[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PACIFIC COUNTY COMPLETION REPORT GRANT NUMBER G0089033 jULY 1, !988 through jUNZ 30, 1989 by PACIFIC COUNTY -?LA';l;-N7NG DEPARTMENT HD 211 .w2 P3 1989 PACIFIC COUNTY I li - @ PROjECT CoMp,Z,",70N REEPORT GRANT NUMBE"R G0089033 jULY !, !988 through jUN--- 30, 1989 by -PACIFIC COUNTY --PLANNIXG DE.PAR7M-7N'l- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA@ COASTAL SERVICES CE@IIER BS @ON AVENUE 2234 SOUTH HO CHARLESTON SC 29405- ABSTRACT I TITLE: Long Beach Peninsula Dune Management Study AUTHOR: Ardelql McPhail, Project Coordinator S6qU0qB.q;6qEqCT: Dunes Management Plan DATE: July 1, 1988 through June 30, q19q89 PARTICIPANT: Dunes Management Committee Members Doug Canning, Deqpartment of q-Ecology Arde.1-1 McPhail, ProJect Coordinator PROJECT NUMBER: Gran"", Number G0089033 SUMMARY: The Dune Management Committee, made up of cqitIzens from the Long Beach Peninsula, was appointed by the Pacific County Commissioners qto develope a !ana use manaaeqment qn-Lan zor t-n+-e dunes area of the qDeniqnsula. After 1.8 months of qDreqDara"Cqion, puo -c education meetings and much desiberation, the Dune Management Committee comDleted a final draft of the Dune Management Plan, adhering close attention qto a matter of most imqDortance: "the need -for orderly, limited usage or real aeqve-Loqpment of tqh-e duneqlands and beaches qin order to conserve what qis uniaue and irreqoqlaceable.11 The plan -lakes a conservative approach to dunes management, outlining .I:qive important elements: General Management, Natural Resources, Recreation, Land Use, and Safety. The.-olan further defines the committees' 12 goals, of which includes, tqh-e Drotect.qioqn of dunes -from destructive activit-ies, Zal_- consistent 8q@nforcement of regulations, adequate public access qto "he beach, local 0qinqxq)u4qt into qla2qnduse 0qiss2quesq-and an uq-qo-to-date qnqian that -q:qAs workable -for all. For the most 2qnart the Dune Management 6qPq.q18qa8qn -IS made uqD of decisions on goals and polqiqcq-qfeqs refIectqing a group. consensus and the diverse oqDinions and backgrounds of the population o8qf the Long Beac6qn PeninsuIa and the users o4qf 2qthe dunelands and beaches. Exhibit # 2q1 Dunes Management Plan Final draft from committee DUNES MANAGEMENT PLAN FORTHE LONG BEACH PENINSULA PACIFIC COUNTY9 WASHINGTON JUNE, 1989 The preparation of this plan was financially aided through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. W Za Dunes Management Committee Members Joel Anderson James Hilderman Clay Balch Dorothy Huggins Kathleen Boyle Michael Parker John Campiche Lucille Pierce Elizabeth Fenner Robert Schmidt Norman Grier Norma Walker Richard Hendrickson Pat Welling Staff Douglas Canning, Department of Ecology Ardell McPhail, Project Coordinator Dear Reader, The -fourteen members of the Dunes Management Committee, Ardell McPhail Our coordinator, and Douglas Canning, Dept. of Ecology have met -for the past year. Meetings have been most often weekly. Argument has been vigorous, if polite, and those of opposing views have often been able to dissuade each other. We have been advised At length by the best of scientific, legal, biological, botanical, governmental, geological, oceanographic, and academic authorities and have endlessly argued their conclusions. We have included the opinions of law enforcement and park regulatory agencies from three states. We have been provided with many publications and maps both Current and historical. Although we are not always unanimous in Our conclusions we are in agreement upon the matter of most importance: the need for orderly, limited usage or real development of the dunelands and beaches in order to conserve what is unique and irreplaceable. No one Current in world affairs can be unaware of the damage done to our global environment by the unrestrained application of the technological revolution in the last centuries. The damage to Our own small segment is as yet not the most serious. Neither is it trivial. It is imperative that OUr government and citizenry recognize that the economic pressures to use and build have now reached the critical point. The capacity of Our land to absorb man-made change Without losing it's uniqueness is threatened. The preservation of the ocean beach and Willapa Bay is the foundation of our economy. It is also the reason we choose to reside here. We know we Must and will continue to build and develop for such is the cornerstone of capitalism and free economy. Perhaps What is urgently needed is a sense of shared destiny. We must accept that preservation of what is irreplaceable Must be given equal weight with personal choice about how to use one's property or choose one's means of recreation. We must all increasingly recognise the effect of our personal choiCF--S upon one -finite and shrink-ing world, our neighbors, and the citizenry everywhere who own some share of the beauty of headlands and beaches. Then we must all und4stand and be willing to relinquish some Of Our personal choices to the need of the common good. This is th(p thrust Of the Shorelines Management Act of the Washington leQiSlStUre and its resultant local master plans. This was the enabling principle of our committee's formation. Ark An enlightened society is one that takes care of the place where it lives, its economy, laws, and governing. Urgently now, the list must include ecology and environment. To address this we must balance the conflicting interests in the preservation of our most valuable asset, the peninsular dunes, beaches and It behooves the governed as well as the governors to seashore. A,-n how the physical world works nd to adapt and accept our laws and regulations accordingly. This study has disclosed that Ours is a fragile and changing sandspit. We are not living upon a solid ground oqf rock and soil stablized for millenia, but rather, an elongated'pile of shifting sAnd. It,is formed by tqhe sands issuing from tqhe Columbia River and just as constantly being eroded by the winds and sea. In the memory of MOSt Of US, and since the- comp'letion of tqhe north jetty, we have been in a positive balqance*with accretion of the beach westward. 0qWe have assumed this would continue forever and that the land configuqationqs are stable... bur scientists advise qus that this is not to be so. We must adjust oqur plans to the q1,::nowledge that tqhe river's gift of sand is diminishing and that tqhe store of sand on Peacock Spit is gone. We, therefore, may face erosion, and such is predicted. The natural defense of the fqoredunqes is the best defense, Anqd the preservation of the foredUnes is as paramount as the preservation of the purity of 6qWqiqlqlapa Bay. In q1.-.eeping with the above we present our conclusions. TABLE OF C IONTENTS BACKGROUND GOALS 6 STUDY AREA 7 GLOSSARY .9 GENERAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 11 NATURAL RESOURCE ELEMENT 13 RECREATION ELEMENT 15 LAND USE ELEMENT 17 SAFETY ELEMENT 22 APPENDIX A JN@6RMATION RESOURCES APPENDIX B MINORITY REPORT BACKGROUND The Dune Management Committee, made up of citizens from the Long Beach Peninsula, was appointed by the Pacific County Commissioners to develop a land USL-_ management plan for the dunes area. The formation of this committee was recommended by the Citizen's Planning Task Force in their revision of the Subarea Comprehensive L,-:tnd Use Plan for the Long Beach Peninsula. The latter group believed there were many issues specific to the dune area that required more indepth study than was given in the comprehensive plan update. A*regional meeting was held in December, ITE37 to involve local citizens and local and state agency staff in A. discussion of issues and concerns in the dunes area. With strong ex-pressed interest in the development of a plan and policies for the dune area and the promise of funding and technical assistance from the Department of Ecology, the County appointed the Dunes Management Committee in February, 1988. A series of public education imeetings were held for the first three months of the process. Topics included: Overview of Dune Management and Planning, Coastal Accretion and Erosion, Physical and Biological Dune Processes, Accreted Land Ownership, Groundwater and Wetl.Ands, Flood Management and Federal Flood Insurance Programs, Economics of the Peninsula, Shorelines Master Program and RegLAlati(-.)ns, Land Use Law, and Dune Management and Maintenance at Nedonna Beach, Oregon. (See appendix for reference materials provided by the various speakers.) ' The public education meetings were also recorded on video tape and will -be made available to the local libraries as a continuing education resource. For the most part, the Dunes Management Committee made decisions on goals and policies by group consensus. When they became stalemated, policies were included in the plan if there Was. a maicirity in favor. The committee was selected to represent the diverse opinions and backgrounds of the Population of the Long Beach PeninSUIA in order to ensure input from all groups.- Public meetings were held periodically to solicit further input. WO, 5 GOALS 1. Develop a plan that is workable for all. 2. Ensure an up-to-date plan. 3. Ensure fair, consistent enforcement of regulations. 4. Ensure that the dunes area is a safe place. 5. Protect the dunes from destructive activities. 6. Maintain a clean, beautiful Peninsula. 7. Preserve some areas of open space within the dunes. B. Set aside areas for recreational activities. 9. Ensure adequate public access to the beach. 10. Ensure that any development in the dunal areas shall be in an orderly fashion, and such developments complement each other, and utilize and preserve our unique environment. 11. Maintain the aesthetics of the dunal area through a design review process. 12. Ensure local input into land use issues. Vol 6 STUDY AREA The Dunes Management Plan is focused on an area on the westerly side of the Long Beach Peninsula from Fort Canby State Park north to Leadbetter State Park, and from the westerly face of the primary dune east to the Line of - 1889. The study area for this planning program was slightly larger--from Cape Disappointment north to Leadbetter Point, and from the offshore beach east through the dUnelAnds and associated wetlands to the line of dense forest vegetation. However, the plan also makes recommendations for land use and other activities elsewhere on the Peninsula. The committee chose to make these recommendations because they considered' it desirable to direct certain land uses and activities away from the dUnelands. While for -the most part the Peninsula dune area is considered as a whole, there are several different geographical features that require special consideration to be given and separate policies applied to a given area that may not apply to the whole area. It was deemed most appropriate to identify sub5e(ftiOnS Of thp &(F)Lm area in order to e-f-fer-tively manage these a r ea. s- .When a poliry applies only to a given section, it will be so stated, otherwise the policies apply to the entire dune area. SUbsections are as Tollows: Section 1: Cape Disappointment: The area from the Columbia River north to Beard's Hollow. (These lands are predominantly owned and managed by the State Parks and Recreation Commission.) Section 2: Seaview: Beard's Hollow to the south city limits of Long Beach. (Considerably more accretion in this area and little development at present west of J street in Seaview.) Section 3: Lang Beach: This is a political rather.than geographical distii-iction. 'The County plan has no jurisdiction over the city. Section 4: North limit of Lon(i Beach to 2`01st street. (Les-s accretion than Section 2. Existing development is mixed. Lact%s design planning. Section 5: Ocean Park South: 201st street to Bay Avenue in Ocean Park. (Beginnings of some erosion in this area.) Section 6: Ocean Park North: Bay Avenue to Joe John's Rd. (290th) (More dense residential area.) 7 Section 7: Surfside-: 290qth to north limits of 6qSurqfside PIUS qJ.00q8 feet. (No accretion, major foredUne view obstruction problems. Good design policies for homes. Illegal dune cuts causing problems for neighbors.) Section qEq3: Le i-dbet ter: North of 0qSUrfside to Leqadbettqer Point (Lowlands with water and flood problems. State owned wildlife preserve aqt Leqadbetqter.) GLOSSARY Accretion: The seaward widening or extension of a sandspit by a positive balance between sand supply from the Columbia River and sand removal by wind and wave action. Beach: The unconsolidated strip of sandspit extending -from the low tide line to the seaward edge of shoreland vegetation, a narrow strip of sand paralleling the ocean or bay coastline. Dunal areas, Dunelands: (See diagram next page) Seashore sand grass formations, and other vegetation, usually ridges parallel to sea and each other, created by wind And wave action and later stabilized by emergent characteristic coastal vegetation and trees. The dunal area extends -From the seaward line of vegetation comprising the foredUne to the established tree line eastward. (Ref. graphics showing eastward line.) Erosions The landward narrowing or retraction of a sandspit by a negative balance between sand supply from the Columbia River and sand removal by wind and wave action. Water erosion tends to move sand along the shoreline and remove it from the beach. Wind erosion tends to move sand about in the dunelands. Foredune: The sand and grass ridge adjacent to the beach forming the primary barrier to sea and wave erosion. Also called primary dune. Line of Dense Forest Vegetation: The irregular line formed on the dUnal area by a dense line of trees between coastal wetlands a n d'the upland. Scattered, outlying trees may lie on the dUnelands. (See diagram) "Non-permanent" Public Facilities: Examples include: vi ewing towers, toilets, walkways, parking lots, lighting, restrooms and informational kiosk-s. Open Space: Scenic areas both public and private left in so far as possible in its natural state and designated for public viewing devoid of permanent structures. 9 1 "Permanent" Structures: Buildings other than non-permanent public facilities. Primary Dune: Same as foredune. Public Access: Tqhe means by dedicated path or road allowing physical approach to the beach -from tqhe upland through the dunes. Stabilizatqon: The protection or replacement of the dune from erosion or removal by growth oqf natural vegetation or by man-made structural means. Ocean -Z- _---o :% surf z lo,.r tide line beach -high tide line _ toe of foredune _4A foreduneql primary dune ............. I 8q"0qre qAVq@t ...... .. ...... ... . AN . .... ..... .... . ... ..... I .-EN -secondary durie mound in sec. dune q01, ... . . .............. --- --- access path in -dqe -4qwqeqt4qland ...... 08qUa4qtqion plain or vegetation line of dense 0qfqrqjr2qtq!qes0qt YqV LU upland GENERAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT In studying the Long Beach Peninsula dunelands, two facts seem to stand out. The first is that the dunelands are a natural system formed and altered by the action of tides, waves, wind, vegetation, and a supply of sedimentary sand. Second, given the presence of these elements, coastlines take on a form common the world over. These facts of dune formation appear to suggest stability. However, this seeming stability is counteracted by the other salient fact, that of unpredictable duneland formation. Changes in any of the formative factors will change the pattern of dune formation. The Long Beach Peninsula provides an excellent example of this inconsistency. The Peninsula itself is a product of slow accretion during thousands of years of deposition from the Columbia River. However, two recent acts of man have altered. the normal dune and coastal processes an the Long Beach Peninsula. Following the construction of the Columbia River's North Jetty in 1915, there was a very rapid accretion on the ocean side. During the 1930s. European Beach Grass was planted along the coast to stabilize dunes; this led to the formation of taller, more densely vegetated dunes. Accretion-erosion patterns an the Long Beach Peninsula have changed during the past decade. Prior to 1978, the entire ocean beach of the Peninsula was accretional, (average rate) with only scattered, short-term incidents of erosion. During the past decade, the rate of accretion has decreased (average accretion rate). The south Peninsula between the Columbia River Jetty and North Head reversed and has been erosional (rate). While the shoreline or beach accretion has slowed, the westward mov'ement of the grassline has not. This reflects that in the past the * grassline was not building westward as rapidly as the shoreline accretion. (It appears that the 65-year history of rapid accretion (1915-1980) has, at least temporarily, ended and that the Peninsula has been static for the past 10 years.) Whether the erosion pattern south of North head will spread north is speculative. Experts have been reluctant to make predictions about the future of our dunelands. However, they have counseled caution in our approach and respect for the unpredictability of Mother Nature. It is therefore the opinion of the Dunes Management Committee that a conservative_ap . ....... .. . ....... ... ... to dunes management be adopted. This approach must in some way recognize the potential for change in coastal formation. Boa I s: 1. Ensure an up-to-date plan. 2. Develop a plan that is workable for all. 3. Ensure fair, consistent enforcement of regulations. 