it would
be funds allocated to Portage Bay. They will combine the two districts and the strategies will be
combined.
Brenner questioned whether it would be helpful to have a dedicated fund. If a tax was
approved for the Shellfish Protection District, then it would be dedicated.
Benjamin clarified that they will be requesting additional funds in the 1999 budget, but
not separate from Portage Bay.
Brenner stated that they will need to decide whether or not to do a tax or a fee.
Something would have to come forward during the budget cycle.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, requested clarification of the source listed
for Objective 3, Task 2. Delahunt stated that it is correct and it is supposed to be the City of
Bellingham, not the City of Blaine.
Jan Hanson, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Chair,
applauded the Council for considering the implementation strategy. She encouraged them to
think forward to the budget. If funds are not available from general fund, then they should ask
for people to fund.
Hoag stated that the strategy is part of an ordinance
Sutter moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, Page 13
I (Clerk's Note: The committee returned to discuss the manure ordinance again, item 1
2 under Committee Discussion and Recommendation to Council)
3
4
5 OTHER BUSINESS
6
7 Buzz Strickland, Diking District #3, stated that there is an emergency situation on the
8 end of the Ritter Road (AB98 -342) regarding flooding. One more high water and the water
9 will come through. When it does, four homes will be jeopardized. County Executive Pete
10 Kremen said that it is an emergency. Consultants said that it is an emergency, as well as some
11 Council members.
12
13 Hoag stated that it came up at the Flood Advisory Committee. This diking district has
14 proposals to take care of the erosion on their bank. The proposals that have gone into the State
15 Department of Fisheries have twice been turned down. If something is not in place, the flood
16 engineer stated it will blow in the next flood.
17
18 Brown stated that another project that had been receiving Federal Emergency
19 Management Act (FEMA) funds had been denied. It should be included in the program. They
20 will lose FEMA funds. People have agreed to pay the matching costs. This is The Logs that was
21 never completed. It was supposed to be completed. The permit was turned down at the last
22 minute.
23
24 Hoag stated they are separate projects and need to be dealt with separately.
25
26 Hoag stated that the Diking District requested that the County Council send a letter to the
27 Department of Fisheries asking for something the County can do to keep from this blowing out.
28
29 Strickland stated that Kremen would also write a letter.
30
31 Monsen confirmed that a letter was drafted to the State Department of Fisheries asking
32 that they offer an alternative if the County was not allowed to move ahead as proposed.
33
34 Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, stated that several options were discussed with
35 Public Works staff. The one that would most likely be accepted is if the County puts in a project
36 to use large woody debris to interrupt the scour in the small area that is scouring. Public Works
37 staff rejected the option. The mitigation required to remove the rock and slope, completely
38 stopping the river from its meander, was a problem. The woody debris would slow the scouring.
39 There is a cornfield behind the bank. It is an opportunity to let the river meander slightly, but
40 preserve the vertical bank for fish holding habitat. If it was rocked completely and it stopped
41 the meander, then they would have to purchase land somewhere else to provide that lost
42 opportunity.
43
44 Hoag stated it is not a historical bend in the river and it is not a regular overflow. Hood
45 stated that the lost opportunity is for the river to meander. Under normal circumstances, it would
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
meander. So much of the bank has been rocked, it has become constrained into that fixed
location.
Sutter questioned whether Strickland was pursuing the appeal procedure. Strickland
stated that the Public Works staff he worked with didn't have time before he left County
employment.
Sutter stated that if there was a flood, the dike would blow out and flood around the
houses. People habitat is as important as fish habitat. There is land under production as a
cornfield. She questioned whether alternatives can be implemented for the next flood season to
keep the blow out from happening until there is a permanent fix.
Greg McKay, Diking District #3 Commissioner, stated that they spent a lot of time on
this. One thing important for the fish to thrive is shade. The river runs east to west. Large
cottonwoods shade the river from the southern sun. There is a 1,200 -foot stretch of erosion.
There is a 200 - 300 -foot stretch that had some cottonwood trees to provide shade for the river.
He didn't see the sense to let nature take its course. There is an opportunity to enhance fish
habitat. If allowed to erode, trees will erode away and there will be no more shade along that
bank. The trees go into a river and they create a current at certain levels as the river changes.
This multiplies the effect of bank erosion. A temporary fix should be cheap. They started a year
ago on a way they thought would fix it.
Citizen stated that it is a meander loop that is going to be cut off. There will be an impact
on farmers down- stream.
Strickland stated that he has lived in the same spot since 1930. He knew what the river
does. A hydrologist stated that if they leave logs there, it will be gone because of the way of the
current flows.
Hoag stated that the recommendation is to send a letter to the State Department of
Fisheries.
Brown stated that they should make a telephone call in addition to a letter due to time
constraints and the upcoming weather.
Sutter stated that the immediate need is to stabilize the dike. The focus on this flood
season only needs to be on the weak spot on the dike, not all 1,200 feet of bank right away.
Hoag stated that the temporary solution should not cost as much as a permanent solution.
Hood stated that there are a number of other alternatives that don't require approval for
the Department of Fisheries, including building a dike. A vertical bank provides a place for fish
to seek refuge. Slowing of erosion was proposed to give time for vegetation to grow.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Hoag stated that she would draft a letter for the evening meeting. It would include
Brown's suggestion that they make a call. The Executive and Council Chair would follow up
with a letter.
McKay questioned what is requested in the letter. Hoag confirmed that Council supports
the Diking District proposal that the situation is an emergency. The Council doesn't have the
power to get the work done.
Brown questioned the financial obligations for contracting out if it was declared an
emergency.
Gibson stated that, even if they are in a situation where the water is high and rising, they
would still have to go to the Department of Fisheries for oral approval.
Sutter stated that Council does not approve permits or projects. They are only trying to
speed up the process.
Strickland asked that the letter invite the individual to the site.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: the committee moved back to Item #1 under Committee Discussion and
Recommendation to Council.)
A ii'unT TR N
The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 9/15/98, Page 16