4. Ensure local input into land use issues. Policies: 1. Review the dune management plan every 5-10 years to allow for economic or natural changes. 2. Appoint a Dunes Study Group to act as a watchdog advisory body charged with the following responsibilities: a. Act as a repository for information on coastline phenomena. Collect and catalog incoming scientific, economic, and sociological data. b. Act aggressively as a public information and education source so that citizens would be aware of coastline processes. C. Organize a system to monitor height,of the frontal dune, accretion and/or erosion rates, water table, and state and federal laws governing duneland use. d. Act as advisors to the Board of County Commissioners. In this capacity, the DSO could recommend revision to the, Peninsula Comprehensive Plan, the need for a new study of unexpected events, and other issues. e. Act as a coordinating agency for county, state and federal studies and programs to ensure economy of effort and lack of duplication. 3. Formalize the Dunes Study Group by county resolution and appoint the nucleus from the present Dunes Management Committee. a. Institute overlapping terms of office to ensure. continuity. b. Consult the DSG for nominations to fill vacancies. g. R@qvira a yearly report on its actions to be presented to the County Commissioners. 4. Develop a funding plan to provide monies for adequate enforcement of land use laws and other ordinances in the dunes area to the planning department, sheriff's department and the prosecutors office. Suggestions include: a. fines and forfeitures, b. day use and user fees, c. festival parking fees, d. Centennial Clean Water monies, e. Coastal Zone Management funds. 5. Adequate enforcement of dune protective ordinances must be provided. 12 NATURAL RESOURCE ELEMENT The Long Beach Peninsula has a unique and invaluable natural resource in the ocean, beach, and grassy dune wetland open space. The pristine value of this area is difficult to assess in strictly economic terms. Without a doubt, this environment is the attraction that brings tourists to the area for short term visits. We need to be mindful of the axiom that to alter the natural features of unique geography for some gainful purpose is to diminish the reason why the area is unique. Some have warned about "irretrievable losses" if the natural resource is substantially altered. In managing this natural resource, the benefits must be understood. The accreted lands and dunes provide a physical barrier against the sea. The series of low sand dunes, stabilized by nature with dune grasses, protect inland areas from damaging inundation caused by a combination of high tides and storms, from the harmful effects of wind-blown sand, and dissipate wave energy that could cause flooding. They also serve as pollution-free recharge areas for our fresh water aquifer. Though accretion has been a way a+ life here, erosion has begun principally in front of the North Jetty to North Head. Thus, the accreted lands become a buffer area if we enter an erosion era. Goals and policies related to the natural resources of the area must weigh the benefits of natural open space, safety factors, and the esthetic value of the area. The issue of dune modification was the most controversial for the dunes manaqement committee. It is.recommended that the future Dunes Committee continue to look at -this issue carefully. Goals: 1. Protect the dunes from destructive activities. 2. Preserve some areas of open space along the dunes. 3. Maintain a clean, beautiful Peninsula. Policies: 1. Consider the foredune as tLqitq@Lq :Li ab 1 e. 2. No disturbance of the foredune shall be allowed except as necessary for stabilization such as planting. 13 3. No modification shall be allowed in the 100 f -oot protective strip and any dunal formation westward thereof. 4. Areas should be set aside or identified to be used in a non- destructive way such as open space, natural areas, national preserves, and/or public parks containing "non-permanent" buildings. (see glossary) 5. The Pacific County Planning Department in cooperation with the State Parks Commission shall initiate studies of beach access by elevated roads and walkways that do not disturb the foredune. If studies prove the feasibility, access shall be by this method. 6'. Consideration shall be given to filling and revegetating existing foredune cuts where feasible. 7. No action in the dunes will be tolerated which adversely affects the upper fresh water aquifer. 8. Request that the County and State do a feasibility study to designate the Long Beach Peninsula dunelands as a National Seashore or comparable. Management of a National Seashore should be retained by local jurisdictions as presently arranged at Ebbey's Landing. 9. All state-owned lands in the dunes shall be declared "open space" and buildina or alterations allowed as necessary to carry out other policies within this plan. As future land is donated to the state. it shall be declared open space as well. Development of day use parks at recommended locations is encouraged. 14 RECREATION ELEMENT The Long Beach Peninsula becomes a seasonal haven for tourists and locals alike to enjoy,recreational activities unique to the state. Wave watching, beach combing, beach driving, picnicking, horseback riding, jogging and walking an the beach, sandcastle building, and kite flying are but a few of the activities on the peninsula. Recreational activities must not interfere with the protective barrier of the foredune system. Goals: 1. Ensure adequate public access to the beach. 2. Set aside areas for recreational activities. Policies: 1. Adequate parking areas and sanitary facilities shall be provided for users of newly created recreational opportunities. 2. Elevated walkways and roadways shall be provided to prevent destruction of the dunes. It is the intent of this policy to limit the number of walkways in long plat development to the minimum and to encourage consolidation of access. 3. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed in the dunal area other than authorized public vehicles. 4. An ongoing education program about the fragility of the dunes shall be adopted for the Peninsula and pertinent information, included in various tourist information materials. 5. Adequate parking and sanitary facilities shall include: a. Some type of paving to control dust and sand blowing. Possibly government surplus airstrip matting could be obtained. Grass growing through permeable surfaces such as crushed rock or matting should be removed by non-toxic means. b. The parking sites should not be located near the foredune or the building setback lines so as not to harm the view of nearby homesites. c. Those parking sites in remote areas require supervision by either volunteer or paid attendants with some means of communication with the sheriff's deputies. This is to preclude 15 1) automobile buglary, 2) dumping of household'garbage in the parking lot containers, 3) disorderly or noisesome activities. d. Where feasible, lighting capacity should be installed. The use of this would be at the discretion of sheriff's and parks officials. (Police have advised that lighting can The misused by youthful auto users causing noisy disturbances.) e. Some means of financing the operation of the parking lots is needed. Suggestions have included parking meters, a collectable charge made by the park managers, the use of parking lots as sites for street dances and other activities where the users could be charged, and the provision of tax funds by the state legislature that mandated the parking areas. Another suggestion is to franchise the parking areas to private operators who could staff and charge fees in a manner regulated by the county commissioners. f. A function of supervision would be to control noise levels of unstructured activities and to prevent use of parking areas for moving vehicl e activities. g. One pathway to the beach and through the foredune should be provided at each parking area as the only foot access to the beach. h. Toilet facilities should be provided and maintained in a sanitary state.- In remote areas only outhouses would be possible but these should be made of metal upon concrete foundations so as to be fireproof and nonremovable. i. Signs should be posted defining the proper use of dunes and beaches and prohibiting the use of firearms and fireworks on any portion of the beaches or dunes, and prohibiting campfires in the dunAl grass areas. The warnings. should include prohibition of any RV's in the dunal areass. There need to be signs that also give general instructions ssuch as are found at the-beach.- approaches concerning speed limits, driving on clam beds, and safety considerations such as swimming, mounting logs on incoming tides, etc. 1n�t@Ad of bming only negatively prohibitive, signs,or legends could be placed in kiosks. that persuade the public to share responsibility for the preservation of the fagile dunal system. Encourage school contests for the best posters to be placed in the ki.osks that explain why restrictions are needed an beach and dune usage. 16 LAND USE ELEMENT In some of the Sections of this study area, there is existing development and potentially room for further development. The purpose of this element is to provide guidelines for that development consistent with the rest of the dune management plan. These guidelines are to be used along with the Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Land Use Plan and existing or subsequent zoning ordinances. Goals: I. Ensure that any development in the dunal areas are in an orderly fashion, and such developments complement each other, and utilize and preserve our unique environment. 2. Maintain the esthetics of the dunal area through a design review process. 3. Ensure local control over property on the Peninsula without the illegal taking of private property rights. Policies: 1. There should be a joint survey of a common Seashore Conservation Line-County Grass Line in 1990 by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Department of Ecology, and Pacific County. This standardized line should be resurveyed every five years or as necessary. 2. In the event of coastal erosion eastward of the 1990 surveyed grassline, the building line shall be moved eastward on a yearly basis a distance'equal to the amount of erosion. In the event that erosion occurs exceeding the previously established accretion, the buildina setback shall be moved eastward an amount equal to the erosion excess. 3. The setback easterly from the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership should be standardized at ten feet for those who do not own west of the upland ownership line.. 4. For owners of property that includes west of the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership the formula which determines easterly setback from the Grass Line is understandable and is working; there is no need to change the formula. 5. The height of buildings an the furthest westward lots shall be restricted to 24 feet above the existing average grade level 17 along the building line. (The intent of this policy is to keep a low profile on the front line of buildings.) 6. Require notification by the County to anyone within 600 feet of a proposed site where there is a request for a variance from the applicable regulatory control. 7. The Pacific County Planning Department in cooperation with local fire and emergency services shall develop a plan for access to structures by fire and emergency vehicles throughout the dune area. Of priority interest is the Seaview Section #2 to provide a north-south fire and utility access road between 30th and 35th Streets. B. The County Planning Department shall formulate a disclosure statement reaarding the dynamic nature of the Long Beach Peninsula Coastline. This disclosure statement must be presented to prospective buyers of duneland property by the seller or agent. The disclosure statement will inform the prospective buyer that like all coastal areas, the Long Beach Peninsula beach and dunes area is in a constant state of change. The statement should include-an explanation of the possibilities of accretion and erosion and the resulting effect on the deflation plain and foredune. In addition, because of prevailing winds, the height of the foredune is unpredictable and ocean views may become obstructed. A statement of accretion and erosion and a 50 year history shall also be included. The Planning Department should propose an ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners setting forth the disclosure statement system and containing penalties for failure to disclose. The Prosecutor shall design a "hold harmless" clause to protect the County. BUildin v Se Oetback Une b ction: 9. Section #1 (Cape Disappointment) No recommendation. -This is State Parks land. 10. Section #2 (Seaview): No development shall be allowed west of the 1889 line with the exception of non-permanent public facilities and public access. This line shall be reviewed every five years. 11. Section #3 (Long Beach): No recommendation, City of Long Beach. 12. Section #4 (North limit of Long Beach to 201st): Adopt the existing building setback line. Review of this line shall be done every 5 years. ( From the north city limits of Long Beach as of January 1, 1974, draw a straight line to the middle of Cranberry Road as follows: Starting 200 feet easterly of the 1968 Seashore 18 Conservation Line traveling north to the middle of Cranberry road at which point measure 1/4 the distance between the easterly edge of the protective strip to the 1889 line. North,of the middle of Cranberry Road the setback line is 1/4 the distance between the easterly edge of the protective strip to the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership.) 13. Section #5 (Ocean Park South): Freeze the existing 1983 grassline and replace the building line formula with the 1976 monumented grassline. This line will be reviewed in 5 years. 14. Section #6 (Ocean Park North): Adopt the 1976 monumented traverse line as the building line. This line will be reviewed in 5 years. 15. Sections #4. #5. and #6: There will be no westward movement of the building lines until there are 600 feet of accretion, at which time it may be considered to move the building line no more than 200 feet west. 16. Section #7 (Surfside): Freeze the existing building setback line. Review in 5 years. 17. Section #8 (Leadbetter): Construction shall be confined to the north-south high ridge which follows the west line of Section 33 and the west line of Section 28 (the same ridge as J Place extended>. 18. Lobby for legislative changes to facilitate trading of private property and state owned lands to eliminate the patchwork ownership of beach frontage in order to maintain large blacks of land in "public trust". RV Parl@s 19. A special effort should be made by the Planning Department to find suitable RV park sites in the central strip of the Peninsula and designate these zones R-3 or C-1. If insufficient or no areas can be found, then placement must be allowed West of Highway-103. Such installations must conform to special restrictions. 20. The existing R-3 zone from the North boundary of Long B6ach to Cranberry Road (in Duneplan Section 4) must be utilized as placement for RV parks before any other area, and no existing R-1 or R-1 areas west of Highway 103 shall be rezoned to R-3 or other. 21. An architectural Design Review Commission should be established with authority to approve or disapprove plans for RV sites, motels, and other tourist-type installations with respect 19 to density, health considerations, concealment of offensive elements, and overall aesthetic attractiveness. 22. Placement of RV parks near or on the dunal areas shall be subject to the following: a. Density restrictions for septic tank, sewage system, and sewage tr6atment placement now decreed by County Health Department must be observed and enforced'. Septic tank permits cannot now be issued without building permits or business licensing. b. Parking sites for trailers and motorhomes should be concealed with fences or foliage so as to be invisible from beach and highway and residents to the north and south. Each trailer placement site should be divided from others by at least two trees and two evergreen bush plantings. Maintenance of this foliage is the contractual responsibility of the owner of the RV park. C. Such RV rental spots shall begin 150 feet west of Highway 103 and in no case approach to within 600 feet of the 1976 monumented traverse line with greenbelts on both the east and west boundaries. d. Those-RV parks designed in conjunction with motel accomodations, especially those with recreational facilities should be given preference for the limited RV park sites. e. One footpath per park shall be allowed for crossing the foredune to the beach. A footbridge across the foredune may be considered if experiments show that they are practical and effective in preserving the foredune. f. Noise control over the use of outdoor radios, tape players, VCRs and other speakers should be a contractual responsibility of the owner or manager of the RV park. g. The permanent Dunes Study Group will be the oversight agent to ensure noise, dust, refuse, and grounds maintenance adequacy. It will report to the planning department for correctional enforcement. h. Revocation of a conditional use permit will be the penalty for failure of RV park management to maintain the above required elements. Pacific County will develop RV standards- through ordinances and require them as a conditional use in specific zoning districts. 20 Other land use policies: 23. The Dunes Committee opposed the additional north-south road west of Hwy. 103 in the circulation element of the new Comprehensive Plan. 24. The county and/or state shall be encouraged to consolidate currently,owned State Parks lands or to purchase available property east of the dunal area and west of 103 for park access where necessary to provide for future relatively small day use parks (recommended 1 to 20 acre parcels) at appropriate intervals along the beach west of Hwy. 103. Land should be acquired now while purchase is easier and less costly and held until needed and until funds for quality development and maintenance of said parks can be obtained. It is the intent of this statement that there shall be a system of small parks which make possible beach access for residents and visitors. It is also the intent that they be kept "small" to effect distribution of users along the length of the peninsula rather than cluster the use, and thus minimize the impact on fragile dunelands. 21 SAFETY ELEMENT The Dunes Management Committee recognizes that when people are introduced in the dunelands there are potential safety issues that must be addressed. First, the dune grass is highly volatile, and with the help of frequent strong winds, fire can easily consume acres of grass in a short period of time. Nearby homes may be threatened unless precautions are taken to keep the grass away from buildings. Secondly, though there is a significant pheasant population living in the dunes and some may wish to hunt them, there are also people walking or playing in the dunes unaware that there may be hunters, particularly during the late summer or early fall season. Thirdly, motorized vehicles in the dunes may pose a safety problem to the dunes themselves as well as people walking or playing in the area. Thus, the following goals and policies were recommended to deal with these safety issues. Goals: 1. Ensure that the dunes area is a safe place. 2. Protect the dunes from destructive activities. Policies: 1. Because of fire hazard, fires and/or fireworks shall only be allowed 100 feet west of the grassline providing State Parks permits use in this area. 2. Fire and emergency vehicles shall be exempt from the law prohibiting driving on the primary dune and 100 foot protective strip. 3. Recommend that the fire district provide safety information about what homeowners can do to avoid dune fires damaging their property. For example: mow a 10 foot strip between the house and the dune grasses to create a fire break. 4. No hunting shall be allowed west of the following: Willows Road to 350th, north to the junction of Hwy. 101 and 103, continuing north on Hwy. 103 to 290th, west to K Street, K Street north to the south boundary of Surfside Estates, all of Surfside Estates, then continuing from the north boundary of Surfside. Estates north on the high ridge to the south boundary of Leadbetter Point State Park. 5. No vehicular traffic shall be allowed on the foredune or 100 foot protective strip. 22 6. No vehicles or ORV's shall be allowed to operate off -of any highway or road west the following: Willows Road to 30th, north to the junction of Hwy. 101 and Hwy. 103, west of 103 to 290th, west to K street, K Street north to the south boundary of Surfside Estates, then continuing north to J Place to the north boundary of Surfside Estates, then continuing north on the high ridge to south boundary of Leadbetter Point State Park. 7. Provide adequate enforcement of these policies. 23 APPENDIX A INFORMATION RESOURCES Appendix A contains @@ listing of speakers and resources provided to the Dunes Management Committee during their' deliberations. All of the-educational programs were open to the public. INFORMATION RESOURCES Throughout the early phase of the Peninsula Dunes Committee plan- ning process, a series of public meetings were held which were de- voted to providing the Committee and the community at large with information on the coastal dunes and related issues. This appen- dix to the Plan describes the information resources that were pro- vided. Documentary information provided to the Committee was also made available to the public. Public speakers were-drawn from the local community, the academic world, and state and federal agen- cies. The presentations were videotaped, and copies were made available to committee members for referral. General Information on Coastal Planning and Natural Processes On February 18, 1988, Mr. David W. Owens, Director, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, deliv- ered a keynote talk to the Long Beach Peninsula Dunes Management Citizen Advisory Committee. His talk addressed coastal dune management in general, and par- ticularly the problems inherent in developed coastal areas. Documentary materials provided: Battelle-Northwest. 1970. The future of the Long Beach Peninsula seashore: Research report. Battelle-Northwest, Richland, Washington for Washington State Parks and Recreation Commis- sion, Olympia, and Pacific County Commissioners, South Bend, Washington. Coastal Accretion and Erosion Accretion -- the building up of shorelines and dunes -- has been a prominent feature of the Long Beach Peninsula since the turn of the Century, although there have been incidents of erosion -- the wearing away of shorelines -- both past and present. On March 1, 1988 a presentation on coastal accretion and erosion was delivered by Dr. James B. Phipps, Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen. Dr. Phipps has degrees in geology and oceanography, and in 1978 prepared a report for the Washington Department of Ecology on coastal accretion and erosion. His talk focused on coastal accretion and erosion in southwest Washington and particularly with respect to the Long Beach Penin- sula; included a consideration of long term and recent trends, in- cluding the potential for a change from the present accretional pattern to erosional; and covered related issues such as sea level rise and seismic subsidence at a secondary level-of-emphasis. Subsequently the Department of Ecology@contracted with Dr. Phipps for an update of his 1978 accretion-erosion study, and in Novem- ber, 1988, Dr. Phipps presented his findings in a second presentation to the Committee. In April, 1989, an advance print- ing of Dr. Phipps' final draft was distributed to the Committee members. P_ocumentary materials provided: Phipps, James B. & John M. Smith. 1978. Coastal accretion and erosion in southwest Washington. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. Everts, Craig H., Greg Hartman & Steve Chesser. 1985. Sedimenta- tion rates and channel deepening, mouth of Columbia River. pp 180-192 in: Proceedings: West coast regional coastal de- sign conference. Phipps, James B. 1989. Coastal accretion and erosion in south- west Washington: 1977 - 1987 (Interim Printing). Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. US: Army Corps of Engineers. Bathymetric atlas of the Columbia River estuary. selected maps. Physical and Biological Dunes Processes On. March 16, 1988, Dr. Alfred M. Wiedemann, The Evergreen State College, Olympia delivered a talk on coastal dune physical and ecological processes. Dr. Wiedemann holds degrees in botany, and conducted his doctoral research on the Oregon coastal dunes. His talk focused on coastal dune physical and ecological processes in southwest Washington and particularly with respect to the Long Beach Peninsula. Documentary materials provided: Wiedemann, Alfred M. 1984. Chapter 4: Dune processes, from: The ecology of Pacific Northwest coastal sand dunes: A community profile. FWSIOPS-84104. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Wash- ington. Proctor, Charles M., et al. 1980. An ecological characterization of the Pacific Northwest coastal region. US Fish & Wildlife Service publication FWS/OBS-79-13. selected figures repre- senting dunes processes. Ground Water On March 29, 1988, Alan Wald, hydrologist, Water Resources Pro- .gram, Washington Department of Ecology, spoke on the subject of ground water on the Long Beach Peninsula, including salt water in- trusion, recharge areas, and wetlands. 4 ,Documentary materials Provided: Tracey, J. V. 1978. Ground-water resources of the North Beach Peninsula, Pacific County, Washington. US Geological Survey Open-file Report 77-647. Flood Risk, Management and Regul ations On April 12, 1988, Carl Cook and Larry Baisch, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Bothell, presented information on flood risk and the federal flood insurance program. Mr. Baisch presented in- formation on the nature of coastal flooding, tsunamis, and surges; Mr. Cook discussed FEMA's flood insurance program. Tim D'Acci, Floodplain Management Section, Washington Department of Ecology made a brief presentation on the state's role. Documentary materials provided: Washington State Floodplain Management Act, Chapter 86.16 RCW. Washington State Floodplain Management Rules, Chapter 173-158 WAC. National Flood-Insurance Program Regulationsi. Washington State Shoreline Regulations The principal Washington state shoreline regulations are the Sea- shore Conservation Act of 1967 and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. The Seashore Conservation Act is implemented by the Wash- ington Parks and Recreation Commission. The Shoreline Management Act is implemented by local governments through their shoreline master programs under the oversight of the Washington Department of Ecology. Complicating the state@local regulatory responsi- bilities are the complex patterns of Accreted Lands ownership pat- terns caused by a series of contradictory case law decisions. On April 26, 1988, David McKim, a retired Parks and Recreation Commission employee, and author of PRC's study on the evolution of accreted lands ownership patterns delivered a talk on the Seashore Conservation Act and Accreted Lands ownership. His talk focused on the origins and purpose of the Seashore Conservation Act,,..and on the evolution of accreted lands ownership under Federal and Washington State legislation and case law. David Heiser, Envirofi- mental Coordination Chief, Parks and Recreation Commission was present to answer questions about current Parks Commission policy. Additionally, Mark Carey, Pacific County Planning Director, pro- vided information on the Shoreline Management Act and the Pacific County Shoreline Master Program. Documentary materials provided: Washington State Seashore Conservation Act, Chapter 43.51.RCW Washington State Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW Pacific County Shoreline Master Program Dune Elements from Shoreline Master Programs: Pacific County, Ilwaco, Long Beach, and South Bend; Grays Harbor County, Ocean Shores, and Westport. McKim, David. 1982. The evolution of accreted lands ownership on the ocean beaches of the Long Beach Peninsula. Washington Parks and Recreation commission, Olympia. Local Economy On May 12, 1988, Art Yoshioka, Director, Pacific County Economic Development Council, Raymond, delivered a presentation on the Pa- cific county economy, and the activities of the EDC to promote business and employment. Specific economic and business activity information for the Long Beach Peninsula is not generally avail- able. Land Use Law on the advice of a Committee member who also served on the Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee, a session on land use law was added to the schedule. The concern was that this committee not propose plan elements which would be found unconstitutional in the context of the "taking issue." On May 24, 1988, Mr. Richard Settle, a professor of law at Univer- of Puget Sound School of Law, Tacoma, and of counsel, Foster, Pepper, and Shefelman, Seattle, spoke on land use law. His pre- sentation provided comprehensive coverage on private property rights, the taking issue, and government's responsibilities to protect, the public health, safety, and welfare, including aspects of the public trust doctrine. Certainly, many in the group will have heard of the recent Nollan and First English cases, and you should discuss those cases as well as any others such as Orion you think appropriate. Documentary materials provided: Owens, David. 1987. Memorandum to North Carolina Coastal Re- sources Commission: Recent United States Supreme Court Cases (First Lutheran church; Nolan v California Coastal Commis- sion) Settle, Richard L. Recent developments in the law: Municipal li- ability for tortious land use regulatory conduct; The public trust doctrine. Settle, Richard L. Significant recent development in land use law (notes on First Lutheran Church v County of Los Angeles). Dune Grading For View Restoration Dune grading for view restoration is a sensitive issue on the Long Beach Peninsula. Many persons who built houses close to the pri- mary dune many years ago have seen their views of the ocean vanish as the dunes undergo their natural growth process. Grading the . primary dune is presently illegal under the Pacific County Shore- line Master Program, and would almost certainly be considered in- consistent with the overlying state Shoreline Management Act. Nevertheless many persons grade the dunes in front of their houses, often even when the primary dune is under the ownership of Pacific County or the state Parks and Recreation Commission. on the recommendation of a Committee member, a presentation was arranged on the state of Oregon's experimental dune management program at Nedonna Beach. On June 12, 1988, Mr. Robert Cortwrite, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, provided a comprehensive pre- sentation on the 'process the state of Oregon went through in amending its state coastal management laws to permit the ex- periment, the rationale for the revised goals regarding dune grad- ing, and the results of the Nedonna Beach experiment. Additionally, Mr. Wilbur Ternyik, Wave Beach Grass Nursery, Florence, Oregon, was available to answer technical questions about the comprehensive grading and revegetation program carried out at Nedonna Beach. Mr. Ternyik developed the dune grading plan for Nedonna Beach, and carried out the earthmoving and revegeta- tion. Documentary materials provided: Redfren, Roger A. 1986. Rockaway - Nedonna Beach technical re- port on the foredune management study. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem. Ternyik, Wilbur. 1986. Nedonna Beach foredune grading plan. Or- egon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem. Subsequently, the Department of Ecology granted a request of the Committee to provide information about the existing topography of the dunes with respect to houses built close to the primary dune. In October, 1988, Ecology requested bids from engineering and land surveying firms to provide topographic surveying services includ- ing data reduction and the plotting of dune cross sections: Sixteen (16) cross sections at approximately one half (1/2) mile intervals between 357th Place (Section'5, Township 12 North, Range 11 West), and 210th Place (Section 8, Township 11 North, Range 11 West) were required. The exact location of the cross sections were determined by a subcommittee of the Peninsula Dunes Advisory Committee which also acquired property owners' consent where nec- essary. The cross sections extended from a point on the intertid- al Pacific Ocean beach at or below mean sea level, east across the beach and primary (fore) dune to a point 100 f eet east of the pre- dominate building line. Copies of the dune cross sections were distributed to Committee members in March, 1989. -6\ APPENDIX B MINORITY REPORT Appendix B is a document submitted by six members of the Dunes Management Committee as a minority report to the final draft Dune Management Plan. -Minority Report: Dunes Management Plan May 30th, 198'9 This report is submitted to point out areas of the plan that have not met expectations of a balanced or comprehensive plan or where general consensus within the group was not reached. Consensus was defined early on as "Not being in total agreement with concepts, but able to live with the proposal." To thi s poi nt the pl an has f ai I ed ! A I i st of goal s was formulated as a direction for the group to take in reaching a finalized plan. We f eel the f ol I owi ng goal s have not been met or are i n j eopardy. Goal * 1. Devel op a p] an workabi e f or a] 1. Goal *13. Set aside areas for recreational activity. Goal * 12. Ensure I ocal I nput i nto I and use i ssues. The i ntroductory I etter to thi s p] an 19 typi cal of the extremi st atti tude used in formulating the plan as submitted. It is based mainly on pure emotion and hyperbole , not on facts as represented over the historical presence of man on this coastline and a simple observation of what is really happening and has happened to this system of accretion lands beyond the 1889 Statehood line. This follows in the overall conclusions of the plan and one that sets a tone not as a "Conservative" approach, but rather a Conservationist approach 1 An area of total neglect in this plan is the economic impact of implementation of the plan. How it impacts County government through property tax revenues, excise tax revenues and the costs of enforcement. How it impacts local business entities on the Peninsula . Finally, and not the least important, is how it impacts the property owner in the area of study . We agree that the impact will be adverse to all three groups and this will be explained in our presentation! Under the General Management Section of this plan , a permanent dunes study group is called for and suggestions for funding are included. We feel thi s group woul d be a dup] i cati on of ef f ort wi th other County, State and Federal agencies that have jurisdiction in the area of study. Currently the County Planning Department acts as the repository of information concerning shorelines,and we feel the cost of creating another entity to duplicate a service already in place, is unnecessary. The second concern is the composition of this group and the ability of the group members to maintain an objective balance. Under the Natural Resource Element of the plan two areas cause concern. First is the failure to discuss a dune stabilization plan that would allow some relief to upland owners who are losing views due to the rapid vertical growth of the seaward dune , primarily in the 100 ft protective barrier. This area of the plan certainly failed the upland property ownerl 2. With views of the ocean decreasing , especially from Klipsan Beach, North to Surfside, a conservative proposal for modification and stabilization was presented. The group felt it needed more information to determine if minor modification and stabilization were f easable, within current 41 Federal (FEMA) and State standards. Washington State DOE funded a cross section survey of '18 points starting in the Klipson area to the Surfside area. This survey indicated that those homes designed for ocean view along the pri mary dune had an el evati on on the mai n I i vi ng f I oor of not I ess than 41 24 f t above sea I eve], some 3 f t above FEMA standards for f I ood insurance, yet the seaward dune had bui It to over 30 f t in some cases. A vote was taken by the committee and failed by 1, (7/6) for a modification and stabilization program. Under the submitted plan, the only option for property owners will be to illegally cut the dune to open-view, or petition the! Board of Equalization for property tax relief. Most people are low abiding, but without a dune stabilization program, similar to the one in place at Nedonna Beach Oregon, illegal dune cuts will continuel Implementation of a reasonable program, administered with safeguards, by the County, with co-operation of the State would reduce the potential for destructive cuts. County revenues will suffer from property tax relief, as well as owners suffering decreased property values , resulting in reduced excise tax collections to the County from the sale of real property. We recommend a program that will allow stabilization to the Federal mandated height of the V-zone. The! second area of this section creating concern , is that dealing with a study to to determine the feasability of creation of a National Seashore. A National Seashore would impact all owners in the study group. You would not be allowed to sell your home on the open market, but only to the Government!- What effect will-this have on property values? If the Federals take over the land, the County loses the tax revenue from this land, a situation Pacific County can hardly afford ! This certainly contradicts the goal of local control of our off airs and we insist this should be removed from whatever plan the County adopts ! Any funds spent for a study of this nature certainly contradict good mangement of a public trust when, we feel the majority of people would oppose this proposal. Under the Land Use Section of the plan the building set back section, R/V park section and elimination of the North South road West of Highway 103 cause concern. Building setback lines as they exist today are working and should not be changed ! The proposed setbacks under this plan are extremely restrictive, especially in the Seaview and Leadbetter sections. Privately owned property will be effected and a loss of value , without compensation will result. This is a continued errosion of the the rights of property owner-ship and we feel could be challenged as a 'Taking" or downzoning by owners; of 3. this property. The County Assessor, who must establish values at highest and best use, by State law, would have little option but to reduce the value of the property i n questi on. Agai n an economi c shortf a] I f or both the owner and County tax revenues! R/Y parks are to be clustered in a area North of Long Beach with severe restrictions on set back lines. The ultimate result would be postage stamp sized parks with little possibility of a profit in developing such facilities. Who hurts in this situation ? We feel the businesses that rely on Touri sm woul d be the most sever] U hurt. Many dol I ars are spent each year to attract the tourist. If we can't support this tourist with a place to stay or f aci I i ti es f or hi s motor home or travel trai I er, he wi I I not come back agai n ! Other areas must be consi dered f or thi s type of i ndustry a] ong the dunal areas. Let's not become so restrictive as to short one of the major economic drivers of the area. The elimination of the North/South feeder road West of highway 103 is unacceptable ! Many plats done in the post have made provisions for this road and it seems a logical continuation for long term planning. Highway 103 can become choked on summer weekends leaving little room for fire and emergency services vehicles to move freely. This pressure will continue unless we make provisions for feeder roads to relieve congestion. The revised Comprehensive Plane eliminated the N/S road on the center of the Peninsula, due to envirionmental concerns over the wet lands. Elimination of a Western feeder road leaves us with no future relief of traf f ic on the already overburdened Highway 103 . Let's not plan ourselves into permanent summer gridlock with this recommendation! In Conclusion;we have all worked on this plan for over a year. Initially it was hoped that we could make a plan "Workable" for all. The final draft does not gi ve us that pl easure. Too many areas of great concern are bri ef I y mentioned or negl ected in the overal I document. We f eel the plan as submitted takes too much, but gives nothing in return. The plan will adversely impact all taxpayers, County government and property owners in the study area ! We feel a balanced plan would be acceptable, with sensitivity to individual and envirionmental needs. To this end, the plan as submitted, has failed! W el And@r@son R* hard Hend ckson eAei Ohard Hendn4cksonJ4@ Eliz @ 'Ja Z-H i rM @@eth Fenne/ -71er@ Norman Grier 4Sch@@midt R o-4 ABSTRACT #2 TITLE: Willaqpa Bay Water Qual-qIty AUTHOR: Wilqlaqpa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee SUBJECT: Update of Water Quaqlit"y Management P-,ans, Forma-lion oqf Regioqna-L Water Resource Council DATE: july 1, 1-988 to june 30, 1-989 PARTICIPANTS: WiqlqlaqDa Bay Wat-er Quaq!L-,y Organizing Committee, Pacific County Depar-11-ment of Plann-ing PROqjECT NUMBER: Grant Number G00q89033 SERIES NUMBER: SUMMARY: The Willaqpa Bay Water Quaq!-L-y project" represents a continuing 10 month effort to reassess previous water qqua-LJ.Ly an and planning efforts, draft a new water qua-7--ty management p form a regional water resource counc-*q!. Arqfsfng from an outgrowth of q1-he Long Beach Comprehensive qP0anning process, -1h.s Project encomqoasses a regional Issue of unqparalqIe-eqd envqironmenta-7 and qDoqlqitqicaq: comDqlexLqtv. wo zrqiqmarv issues have arisen, the lack oqf information of water qauaq:_@-11'qy in -'aqDa Bay and a low awareness by local c-"Ltizens of the -;.importance oz 6qWil1aqpa Bay as an estuary of unparalleled natural resources. The qproJect succeeded In obtaining fuqnd4kqna through the Cntenn-7a- Clean Water Fund to su2qv8qDoqrt the three critical areas o0qf needs `n W0qiq_71a2qDa 16qBav; 2q1) water 2qaua4ql0qi8qtv qmonq4qL8qtoqr q-8qng, 2q1 oub4q1q4qLqc educat0qf8qoqnq, f The two year and 3) financial su8qoqoort for a permanent councqiq7. q.und0qing provides the critical [email protected] co8qmq-8qp0qlement to 2qthq4qls q-qj_q7annq_q-q'ng effort. Page 2 Abstract #2 Exhibit #2 Draft outline of Willapa 0qBaqy Water Quaq:-*L-,qv. Management Plan List off: Wilqlapa Bay Water Qua---Jtv Committee a0qDqooin-led members Summary Mlnutes, August .9q80' qto Present 2p WILLAPA BAY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Is with _-esqDecl I q!NTRODUCTTON: 7f a common thread eqxis4 l #-a water quality and Wiqllaqpa Bay, ill is a continuous braid of committees formed, extensive discussion, drafting of qD-7ans, committee disbanded. The Impact of these qaqlans, documents of limited distribution, is difficult to measure. I qiqmpac"I" over -he twenty year qDer-od of Which had he greatest - qt 7 L qDqIan evolution? A generqaqI natqion-wide lnt-erest qin qt0qhe environments or any of the many plans? Some goals and theqir qnoL.-;@.cqies were Implemented, but tl is not qDossqible -,a say that any particular plan succeeded n itself. The sing e most successful qn-an in terms of- qim-)Ie.-Iieqntaqtqfon is the Shorelines Mast-er Program, as mandated by the Shorelines Management Act of .971. An [email protected] coqnc-7qus4on 4Ls that goals and policies of- plans t-hat are integrated into current COUNTY reguiaqtions and ordinances have rare oqt an impact- than generic goals and qDolicqies that Jack a veh__-'Lcq!e or _-LmqDIementat4Lon. One recurrent theme of- the DIans is the q:ac4qk of an educa-1-on element. The context for educatIon has snecific Drab-Lem areas; agrqicu-turaql wastes, homeowner use ott pest@cides, waste dqisnosaql, or the oqneratqion of sma"ql woodlozs. A. GENERAL ]"ILAN O6qBJEC-7VES: To effect change and transfer -he genera' conceqDt a.' W-_7.IaqDa Bay water qauaq!Ly fro,-,- myth rea_-y, _ qt-he Plan combines Dubqlqic education with cr-:L,_-ca_I resource -hose interface group s and cz`caL and-vidua.1s wqI,'-n 41 groups. T24qhe p-qlan seeks to facilitate a -q.q)osq4qLtq--q"ve water auaqLqit-y outcome D24qy uniting qpub8ql-4qIc acceptance 2qaq-q' cr0qi2qtzqLca4qL resource dec4qisions. Regulate or Educate? First, address cu_qrqrentq-, utuqre 0qi2qmqDact areas and assess jur0qis24qE4qictionaq: 24qboundarqJqLes. A-q'qso, address wate r-quality impacts as q-q,q-4qa their a4qbiq-q70qi8qty to be regulated. Identify the individuals and groups -ha2qt occupy the most important position between the 8qDro20qble2qm and the water. Reduce the problem to Dartq's of a beginning. Address the problem at q4qLts smaq.q7-7est point. WATER QUALITY Page 2 Educate and regu'Laqte for those areas Uinder jurisdiction. Educate for those impact areas outside of Jurisdiction B. SCOPE -ua-v Willapa: Watershed and Esqt _. Near coastal water, Columbia R_Jve_r C. 4qREELATqIO0qN TO PREVIOUS PLANS Wilqlaqpa Estuary Management- Plan qE?AC CO q1972 Water Qua.7.-Ltv Management 6qPl7an: Wiq:@@a)a Basin :-PAC qCqO REG PLN 1974q1 Shoreqine Master Program :PAC CO q:975q1 qThe WiqllaDa -Estuary --.*AC CO 1977q] Wiqllaqpa 3a4qy Water Quaq:.q""--4qv Management 6q?@7an [PAC CO 1983', 4 Willapa Bay: Acl-ons and Programs 4qRequf-ed qto 9 Insure its Continued Value as a Major Resource LqPAC CO 198q8q" D. SUMMARY IqI. ENVIRONMENT AND WATER Q6qUALI TY 'histo--ic to cqurrent7, A. WI0qLLAPA 'ESTUARY NATURAL RESOURCE 3ASEE: WATER QUALITY 0qR0qFACqE Rain Watershed Groundwater CoLumbia River Pacific Ocean 0qB. W6qILLAPA ESTUARY RESOURCES P 0 6qPU! A'..*'-- 0 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSUMERS Residents ourq-q-sts Resource Industries WATER QUALITY .Page 3 C. WILLAPA ESTUARY RESOURCES NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCERS Sqi-7vacultu--e Aauacuqlture Agriculture Mining Fishing WATER QUALITY q:0qNTqERqFACE AREAS: THE CRITICAL Z;. INDIVIDUALS, THE CRITICAL GROUPS A. NATURAL RESOURCE BASE 'Park Managers Refuge Managers NATURAL RESOURCE CONSUMERS Individual Lot DeveloqDqment Domestic Water 6qUse Sewage Disqposaq: Chemic I se a, 6qU C. NATURAL RESOURCE? ---" 6qR 0 D0qUqC E R S Siqlvacuqlqture Discharge Chemical Erosion and S3q1q1tation qOqDeratqions Agriculture Animal Waste Chemical Discharge Erosion and Rancher/Manage- Worker Farmer/Manager W o r q-k e qr Processor/Manager 6qWor24qkeq:7 A4qauacultq-ure Chemical Dq-qischaqrge Erosion and Siltation Farmer/Manager Worker Processor/Manager Worker WATER QUALITY Page 4 Fishing Chemical Discharge Fuel Lubricants Waste Harvester/Operator Processor/Manager r6qV. NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNMENT-PRO6qBL6qE6qY, AREAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT(S) Lack of an AD proved Water Quaity_ Plan Lack of a Permanent Coodinati nmmmmon Council q:nadeauate o:7 Nonexistent Sewage Co'Lqlectqion and Treatment Wiq:q!aqDa Va1ley as Com4qp1eqx 0q?rob-!em Area Lack of Staff COUNTY UnincorqDorated Need For Sewerage Agency Immediate Need For Sewage in Specific Areas Need oqf Sewerage Regu-7atory Control JIM Land Deveqloamenqt ack of-qOn-Sqite Dis.qnosa- Data Urban Runoff Water SuqDD-qv_ Needs on 0qPeninsuLa Erosion and Siltation CITY(qS) Need oqf Acce@ta4qb-L Sludge Disqposa-7 inadeauate Treatment Plant Records Water Suoqnq:0qy Needs on ?eninsu7a Urban Runoff 6q116qXDq116qVq:DqTq-qTA0qL (S) COMMUNITY qFAC6qIL6qlqInTqTS OTHER SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACqT-L0qiT4qiES INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES EXISTING COMMUNITY, 0q:16qND0qIVq:Dqr-qTAL, AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES. WATER QUALITY Page 5 V. WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT NEEDS AND PROGRAMS Vqi. FUTURE WATER QUALITY IMPACT AREAS: Iq-qE CRqITqICAL TEAM VIqI. EDUCATE OR REGULATE THE CRITICAL q:NDqIVqIDUAL? V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY qWilqlaqpa Bay Water Qualitv Oraanizqin8qq Committee: AqDqDointed members. Rebecca Chaffee City of Raymond Engineer Russ Davis Forester I@eanqne Gamme-7 -Port oqf Peninsula Auditor Carolvn Glenn Citizen Dave H-abersetzer Dairy Farmer Larry Hendrickson Port oqf WqilqlaqDa Harbor Manage- Malcoq1m, McPhaqi.- Cranberry Farmer james 'Neva Pacfic q7qit.qIe Comqnany Executive Dave _Nesbit Nesbit" Oyster Company lom Rotta Oyster Hatchery Owner Dick SheIdqon Crab Fisherman SH County of Pacific Department of Planning P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 too South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee Summary Minutes August 22, 1988 meeting at Bay Center, 7 p.m. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Meeting place has been changed to Room 102 in the E.O.C. Meeting Room, Public Safety Building, Courthouse, South Bend at 7 p.m. Present: Jeanne Gammell, Carolyn Glenn, Dave Habersetzer, Dick Hendrickson, Larry Hendrickson, Don Lorentson, Malcolm McPhail, Jim Neva, Tom Rotta, Dick Sheldon, Mark Carey, Jim Sayce. Summary Minutes Pacific County Planning Director Mark Carey opened the meeting and reviewed the public process that has resulted in the formation of the WBWQOC. Public meetings in Naselle, Seaview and Raymond resulted in 31 citizens nominated for a committee. The Pacific County Board of County Commissioners selected 11 individuals based*on geographic and user group factors. Coastal Zone Management Grant funds have hired a Water Resource Planner to act as a resource liaison and give staff support to the committee. Water Resource Planner Jim Sayce presented a time.!--ine of funding for fiscal year 1989 and 1990 of Centennial Clean Water Grants. Part of the rush of considering a grant(s) at this early time is based on the Sept. 30 closing date for fiscal year 1989 and Mark and Jim's feelings that they could rewrite a 205i grant that the Health Department had previously submitted (was not funded) on a ground water study of the Long Beach Peninsula. This grant and a Willapa Bay Water Quality grant could be submitted soon. Response from the committee indicated that Jim would pursue two grants and present drafts at the next meeting. A general discussion of Willapa Bay Water Quality followed. All present wrote down their best case scenario for the outcome of the committee and everyone had a chance to present their own Page 2 Summary Minutes/WBWQOC Sept. 2, 1988 thoughts. Worst case scenarios were also collected and both series of thoughts will be compiled for-the next meeting. Some main points that arose; Bay is recognized as being clean but the question is How Clean? should be answered with more precision. Potential nroblem sources exist and the user groups that could be the source of contamination also want to know their actual contribution to the pollution so that real action can be taken, if necessary. It was recognized that the resolution of any pollution problem could result in a negative impact on a particular industry, but that the public health risk should be addressed first. Other comments: 'lGray areas (pollution sources) exist and that guidelines for future development should address these areas." "A need to assess the capacity of the county and to have simple management plans to address land use planning and aquaculture.11 "The bay could be a unifying force in the county because of its broad-based contribution to natural resource economy." "Facts on pollution need to be known." "We should openly and honestly address the pollution problem." "Every industry is a threat to water quallty." "Other people (besides user groups) enjoy the bay." "Pollution information is-often blown out of proportion." "We all want to stay in business." "Lack of information is limiting." "Specific information on new aquaculture technology is needed." The meeting closed with the next meeting scheduled for September 7th. Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. SH County of Pacific Department of Planning P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 cou South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 WILLAPA BAY WATER QUALITY ORGANIZING COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 Present: Rebecca Chaffee, Jeanne Gammell, Carolyn Glenn, Dave Habersetzer, Dick Hendrickson, Larry Hendrickson, Don Lorentson, Malcolm McPhail, Jim Neva, Tom Rotta, Dick Sheldon, Sherri McDonald-Pacific County Health Department Director, Jim Sayce- Water Resource Planner. 1. Jim Sayce suggested that it was appropriate for the committee to consider electing a chairman to officiate at future meetings. Tom Rotta suggested we wait until the next meeting and Malcolm McPhail added that the group is still a youthful group. Jeanne Gammell asked for a volunteer, as wo there were no immediate takers. It was decided to hold off on elections until the next meeting. 2. Long discussion of groundwater, surface water, comprehensive plans, Long Beach Peninsula and flood control. In talking with Sherri McDonald after Wednesday's meeting it was apparent that the discussion was extremely confusing to some people. The basic discussion centered around two questions; 1) Should a ground water management area be considered for the entire county or for the geographical area of immediate concern (i.e. Tokeland, Long Beach)? This question weighs the factors of creating multiple parallel efforts when one could suffice versus the ability of local advisory groups to more adequately address their own situation and 2) Should the Long Beach Flood Control Advisory Board serve as an interim lead agency for a groundwater management area? This appears appropriate in that the FCAB is a experienced and well established committee, it is pursuing a second phase of comprehensive planning on the Peninsula. Surface and ground water are closely related to each other on the Peninsula (same for Tokeland area). However, the FCAB has its agenda full with current projects, and it may not be appropriate of possible for them to examine-groundwater quality and quantity as may be necessary. Page 2 W13WQ Summary Minutes Sept.@ 7, 1988 Malcolm-difficult to make quick decision. Dick S.-No opposition if FCAB serves as "facilitator" , enough responsibility, no extra funds. Jim N.-FCAB area doesn't cover Ilwaco, Chinook. Should start "chipping away" at problem of groundwater area by area. Malcolm- need comp. plan, then funds available. Tom--other options? Jim S.-Other grants could be applied for outside groundwater area, DOE suggests groundwater and designation, taps into their expertise. Sherri-Chinook and North Cove areas also potential problem., Groundwater question left in air somewhat. I have arranged for a meeting with the County Commissioners, John Pace, DOE Groundwater Resoucres, Lisa Randlette, DOE Flood Control and a FCAB representative to help find a solution and consolidated opinion. It is beginning to appear that the Peninsula may end up w-L-,h its own Groundwater Management area and resultant public process. As difficult as that is to dea1 with concerning current planning, it is probably the best way to go. 3. Monitoring in Willapa Bay; Tom comments on Bay Center and Palix fecal pollution started discussion on what to measure. Pesticides, herbicides, sediments, industrial pollutants were all mentioned unanimous oDinion that sampling should be done. Larry moved that a Willapa Bay Monitoring Grant continue to be Dursued. Dick S. seconded. Unanimous vote yes. 4. Spartdna in Willapa Bay; Jim S. passed out summary by Kathy Sayce. Jeanne and Dick S. provided comments on the occurrence and growth of Spartina. Aerial photos passed around. Malcolm plans to put on state weed list allow monies for local control. Dick S. moved to recommend addition of Spartina to state weed list, Jim N. seconded. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5. Dairy visit in Tillamook; Dave H. talked with John Bryant- Lewis County Extension, Iffelt a bit early for tour, as we are not ready yet. Group mixed on going, seemed to feel later in November appropriate. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 D.m. Next meeting scheduled for September 21. Summary minutes Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee: 22 September 1988. Present: Dave Habersetzer, Dick Sheldon, Malcolm McPhail, Dick Hendrickson, Jim Neva, Rebecca Chaffee, Tom Rotta, Jim Sayce, Mark Carey, Greg Geleynse. I. Conservation District: Planning Director Mark Carey introduced Greg Geleynse, a newly hired county employee in the Planning Department.. Greg is a soil technician and is working with the Conservation District through a cooperative agreement with Pacific County. His support is from a Referendum 39 Grant (a precursor to the Centennial Clean Water Fund) and is directed at three elements within the Willapa Valley; 1. A livestock survey and inventory; 2. A water quality guide aimed at elaborating Best Management Practices for the local area and; 3. a series of public meetings. Greg will be a regular attender of WBWQOC meetings and will be responsible for keeping the committee abreast of water quality developments in the Willapa Valley, especially the relationship between water quality and agriculture. Discussion of Conservation Districts. II. Groundwater Management: Report on meeting with Commissioner's Markham and Wolfenbarger with John Pace from DOE Groundwater Resources : DOE requires a Ground Water Management Area designation to gain access to Centennial Funds from the Groundwater Category. The Peninsula Flood Control Advisory Board (FCAR) may want to help start up an advisory board in the short term, it does not want the long term responsibility of overseeing a groundwater resource program on the peninsula. It would stretch current resources of the FCAB and it is uncertain what portions of FCAB revenue could be used for water quality related projects (this is aside from the fact that those projects would be competing for FCAB monies currently being earmarked for surface water management projects.) The suggestion was made to have a member of the WBWQOC chair or sit on a local board (i.e. Peninsula, Tokeland, or Willapa Valley Groundwater Management Advisory Board) to act as policy flow through for local and county government. Not enough time to apply for CCWF this go around, but county is planning to put in grant applications on ground water next spring. WAC's for Groundwater passed out. Point was made to T. Rotta and D. Habersetzer that they should keep in mind the possibility of pursing GWMA's for the Tokeland and Willapa Valley areas. Page 2 J. Neva brought up a point that was also stressed by the Commissioner's; What are we buying into (with the state) when we commit to a Ground water program. to answer this question in more detail, I researched the WAC's and have included remarks by John Pace. The Washington State Department of Ecology primary responsibility is the structure and review process that enables local government to build and fine tune their own ground water management programs. Pacific County submits a request for GWMA designation (for a specific geographical area), DOE reviews the request for identification, determines that the request meets certain criteria, then identifies the proposed area as a Probable Groundwater Management Area, DOE establishes general planning boundaries and appoints a lead agency (the County in our case)-. Once this step is completed a designation for Program Plannin purposes is sought (i.e a comprehensive plan). A public hearing is held and an advisory groups is appointed. The advisory group has primary responsibility for developing a GWM plan. That plan is created from aeneral guidelines from Title 173 WAC's that serve as a framework, with each program adapted to the needs of a particular area (John Pace stressed this, that what we put into our GWMA is what we will get out of it). Following completion of the program, DOE (and local government) hold a joint public hearing, prepare findings and identify revisions. The findings contain a statement indicating the lead agencies intent to adopt implementing policies. The lead agency consolidates the findings, resolves statements of nonconcurrence (i.e., the plan says they will do x but the local government says x is not important) then submits the program to DOE for certification if the program is consistent with Title 173 WAC's. Following certification, regulations, ordinances, other programs are amended, adopted to implement the provisions of the Ground Water Management Plan. General discussion of WAC's, grants. D. Sheldon and M. McPhail noted that FCAB had to have a planning grant (in process) to apply for DOE grant funds. J. Sayce noted that groundwater planning requires some technical data and grants to-pay for that type of scoping study can be applied for once a probable GWMA is identified. Discussion of current quantity wells on the Peninsula, they may be usable for quality studies. Some concerned voiced by M. McPhail that topics in water quality are expanding beyond area of immediate interest, Willapa Bay. M. Carey suggested that an expanded rationale for Willapa Water quality is likely. Page 3 III. WBWQ Grant to DOE: J. Sayce presented draft of grant proposal to committee and using the critical path diagram, described the proposed scope of work. Discussion centered around the possibility of WBWQ doing the monitoring and other state agencies paying into that program to acquire the information they want. Coordination between agencies is essential and that WBWQ can provide that service. J. Neva pointed out that as before, unless this group can become self-supporting, when grant support ends we end. D. Sheldon brought up the topic of a regional research facility and D. Hendrickson suggested that somebody like Sid Snyder might be a good individual to lobby for such a project at the state level. Finally R. Chaffee and M. McPhail suggested hiring a professional consultant to help design a sampling routine that would address a multitude of water quality areas, $6000.00 was added into contractual services under Element I to address this area. T. Rotta moved that the grant be submitted, D. Hendrickson seconded. IV. WBWQOC Organizational Format: M. Carey spoke at length of a structure of policy flow through for WBWQOC. In a local area, a member of the WBWQOC would sit on or chair a small committee that is addressing a single issue problem, this person would act as the flow through for policy so that regional and local problems are addressed in a coordinated manner. As a part of regular business, these individuals would make short presentations to the WBWQOC as to the current status of those committees. J. Neva noted that we should spare the WBWQOC from becoming bogged down with to many responsibilities. There was general concurrence that the concept makes sense-. This format has been used in other areas of the state and has been most successful when the subcommittees have definite problems to solve. V. Spartina: J. Sayce reported that the Commissioner's have directed him to organize a- multi-agency meeting in November of December to coordinate interest on Spartina. Discussion centered around the appropriateness of the County doing this, and although in seems that what brews is a bureaucratic Pandora's Box, the best way to address this type of environmental problem is to be sure all parties understand the significance of probable outcomes from the beginning. VI. Mean Sea Level Rise J. Sayce briefly brought up the interest by DOE in studying MSL as a planning aspect. DOE is pursuing a federal Coastal Zone Management grant to set up a state task .force on MSL. Doug Canning is our DOE contact and promises to keep us informed of Rpg2minq events. Meeting adjourned at 0915 pm. F, reliminary Agenda for Meeting Scheduled on 24 October, 7.00 pm Commissioner's Chambers, Courthouse, South Bend. I. Current Business Staff @reports: Planning: J. Sayce: WBWQ Grant, Spartina G. Geleysne: Tillamook Bay Tour Health: Coliform Ordinances II. Items for Discussion: Chair: Bylaws: Logo: III. Strategies for Management Plans: Doug Canning@ IV. Management Plan for Willapa Bay Water Quality: J. Sayce ISH County of Pacific Department of Planning P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 Coo South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 November 11, 1988 Summary minutes Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee: 24 October 1988. Present: Larry Hendrickson, Dick Sheldon, Tom Rotta, Jim Neva, Carolyn Glenn, Dave Habersetzer, Greg Geleynse, Doug Canning, Jim Tracy, Jim Sayce. I. Report on Tillamook Tour, Greg Geleynse: Greg briefed the committee on the current status of Tillamook Bay and water quality with respect to the extensive dairy operations in that drainage area. A major effort involving federal grant funds and the local conservation district and the Tillamook Creamery Association resulted in the construction of liquid manure storage tanks and runoff control (i.e. gutters). To date, about two dozen dairy farm projects have been completed out of a total of about 100 projects. Approximately $8 million dollars has already been committed to waste management projects in the Tillamook area. Part of the success of participation in the program is the effort of the Tillamook Creamery Association to maintain an image as a quality producer, not a major polluter of Tillamook Bay. The dairy farmers that have participated in waste management programs now feel that they have made a positive effort to clean up the bay. The outcome of this water quality effort is still uncertain as the program is yet to finish and the bay is conditional-use for shellfish production. Part of a continuing pollution problem is uncooperative agricultural producers. A small scale program is currently in progress for the Nehalem River and could be usad as a model program for the Willapa River. Il. Report on WBWQOC Grant and Spartina: Jim Sayce reported that the Willapa Bay Water Quality Grant is "officially" being reviewed in the discretionary category after a preliminary review of applicability to that category. A Spartina multi-agency conference is planned for mid December and a WBWQ committee member is requested to attend. III. Shoalwater Indian Tribe: Jim Tracy, tribal biologist, expressed his concern on Forest Practice Regulations.and Riparian Page 2 October 2, 1988 mintues WBWQ Meeting Management Zones. His water quality concerns are primarily directed at fish habitat. Stream Temperatures, sediment loading, and the presence of large organic debris are water quality factors that he feels are important to monitor, especially in the Cedar and North Rivers. IV Water Quality Management, Doug Canning (DOE Shorelands): Doug reviewed the Nisqually River Project in brief. As has been pointed out to the WBWQOC before, part of the success of Puget Sound area committees is their ability to draw on vast human resources from a variety of federal, state, local and private experts. Doug suggested that we set precise policy goals with a definite event horizon. This allows our resource people to effectively apply themselves to very specific issues and will improve their effectiveness and will aid outside resource people they call upon for assistance. The technical committee can also provide solid information to the WBWQOC. These technical reports can then be used as primary information for adjusting water quality policy. Doug also commented that there is no environment policy format yet established for local governments to follow. one suggestion for the establishment of a WBWQOC chair is to elect two co-chairs that would share responsibility for directing meetings. Doug said the Ground water management area citizen's advisory committee in Thurston County has done this and it seems to be working out. This is firsthand information as Doug is one of the co-chairs. Doug closed with a discussion of the current formation of a state task force on Mean Sea Level Rise. The WBWQOC will be receiving more information from DOE as that task force begins to consolidate information on MSL from around the U.S. Meeting adjourned 9:00 pm. Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 1988 at 7 p.m. in the staff meeting room of the Planning Department-(basement of Courthouse), South Bend, WA. Summary minutes 16 November 1988 WBWQOC meeting at courthouse. Present: jeanne Gammell, Malcolm McPhail, Dick Hendrickson, Carolyn Glenn, Dave Habersetzer, jim Neva, Bryan Harrison, Tom Rotta, jim Sayce, Greg Gelenzye, Rebecca Chaffee. I. First order of business was to elect two individuals to serve as co-chairs of the Willapa Bay Water Quality I I Organizing Committee. Carolyn Glenn and jim Neva were unanimously nominated and elected. 11. jim passed out a draft of an agenda for a seminar on Spartina. Gave background on organization and purpose of meeting. To define current knowledge and future action. Requested a member of the commit"Cee to attend the seminar. Left to be decided at a later date. III. Update on Water Qua!-*Lt-,7 Grant: jim sent in more material to answer specific questions on water quality. Priorit"y review has not been published vet. jim has reauested a flonz)v disk that contains all of DO' E's water quality information for Willapa Bay. Discussion of water quality monitoring. IV. Conservation Grant updat-e, Greg Gelenyze: Greg has made daily contact with -farmers in the valley, JLnterviewing and describing assistance available. overall impression is that dafxy farmers are doing as best they can with what they have. Money a problem. Public meeting at- end of October, not a lot of people attended. Dave commented that Greg's impressions were correct and that in. general -1-he dairy farlmers were doing a good job. Talk about who has manure tanks. Styles of tanks, spreaders. History of tanks, many put n the fifties, about 250CO gallon J*Ln size. Standard sizes based on cost share. One to two day storage. Tillamoo'K, tanks can store up to 4 months, bracket rainy weather, pump -'Ln good. Ea--th filled reservoirs also used. Martins have 500000 gallon tank, some built over a mi-71ion (not in this county.) Built of fiberglass, epoxy coated steel. Question on destination of manure, manure used as fertilizer, pumped to grassland, no other value in another market? to expensive to dry and Page 2 WBWQOC November Minutes transport. imanure collected by washing or scraping, then pumped to storage facility. Sometimes qto honey wagon. Zqirat has big cement pit, can hold 4 to 6 weeks. Dave said that his (Zirat) method is different, pumps liquid when necessary, then lets solids coIqlect? Not really said Greg, Zirat sometimes adds water to get so"Lids out, uses ramqn to clean occasionally, Pete 0qPortirnan has a seqna.-a-lor, dries manure and then uses it for bedding. Only one in county that does that. Discussion of separating. Number of cows to an acre for getting rid of manure. Small acreage many cows,qleads to real problems. Farmers rotate Dumping from field qto field. 'To much pumping kills grass. Can't-- utilize field with .'arqm equipment. Carolyn, "greg, what are you recommendations in terms of water qauai.-qItyll Greg felt that at this point not a recommendation q1--iqlql more information analyzed from DOE. Many sources of bacteria, background, agricuqIturaql. Monitoring of dairies? Protqan constantly watched, fish based, why aren't cows. One reason 'Chis arises is the nature oqf the way DOE is organized, their special investigation teams target supposed problem areas and get the oqk on those, that investigation is done outside the abient monitoring program. Not necessarily coordinated. Some stud-Les go qto EPA, others end up as staff reports on a shelf or under internal review that can take a while. Response teams have 'Lined f"a-_q=e-s in Grays Harbor. MaqlcoLm *felt that Pacific County dairies where a unique group when compared to four other adjacent counties. Qluesqt-qion to Dave, q1q1' YOU could make an imurovement, where would the most likely place be? Dave-area of liquid manure systems. Malcolm, heavy rainfall and a `L:ull manure tank are a problem, has to be Dumped, some are close to the river, some far away, management oqf pui,.,,png. Dave noted program,s for guttering to prevent water from getting into manure tanks. many things they will do on their on own, as managing water is eqxpensive. _1q3ac4qk qto tank size. Rain-fall Der year. q100 inches a year. Uncovered ponds, sevie-r ponds are inundated, can't handle -flow- SaqmpqIE aq"ve.- and then zero iqn one where qit is comqin2qq from. If dairy farmers are not guilty they shou-qId not be hassled. a small cosqt-share project in Nehalem River could be a model for qus. Greg and 1q7ir might consider grants. 3ac0qk to monitoring and the problem of background co4qliform counts. Review of Wil4qla8qna River station, Beef oq-qpera8qt4qions? on river, not as much of a problem. Animals are spread ou8qt. Some storage is dry. Discussion o4qf data collection on 12qWil4qlapa RqI'ver. 8qjq'q.4m 8qDromises to have date from DOE by next meeting. Bryan q@q-q-qIarqr4qison, Ass4qisq"Iq"ant Director of Hqlealth and County Sanitarian, arrived, introduced. Commented on difficulty of receiving data, lots Of it unpublished, yet recorded. q'6qI'alked of Page 3 WBWQOC November Minutes Groundwater Management Areas, how they allow access to money. Bring in other government organizations, pay for planning. McAllister Springs was under a moratorium for development, 3-4000 lots potentially added in one year, a sand, open, unorot"ected aquifer, 60000 people living off of that water source, supplement the.City of Lacey.. Dick H commented that there was really not that much development on the whole peninsula. Few new development of lots, this has been true sense about 1970, Jim Neva concurred. The creation of new 'Lots has slowed. Brian -different ways to approach problem based on data. potential development with higher standard rather than shut down. Or change water source, or add a sewer system. A groundwater or outside water source will come first. Peninsula many be looking off-peninsula for a community wide source. Bear River dam, future site? Feds may not, fund another water supply after Indian Creek. That dam is filling nicely, good flow. Question back to sanitary wells on Peninsula. Brian-dif_-"'Lcult in sandu soils to tell where water is. No features left behind. No stained sands. Joe Petrovich dronued fifty wel.1s on LB, DOE had told us that pull those wells because they were not installed by a licensed well driller. Not grouted, didn't meet standards, why grout a pipe in sand with clay? +-o "Protect" the aquifer when the whole aquifer is sand? Brian f--'! -L.ed a variance to that requirement *'for the wells. Unsure of outcome. Doe regulates well installation,. Discussion of DOE policy on we-Lis. Discussion of artesian wells in Tokeland, most people unaware of those wells. Tom commented that many wells ar,.--@ close, within 50 feet of a septic syste, well cas-.ng degeneratJon could be a Droblem.- Most wells installed illegally, most clean. Nutrients and chemicals of most concern in sand areas. Sentic tank solvents are also a concern. Discussion of water quallty and wells on Long Beach and lot sales. In Tokeland many people L are off one well, a sort of small community system. Pac-41-ic county has loeen lax _Ln '1okeland on variance's for wells. Aquiter is 190 to 210 feet. Peninsula is 20 feet average sand point. Back to GWM areas, Thurston County has one, Pacific many want to have different areas based on style of aquifer. !V. Comment ol" a new person to replace Don Lorentson? Discussion of what other groups to add. Malcolm recommended that when a,,sDecific group is addressed, ask them to meet with subcommittees and give their inputs. Content for a plan, and a need for future council. Meeting more than once a month may be necessary after Christmas. Subcommittee might cut down time Guidelines estlabiished. Timber representation needed. individuals suggested: Webster, Steve with WSU extension, forester rep for this end of county? Excellent person. Lewis and Cowlitz and Pacific. Russ Davis. Weco fertilizer planner. Irv St qkqh--ns. TImber harvester. Dick 4qTqoqled2qger. In charge of logging operations. Ask Weyco who they want to represent. Chuck Hoskinson Rod4q@ Poppe Keith Metcalf Dave Mum0qDers, call and ask for WEYCO recommendation, committee 'Would prefer a local employee, not one from Tacoma. .iscusson of crabbers, Oyster growers, when we talk on that D L I subject we could bring those people in for a specific topic. !V. qjqim 4qpo4n+,-ed out that it is time to 'Locus on two main goals. A. A plan B. A group to monitor water quality and execute plan. The group will make up the plan. Hood Canal plan was model for CZM grant and can be used to develop our plan. qjlqm wil-7 send copies to all. Specialized subcommittee considered as a good Idea. elight consider future organization of committee. This committee D@Lcqk,e8qd from certain groups, and make up of commit-11-ee refiects that,. -L -s balanced. A Should stick wth that same Idea Group see'.. timber industry reqDresentaqtIve @Ls needed. Wqfthqin a :subgroup, as many that are needed can be brought qin. Need to set up areas to look at. 1%xt meeting, designate groups to look at, designate people as chairs for those subcommittees. Brian says that by qjaqnuary th-eqir are six more qDqians coming ouqt Early Action Bays. We can take advantage of some oqf the previous work. CZM funding will probably continue, a1low for a new draft. Simmons type person could meet with us, sometime in January. Comments on Sevin meet,*Lng which was unannounced. -In general, Neva said we alql should have 1known about it earlier. Greg and 16qjim did not know of qJit ti'qLqIqL afternoon of- meeting. q1q12q4sqcussqfo8qn of Conservation District aq,q-.d their s8qoonsorqshiqrq) of 4qmeet@qLqn8qaqs with respect to Sevin spraying program Co2qm8qmunicatqion breakdown. Discussion o4qf oil spills, equipment to clean up. Meeting adjourned 9:1.0 pm. Agenda for Spartina Seminar December 14, 1988 E.O.C. Meeting Room No. 102, Public Safe ty Building, Courthouse, South Bend, WA Preliminary agenda 9:00-9:45 For participants arriving early, a field trip to the Palix River and Bay Center area is offered. Examples of Spartina in various habitat areas and patch sizes can be observed. This area is about a fifteen minute drive from the County Courthouse. Transportation will be provided and will leave the Courthouse at 9:00. Please call Jim Sayce (206- 875-9356) if you plan to attend the field trip. 10:00-12:00 Morning session focusing on introduced species in Willapa Bay and Spartina in particular. 10:00 Welcome: Pacific County Commissioner Dan'l Markham. 10:05 Willapa Bay: Introduced Species. Jim Carolton, Assistant Professor of Biology, Oregon State University. 10:30 Habitat changes by Spartina: (This summary is still evolving, based on field observations by USFWS biologists and others. If you have specific information that is important, contact j. Savce@; 11:00 Introduced Cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora Loisel, in salt marshes and tidelands of Willapa Bay, Washington. Kathleen Sayce. Report based on USFWS contract# FWSI-87058(TS). Kathy is planning to address transplanting, lateral growth, sedimentation and historical changes in distribution. 11:30 Review'of Control Options available; trampling cutting shading pure stands tramDled stands cut stands grazing (many organisms) Burning Herbicide Digging up plant and root system Diking draining flooding salting Page 2 Seminar Agenda December 14, 1988 12:013-1:00 Break for lunch. 1:00--2:00 Concerns; regulatory and environmental: Local, State, Federal. Each group is asked to come prepared with a succinct summary statement that outlines their concerns. In addition, state what your group or agency can invest in a Spartina Management Plan. Please type concerns and investment ability on 8 1/2 by 11 paper. This information will be collected at the @eginning of the seminar and presented at this time in a combined format. Each group is limited to three minutes to summarize their position. Personnel review of proposals field insnections research Financial Support research control GROUP CATEGORIES: Local Upland owners Homeowners s Farm land owner Aquaculture Shellfish Fisheries crab fish Agen @Y&unty: Willapa Bay Water Quality @/'Conservation District Port Districts Page 3 Seminar Agenda December 14, 1988 State ,-'55epartment of Ecology t..Department of Natural Resources .....Department of Wildlife :."Department of Fisheries ./Parks and Recreation P, Nature Conservancy VState Weed Board kNatural Heritage Foundation Federal Agency. @/-Environmental Protection Agency ,.Army Corps of Engineers t-United States Fish and Wildlife Service 3:00-3:15 Break 3:15-4:00 Assessment and integration of concerns and investment potential into a management plan. The outline of a two tier plan is suggested to serve as the basis for a round table discussion. This discussion should have several important outputs. Who serves as clearinghouse and "Cracks the development of a management plan? What information needs to be gained? How much money and in kind services can be provided by each agency to ensure continued progress in dealing with Spartina? I. Early Action Management: Limited control of Spartina; 11. Long Term Management: Broader range of- control of Snartina; Within either management plan the following range of actions could be considered. - Define acceptable control - for patches of a specified size.- - for patches that are distinct ana separate from other vegetation. -for Datches at certain tidal heights. -for patches located within certain ownership areas; -for patches growing into other mar-shland vegetation. Page 4 Seminar Agenda .December 14, 1988 .4.:00 Concluding remarks and thedesign of a-critical path to. chart the next steps for a Spartina management plan. -4:30 Adjourn.- What will this seminar produce? 1.- .@A, list of contacts with a specific interest In Spartina managemefit. .2. A consensus on aclearinghouse for tracking further action. 3. A printed summary following the outline of the seminar (seminar will be taped). The summary will include; a. a needs assessment of what is known and what needs to be investigated to start and maintain Spartina management. b. a review of Spartina control strategies. C. the outline of a management plan. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES; 21 December 1988, 7:00-9:00 p.m. County Services Building, Long Beach. PRESENT; jeanne Gammel, Dick Hendrickson, Larry Hendrickson, Malcolm McPhail, qJim Neva,--Tom Rotta, Dick Sheldon, Jim Sayce. Co-chaqir 0qjim Neva called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.. I. WILLAPA BAY WATER QUALITY GRANT UPDATE; qjim reported that the Willapa Bay Water Quality Grant submitted to the Department of Ecology has "unofficially" been funded. it ranked 13th out oqf a total oqf q31 applicants in the discretionary category of the Centenniaq: Clean Water Fund, the funding cutoff qis below the 40th grant. Funds requested totaled 123,900.00, funds offered by D.O.4qE. are 123,900.00. Iwo public hearings will qbe held regarding qthe evaluation and rating of the proposed FY 89 projects (Seattle: 4qNOAA, Building 9 audqito--rqium, J-600 Sandpoint Way N.qE., .q1 January 1989, 10 a.m.-noon, other hearing is in Spokane). Committee :et.tqiewed grant and grant budget. I!. Water quality technician needs to be hired: Full time position, possibly funded year to year on grants. Other sou-"ces of support could come from DSHS and/or DOE to assist/augment their monitoring programs in Pacific Countly. Discussion of writing of a job description for this person. Salary will be about q19,000 a year. Jim Neva s,,.ggested that he interview ccmmittee coordqiqnale with 6qjqii:i Saye o review a job description that he will write. Suggestions from Tom were contact with DqSIH.qS and other agencies to see what kind of job descriptions they use to hire their staff. -Person will be collecting samples, shuttling them to commercial labs. Basic physical para6qme8qt-ers can easi8ql-qV be measured on site, specific tests for contaminants done outside. Discussion on transport of samples to labs, mailing versus driving them there. is q-iob really full-time? Responsibilities may include data anaqlysiqsqf newsletter. Growth of water qua4qlltyq-m6qay mean qt2qhq-atqt this job may grow. Recent request form DOE fqoqr a "volunteer" to take qbasq.q1c water samples from lakes indicates the kind o8qf growing responsibilities this person could take on. q@ q.Ln8qterview committee selected; 24qTo6qm Rotta, Malcolm McPhail, Dick Sheldon. Ill. Consulting contracts for the design of a monitoring program and the video. Page 2 21 Dec 1988 Discussion of qas'.King Arnold Shotweqll, Clyde Sayce 'Vance Liposvky, Dick Wilson, Dan Cheney, Doug Canning and others with sqimilar-exqnert1l.se to provqideinput on the design of a moniqtorIng2p904;3460;16;16q, plan.: They can guide us towards an engineering firm and critique p7an. The actual person hired for the moni-torin4qg a monitoring _ I needs the.background and credentials and should adapt 'to what.ev4q6qr sqituations a monitoring program addresses. .,FCAB experience in,-, 1 8q0 hiring of an engineering firm has been to select on expertise and qualificat'Lons rather than 0qDice. Discussion back to water quality tech. DO they have to know how L to run a-boat@7W people have requested an" 'interest in the W4qQ tech position, one from DSHS and the Other from DOqE. Some local. biologists may be interested. Discussion of Vi4q@eo contract. Video.of bay should take in cycle of the seasons qin theay. Long Beach video was done for about 10,000qOC. Coast Guard participated in that., Video may come in handy for future grants. DiscussiLon oqf -manipulative nature oqf Long Beach viLdeo [Its Future is Now), a Willqaqpqa Bay video should have more .1.n-Dqut from than what went into 0qLqB6qV. Purpose oqf video .is education, where we are at were we might be going. Maybe a ,video now, F..nothe-_,- -Ln five wears. ?:roectl towards future, show local indqusqtqfqes, shorelines, how they change, are changing, indiustries, backgrounds on towns, opening day of g-J-31netqtqing, crabbing, history, status, what it used to be, how it has changed. Comparison with east coast maybe for ':0 seconds (i.e. Chesapeake Bay). Suggestion to review videos of other areas "Co seqe what works, what doesn'. San Franc.'sco Bay, Chesapeake Bay. Should we start a library in Planning? --robqa8qbqly better to put this informaqt-ion in the public library, schoqo-7s "-ent in a video store, etc.-- Jim is going to contact DOE to find other v1deos, mich1 be able z qto qourchase through the grant. (DOE does not _.qave a video taqne library, however, q1 contacted the Washington State Fiqli-,i L*bra:-4qY, - , 'I. and a reference librarian is doing a seaq-rch for the type vaeo we talked about [email protected] Monitoring committee, Jq-q1q.7qa Neva, Carolyn qGq-7enn: Task qis to work q.qL with above named specialistq's 4qin projecting water quality monitoring needs and planning. ,TIMBER REPRESENTATIVE UPDATE: 0q;im q-8q1.s qstqiq-q14q1 qJq;.q-qi the process of contacting other potential members, point was made to that is important that the appointment be local and of an individual who is willing to invest themselves into the local planning process without operating as a go'between who is unable or unwilling to commit to decisions. Page 3 WBWQ 21 Dec 1988 SPARTINA SEMINAR UPDATE: jim reported on the Spartina seminar ..held on the 14qth.of December. Was well attended with ..representatives from shellfish, up-Land owneqi@s, -Departments of Ecology, Wildlife, Natural Resources, Agricultural, Fisheries, State Weed Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, State Parks, Port of Peninsula The Nature Conservancy and local biologists. Les Clark of t6qh'e Gilneqtters Association and Ernie Summer oqf the Crabbers Association couldn't come, but are interested and want to be keqnt informed of the meeting. The general outcome oqf the meeting was t8qhat since Spartqina cuts across many regulatory and environmental boundaries, qthe coordination of an resources and effort at addressing sqpartqina may be best addressed by the formation of a multi-agency 41-ask force made up of members from DOE, DOW, 6qWDqF, DN0qR, COE and Pacific County with D0qNR and Pacific County sharing lead agency responsibility. 0qjim is drafting a letter for the qBOC to send to qthe agency Department heads and CC to the section heads of qthe responsible divisions requesting that they appoint an ind-qJvILduaql from their department qto this task force, then tqh-e tack force w4LqII meet to immediately coordinate effort and address the specIlqf-qfc nature of the problems of Sqparqtina and the component aspects of q1--hat problem that can be addr2q;ssed effectively in an EqIS. An Evergreen State College student, Barb Aberqle, is extremely interested in working on qS8qpartiqnqa as part of her masters thesis, and will be working with D0qNR on analyzing aerial photographs to determine that actual. acreage change in Spartqina over a period between q1982 and 1q988. qThe resolution of those photographs is down to about 6 foot diameter patches, any lower estimate of patches will have to come by foot census (something more for our WQ tech to do7 Discuss-qion of S,)arqtqina, land bui.lqding, ownership oqf 'Land, control problems. Encroaching on native grasses. 6qUqD-laqnd owners. Habitat cqh-anges. Loss of 6qDungenesqf, crab habitat. Meeting attendance. [note: ;fmn, qis typing up a transcqiq-qpt of +C.ae Sqnartqina Seminar qto send out to the 2qoartic0qi28qp2qants6q] WILLAPA RIVER DATA: qDreqsented some data s2qp2qannq-qJng a period from q1977 q-q,qo 8q1986q8 from the Wilqla8qna Rq4verq. Data from DOE on the W8qil4qlapa River (Mar4qiq.,qne Stations are n2q;2qx6qt6q)q* is on floppy disks and is available in the Planning office. one station was Lebam, the other was the historic town of W2qil8qlapa. High co4qii-qLorm counts are evident in the Lebam area, ranging around 300q-400 coliform/6q100m4qi, while at 20qWiql8qlapa that counts drop to 100q-200 co4ql8qi/q14q06q0m8ql. Page 4 WBWQ 21 December 1988 .,Discussion on. Interpretation. How*diluti0qon may be occurring lower in the watershed. and thus lowering the' o2qu2q@qt and hoqw qc 4qLebqam is riqch-,...-Ln-theq:,thick'o-.r-1prms an8qd a2qn,jupstream'station @.might beetter2pat2q6d.towards.Francis.or higher in shed to define-the background counts.i-.q;_J*Lqm-aqlso mentioned thaqvit' ,is Possible to,petition the water-quality program to relocate stations.-,: Adding stations isexqnensive and more difficult qt o .negot*iaqte.@Onqeo2qf,the big problems with Wqi.q11apa Bay is thatthe' historic loc,q@tqi"on` of FORE statIons qis primarily in -the WiqlqIap`a:.'. River'2qand Wqillapa-Harbor qareas.the area from Leadbetter Point,.' Bay Cente.rsouth is virtually absent of,good ambient water'., quality data. -...Committee commented that they would like more specific analysis related to tidal height, seasoqn,'runoff ,(Rainfall qor'st-ream cfs) and the parameters thatwere measured'..,. Discussion of compqlqicated*nature oqf separating human and agricultural sources of coliform. WDF Forks Creek Hatchery has kept rainfall data. Monitoring in.the watersheds. REVIEW OF HOOD CANAL PLAN: Discussion of Hood'qCanaql Plan, over-8qy sqtated,-diluted effort because of t-he number,of different bottom line wasn't upheld.' Discussion ol entities involved, recreation potential of bay, bay offers some recreation potential, but not n the traditional boating sense, say oqf Chinook or 11qwaco. jeqanne and Larry noted increased interes-c -in' ToqXeqland and I0qN-ahcotta 'For recreation moorage fo- s2qp.-t fishing. Dick S. mentioned that still a single draw to the bay mouth and .limited to that a:@ea.,, Other kinds oqf receatqIon potential still exist, kayqakin4qg, canoeing, construction of observation- towers at strategic areas. Bay-.4s considered to be Inaccessible to the average boater due to q1--he difficulty of navigation in -the extremely reqtrted natural channels and q"dqa-11 exchange. Bay may have 0qoqlne recreation qnotentqial, but orobably only at specific areas wiqthn the bay, not in the entire area. Discussion oqf how the 2qWB2qW4qQqOC should fit- into "Zhe regulatory Lramework of planning -qIn'the bay. Group sAicu-qId be notified or kept abreast of developing -issues. Group should comment on future plans brought in from outside. comments on use of the bay and boats, intercepting boaters and informing them of sensitive areas, clam beds, oyster beds, areas of wqJqI4qld4ql_4qJq-f4qeq,4qIarva setting ares, etc. [need a recreation map of the bay showing all L available boat launching facilities, public access, etc.] No enforcement-in bay,.comments on success of regulation in areas oil recreational interest where bulk oqf fishing effort will be. Tokeland common qfor car-top boats and a crabqpotq..q'q' Page 5 WBWQ 21 December 1988 jqim N. commented that committee appointments are what we are here for, group responded in the affirmative, the following committees and their resqnonsible co-chairs were outlined. To put this into perspective, as Malcolm stated, this is the long haul on water quality planning. Those committee chairs are committed to becoming as expert as they can in their areas and will in the future be reporting back to the main body for critique and discussion oqf their policy suggestions. In one perspective, though it sounds like the fox guarding the sheep, if those industries and resource users commit to a policy that they are integral in forming then the execution of that' policy is much more likely and the outcome more positive than having an outside group stuff it down their throats. Committees can save they group time. 0qThe outline that we come up with must be -4mplemenqtqable. The drafts and outlines that the committees come up with will lqbe presented uqlt-4q1maqtely to jim to draft an initial section but those drafts must have substance to form any worIzqable policy, not express a goal or an idea of a goal, but have act.on steqns. Discussion of non-qnoqint @ooqlqlutqion Comment, does the group have -the involvement that it needs, especially from the various represeqnt-atqives from other organizations, need their recogn-Jq"t-qion and respect- to hqa.qve effective outcome. More people need to be ? but they need a stake, a source oqf pollution, an economy? 4qT'.ney have to be eq%cited out a;-,out their potent_-aql iqnqqquact, reduct--J.on of impact? Do you want people who don't have a stake in poqlqlaqtion? The driving aspect of qtq1le --O-,Ce is that there w-1q1_7 be monitoring, there will be acts olaqn0qa out and people will have to change and recognize how their chqlan8qge is qnoqsitqively aqffqectqfng the bay. There is a subtle threat there, but they are in a pqoqs4qitionto negotiate their o2qwn. 8qSq-,q)eciq'qLq-q-'qLc information needed, 96q@ut do all aspects of 2qnollutioqr. need to be measured before any action can be taken? MONITORING DESIGN COMMITTEE: monitoring committee, 20qj4qim Neva, Carolyn Glenn: Task _qJs to work with above named specialists in projecting water quality monitoring needs and planning. Page 6 WBWQ 21 December qi988 @:-0qWATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN INTERVIEW COMMITTEE: Interview ;-committee, Committee job descriqotion;-to assist jim in :,drafting a qjob description for.the water quaq2ity -technqic-;*.an qit 8qpqos tqion and narrow canddate selection to qa.short list, those indviduals will-then,.interview in front of-the 2qW6q36qWQ, the-committee will-,.then make,.their.recommendation to the Dqic* Board of,Ccunty Commissoners: q717om..Rotqta, I-, Sheldon, Malcolm Mc0qPhaqi 1 WILLAPA BAYVIDEOTAPE: 4,eview educational aspects of other 8qYideos and out-Line ideas and format for a request for Proposal from fqiq2m-contractors. Rebecca'Chaffee and Carolyn Glenn. INTERGOVERNMENTAL: Yet to be fiqlq2qed AGRICULTURAL: Dave Habersetzer an d Ma_Lo_Lqm McPhail pHERIES/AQUACULTU4qRE: Tom Rotta and 4qD-qIc8qk, She_-don POINT/NONPOINT: ;arry Hendrickson and jeanne Gammeql LAND USE: 0qjim Neva and Dick Hendrickson PUBLIC EDUCATION: Public education/Video committee, Rebecca Chaffee, Carolyn Glenn Task: Review videos, write request- for qoroposaql for video contract. Rebecca Chaffee and Carolyn Glenn FORESTPRACTICES: yet to be f2-'.Ied OTHER NEWS DSHS and DOE Personneqd offices are sending copJqLeqs of their job descriptions -qfor water quality technicians, environmental field. q_qLnvestiga2qtors and tqlhq@e 'Like. When q1 get those 6q1 will draft a Job deqscri8qntqion and send coqo8qies to interview committee. Talked with Judith Freeman, Assistant Director oq-q@ t he Sheq-q78q1fq-0qish Division; Department of Fisheries q4q.h a" "fisheries e county needs an intergovernmental letter of understanding concerningq'th.e use of Fisheries facilities, specifically boat time and office space at Nahcotta. She commented that there should be,no problem obtaining that and that Fisheries could write the draft o6qDerat8qi2qng agreement. Page 7 WWQ 2q1 Deceqmbe-r q!q9q88 Talked with Dennis Tufts at 6qWDF Nahcotqta Lab about facilities that can be offered. Talked with janet Connally of the 6qWash;qngton State Film Libra-_,-.-7 at The Evergreen State College. She is referencing films wJth key words such as estuary, water quality, coastal, bay, _7ake, ocean, etc. to locate any films of a water quallLqty/ecoqlogy s4qv.,rqle for the W0qBWQOC to pre,,;,iew. It maybe that a Iciqlm or f4q:qms m44qgh-, be shown a-, the beginning of next meeting, or the next, to give the committee an idea of what mfghqt work, not work -;n the conte-'t of 0qWiqlqlaqpa Bay. Think about appropriate projects qfo -he next round of Centenn4La@ Grants. In taql",zqin8qg qwi-'_ Tq-j t2.:@ qQ-a1+,y 6q7.4nqancial Assistance, learned that the next round opens for a 4-6 week period qin th-e middle of April. Some 4deas are- qlncqlqusq1on of qSqnarqtina as an asqnect of a grant, or its own separate grant. Spec-q1.qfc education- @)roqurqams -for the local schoo"@ di'stri-,s emphasiz-1.n4qg. water resources. qConqtIfn-,qaqtion off "carze-azl nrog-rams, xpanson into sy)ec_t_-`c areas, ssqay baciz8qground colqiforqm count-s from remote areas ot_ t4qhe 4qN_'J._1apa dent qi Eyi ng a nd q-aqnt 58qy rq-@. A s p e c i f i c p r o grza ir, ae qd a t I f, loating debris entering Will"Lapa Bay. Measurements of -q1-le -oroduc-qiviqt,. q(qnrima@'v or oqdut qfqv 4L t8qy ) oL* s@,e`fqic areas off qt2,e Bay, J.e. crab areas, I oyster areas. waqtr-Eoqwl areas, clam areas, e-@. PRELIMINARY AGENDA FOR WqIqL1JAPA BAY WATER Q1q7ALqIq-Y ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 1q8 JANUARY, 1989 COURTHOUSF, PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE, SOUTH BEND, WA 7:00-9:00 PM. qinroductJqn of Dick Sande, recent"' q17 elected 6qPqaci8qfIqc 2qCqO_qLq74Zq-qJ+-q,7 6q3q-nqaq-q,V4qCq, of qcoqiq-qntqy Commissioners. ev 4qi qe0qw o f dqescrqipt4qiqcn for 00qW8qO tech. III . -q?evq-q-"ew qoJqIq: sqiqiq-pqnort q'@q-ahcot8qta. IV. Review of more indqepth AnqaqLysis of 12qWi_q,I8qapa River data. 7q1 q.q2 7 M V. 0qVq.q@deo u2qndate 4q([email protected] the 12qWA -qLq- q;2qLqfbrar2qv can send one by meeting time q,q.q4L- 8qwq-q:lq.q-q, prqeqvqfq'q.ew qiqt. 6qG0q;tqtq_qiq,-g theqiqn on cassette foqr2qMat as su28qgqg q.q!q.qL I geqsted may be 0qd"ficu8qlt. County of Pacific Department of Planning 0. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 tau South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee, 26 January 1989: Summary Minutes. Present: Dave Habersetzer, Carolyn Glenn, jeanne Gammell, Rebecca Chaffee, Malcolm McPhail, Tom Rotta, Dick Sheldon, Greg Gelenze, Dick Sande , Dave Nesbitt. Meeting called to order by Co-Chair Carolyn Glenn at 7:05 qDqn.. qi. Dick Sande: Carolyn introduced Dick Sande, recently elected to outgoing commissioner Crossman's seat in District 2. Commissioner Sande mentioned that we are very fortunate to have what we have here and that he felt" it very qiqmqDortlanqt to maintain the qauaql*ty as much as we can and -41c we can, improve iqt. As we all know, one of the very last estuaries in the United State or the world ---hat has this aua'L-4-8qy of water available to qi. He offered to do everything he possibly can to see that it is maintained. 1q1. job Descri0qotion: Tom- "let see if we can get any applicants, it may be to tough," Dave -read the description for all. jim remarked that the description was a composite from sources DSHS and DOE. -om a7so 8qpo-n+ea out 41--hat for the kind of money we can offer we are asking a qloqt. Dick read the that will be sent ouqt. 0qM-a-7co1ri J mentioned that qi didn't say anything about being an equal opportunity employer. Discussion of labor market. Tom felt that it is tough to hire good people right now. Dave Nesbitt mentioned that Ken Chew at the U of W might be a gooa qorson to talk qto. No idea yet of when *egqislaqture will aqDqD--r-oDriate -funds. Rebecca suggested that we go ahead and advertise the zob. SqDeed uqD the qorocess. jeanne noticed J tha 4 qe the appqlqIcaqt4qion is heavily loaded -Iowaq.q-ds background with no hands on experqJence. 16qWho is going qto -each them? I I (Highly motivated p q'q: anners of course!), tough to get an entry level person with ex2qDer4qience. WD20qF support 16qNahco8qtta: Job descqri8qD2qtion doesnq't mention boat o6qDerat8qion. Word from county qis that as q'qong as the water I I I quality, field investigator qis not running the boat, they are covered under current insurance, bu2qt if they are an 2qoqDerator, insurance goes up considerably. Thq-qis has to be worked out in the o2qDerating Page 2 WBWQ 6qjanuary Minutes agreement between -he county and -,he Fisheries Department. Dave Nesbitt was interested in now much new ground or old ground would the investigator cover? Stations? Wa8qypoiqnts, etc. Deqnendent on -he monitoring scheme designed for us, firm. jim noted that Dennis was Jnterested by a consul I in picking up some of the old stations that have been droqDqDed. investigator will also be coordinating other station sites used Dy DSHS, and others. Further discussion on monqi"Corqing, qfqitt-qing _JLt aqlql together. Malcolm moved, jeanne seconded, unanimous to send ouqt job description. 7.ab has desk space, telephone, fax machine, copy machine, some water sampling equipment (needs inventory) to offer. Boat is on order and qlab also has brand new engine -for it. Having a fisheries personnel run the boat may be an advan-11-aqae in that they would be responsible -for damage, no-, the county. discussion of memorandum 0 understanding. Discussion of- consultant, type oqf monitoring system. Decision to cont--act DOE and consulting I&Lrms to qDu-sue the An design oqf a Iong term baywqide moniqto-1-qing system, D scuss-non oqf funding. IV. qE'lubqlqic education, v_JqIdeos: Caoqlvn found some contacts for videos and films ava-qL-7a0qbqle at qlqow cost from the Aq:.7iance for Chesa,oeake 0qBav. J8q%m _-@qocated Educational Media Services a-, the U oqf qW, they have about twenty "Cqities of films about estuaries, rivers, etc. Avaqila4qb'Le either qto be checked out or viewed uqo there. Group could go uqD f-om here and for free -review all of these, having them down here will cost more money. 1.4eanne suggested that 74iqm contact q:nqte_-q:_fbrary loan to see if we can get them for free. Mark volunteered himself and 0qjim for a I.-qIel4qd tr.-LqD in the sqnr-nqg with local school c-basses with eqmr)-as_-'s on water -resource Discussion of int-erqvretqive programs. Discussion of video, _length and coo.-dinaqtion with conservation dqistr@Lcqt. Recent TV 5q1q:,n on Chesapeake Bay, Malcolm thinks we should as develop our own library. Caqroql0qvn can borrow the ones from the A7_1 q11q_q-ance, we can copy and buqLqld our own qIqlDrqary. Rebecca noted 8qthq.at Pat 3o4qves can nut a blurb on the radio when ever we want, some comment on Wi8qlla2qna Water Qualql4qI8qty. Ma4qlco-qim suqggesqled an q_qAq.ntervqiew, no-, canned 'program. V. Video from the Dairy Federation oqf Washington. Page 3 WBWQ January Minutes VIL. Wqillapa River Data:Br.-"Le'L review oqf coqliform data and water flow data from last ten years. Grqaoh oqf co-11form concentration and volume demonstrate that during the winter months, from November to AqDrqiql, the large volume fresh water in the Wqiqlqlaoa has a lower concentration of coqlqiforqm qtqh-aqn qfn the low volume qDerqiod from aqDrqil through october. A _ -qU+.. combination oqf Qi-L tion and perhaps unknown seasonai contribution related to animal husbandry result 'an this negative relationship,. Dave mentioned that the qlocaqt-Jon of the sampling station at Lebam may be influenced by residential seqDtic systems installed close to the river there. Previous DOE reqoorqts seqnarate the co"1ppr- qDrobqleqm WqI-7 on the L-apa qto ag upstream and human down stream. Greg suggested that we may want qto locate a sampling station above -he town of Lebam or Francis. 0qV-r. 1974 Water Quality Management Plan. Jam passed out the summarv section oqf the 74 6qWqQM6q? for committee rev@Jew oqf those section s ""hat they have previously been assigned. The source document -for 4_.. +. Z. thfs reqpor, as auqite extensive. Sheldon is currently going through iqt, and 6qjqim is locating _ other coqnqies so that o4l-.--er comm-;.tee members can reqvqJew it. The primary purpose of the WBWQOC is to draft a undaqzed/qnew water uqaqlit8qy management plan. In revfewing a-71 they qDrevqious documentation, he 74 WOM6qP was -he most comqDrenenslve, but aiso needs to be undated. It -qLs timely for -he committee to uqndate. and a good source document -er/sufacewater qnrograi for DOE. 0qjim reported oqn VqII. Groundwaqt meeting with US Geological Survey on inqtegra-11--fng a groundwater study on the beach with qthe current surface water management qDrogrqam. Proposal to 6qUSGS and DOE is to spend a year gathering basic groundwater eq:evatqiona-7 data and water auaqlqity data., then form a groundwater management J t commL tee a vear later to use that nforqmaqtlon as qt-hqe basis .or drafting a groundwazer management plan and fuzque groundwater work. 16qVq-q'q-rq-qr. 8qvar4ne Resource Center: 16qj-m wq-4ql' keen qtq'q-qnq-e committee undated on the local interest -In the county 2qto form a regional resource center with an eqmp has4qis on q-1q-he CoIumbq-*qLa/16qWqJqL-q78ql8qapa/coastaI marjne envqIronmenqt. 2q-'_u4qtq'.q-q_er note on this, Iq've S4 nce attened one more meeqzqJng wq-8qth Fq.D4qCq_q'q., 0qjim Wallis, Steve Harbe8qll, 20qAr2qt Yoshioka, and 3ob Peterson. The outcome of q-hqis one was a workshop meeting with state, federal, resource people already working in the county, and assessing their -future needs for facilities, etc. Date for this 4qis sometime in midsum2qmeqrq-Ji6qmq.0q1 Page 4 WBWQ January Minutes VIX. Corns Proposal for Dredging qin Bay Center. q@_-,qm qnassed oquqt the Corns notice of qoroqoosaql for dredging at Bay Center and disposal aqt Goose Point. Discussion of dredging in Nahcotta, sampling for contaminants. -Jeanne mentioned t4qh-at one of DOE's qDriqme concerns at Nahco-11"qta was qthe quality oqf return water from the uqnqland disqDosal site to Wqiqllaqaa Bay, and that similar concern should exist qfor Bay Center with water dqisqDosal. Bay Center last dredged in 198q4. Mark noted that _= -'Che Cor"os has received a county shoreline qoermit be-fore, and if they return, you can issue an exemqDtion as a normal maintenance activity iqf dqisqnosaql was in water. An upland disqDosaql site would require a shoreline Jt. Corps can be requested -o hold a public hearing permL - W_ u - - regarding this qDroqDosai.. Dave Nesbitt wondered how much -ed that the 0qPaql-x and they dredged in q19q84. Dave a so not _L Niawakum are very turbid, and that the Goose Point Dumping site never made much sense in that the sqnoqils cou--d reenter U - of the continued use he r3ve-. Dave felt that the subject q0.1. the Goose Point Disposal site was still uqn qin the air and I 'd b hat a hearing woul e in order. Dick movea and Jeanne seconded that the WBWQqOC request a hearing, D--ck, Tioqm, 0qjeanne, Carolyn -aftlfqirmat-qi-%re, Dave, Malcolm, Rebecca, abstain. Motion carried. .q7im noted that -he last 6qE-qI'S was in 1976 and that it might be timely to reconsider dredge a-isqposal in the baqV. Dave Nesbit felt that sediment "shake uqD" was a real conq;ideraqtqfon, and thatdisqnosaql aqt Goose Point may not- remove the sediment from the immed-zaqte area, allowing it to return on the flood qto the 6qPqaIx area. DqiSCUSS4 on oqf@ Bay Center water qual VX. Raymond sludge management qDIaqn. Rebecca commented on Raymond's proposal to dispose of treatment plant sqIudge at a forest site on City property a-, the oAd Butte Creeq@< reservoir area. Rebecca noted that qtq1zeqv to not- have a hiqa-- nitrate concentration. Dqisqvosaql would be at 6-7 -,rea-- _A.nterval, sprayed on c-ity owned forest -Land. Jim commenzed that he and Bqrvan Harrison had looked at the site. Bqr28qyanqis concern zs q-q1q-he status of qt20qhe watershed at Butte Creek, 1- q- 'he reserq-q,,qroq4r had been abandoned qfoqr Rebecca noted "-at U qUears. qj6qim mentioned that if- they area was a watershed or future proposed watershed growth area, q-he d4qis8qDosa4ql could 'he other concern is that in one comq,oromqiqse.the future use. q_q@ -ion of heavy metaq@s may be such application, the concentqrat U q- that a second application wouqid not be allowed. Discussion on other areas below that draw domestic water from Butte Creek. Discussion on stqreamq-qLqLow. Sq-Io8qDe is 6q15%, elevation is about 600 ft. Discussion of spraying, terrain at site. Page 5 WBWQ january Minutes VX1. New membershiD: Tom moved, Malcoim seconded that the committee recommended to the BOCC that Dave Nesbit be aDDointed. Motion carried unanimously. Board has suggestion for member from timber community. Russ Davis and Chuck Hoskinson were recommended. jim aDnea1ed to WBWQOC to go to meeting at three week intervals for a time to get water quality draft going. Next meeting at beach 16 February at 6:00 pm. Dave closed the meeting on an upbeat note regarding the potentfal for Willapa Bay to remain as a pristine resource and that the committee has a chance a-, breaking some new ground in water qua-Lity management here. Meeting adjourned at 9:20. MEETING OF WBWQOC, 16 FEBRUARY AT 6:00 PM AT SOUTH COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING IN LONG BEACH. PRELIMINARY AGENDA: I. REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: A. MONITORING B. VIDEO C. REVENUE SOURCE II. DISCUSSION OF 1974 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Ill. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF CORPS DREDGE PROPOSAL IV. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF RAYMOND SLUDGE DISPOSAL oo SH County of Pacific Department of Planning P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 cou South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 NEXT MEETING OF WBWQOC: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1989 AT 6:00 PM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM,COURTHOUSE, SOUTH BEND. Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee Summary Minutes 16 February 1989 South County Services Building, Long Beach WA. Committee Members Present: Dave Habersetzer, Jim Neva, Carolyn Glenn, Dave Nisbet, Larry Hendrickson, Tom Rotta, Jeanne Gammell, Dick Sheldon. Staff: Greg Gelenzye, Jim Sayce, Mark Carey. Guests: Hiram Arden, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Public: Dean Meek, South Bend. 1. Jim Neva opened the meeting at approximately 6:00 pm. Introductions were made all around. II. Jim S. presented regular business. 1. A letter of interest for a water quality video, draft passed out to the committee for comment. Would be announced in Journal of Commerce May be able to add money from conservation district to increase budget of video. Jim commented on solicitation process to determine high quality product at low cost. Discussion of Long Beach film from DOE and their process, somewhat different. LB video is planned for showing before group. 2. Comment of other contracts for monitoring and revenue, amounts are small, may not get serious consideration on proposal, suggestion is to go to DOE directly or with a particular individual for a special proposal. Amount of money just not enough to warrant regular soaicitation process. Jeanne--At U of W IMS [Instructional Media Services] grant is putting to together a dog and pony show for the waterfront, wants to do "entire" Willapa Bay, suggest we contact them. Travelling show will be touring the state. Discussion of their focus, etc. Discussion of forms 454 455,listing qualifications of consultants personnel, experience, history of performance. Jim S.--FCAB is also letting a contract for consultant help for revenue determination, they contacted us for including our needs into a part of their package, may be able to get a better product as they are already signing a contract with WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 2. the county, we may be able to tag on, have to talk to our Project Officer to answer these questions. Revenue searches are their specialty. Larry H.--Question on legality of a contract like this, can we bid? Jim S.--No, law forbids bidding, must negotiate quality first, price second, this is done through solicitation of interested consultants who presumably know the scope of work, they are interviewed, best chosen then you talk money. 3. G3WMA- Jim S. Is drafting a letter to DOE for I.D. of Peninsula as a groundwater management area, meeting scheduled in Olympia, to set ground, surface, quality on same foot, coordinate these projects. .C 4. Marine Resource/interpretive center, need volunteers lor this project. Original suggestions were for a center in SW Washington like Hatfield Cenll-er in Newport Ore., that may be unrealistiv given lack of federal money for 'Large pork barrel projects. DOE has suggested that we go to Padilla Bay, take all of you up. Wouldn't be to difficult to take uD a couDle of volunteers, Center is a small 400,000 dollar center at Burlington. Padilla is primarily an education "facility. Hatfield serves that purpose as well as O.S.U, state, federal agencies. Vo-Lunteers are Carolyn, Jeanne, Tom R. (if time) Dave H. 60,000 students go through the Padi'Lla a year. 5. Official notice that we can negotiate our grant and we do have it. Meeting with Fisheries to talk MOU's meetings are being arranged for these negotiations,. Larry H.-- reminded staff to send.handouts to absentee members. Mark noted that DOE shorelands will be our project administra tion, already have worked with some of the people in that shop. Jeanne G.---Do they only pay on vouchers? Not sure.. Total water quality budget is running at 165,000.00, Pacific County pays about 11% of that in hard cash. Monthly newsletter will be going out, looking for ideas, contacts, regular things, temperature data etc, mailing list, public notice request for post card with address to be out on mailing list, mailing lists, for farmers, civic groups, etc. 600 monthly circulation'may be to small. Jim N.--discussion of newsletter, distribution, etc. 6. Dave Nesbitt, officially appointed to Committee, Commissioners requested two more to be appointed, one a recreational fisherman, i.e. a steelheader from Naselle, Paul Palilo was suggested as a contact, Russ Davis from WEYCO has been appointed. Someone should also be appointed who represents commercial construction, development. Jim N.--Alwavs serving on committees is a problem, input from same people ali committees WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 3. turn out the same, influence is really being packed, get a new somebody who hasn't served on other committees.-Discussion of possible areas to investigate. Naselle is a blank on the map. Look to Peninsula for a developer. Denny Oman suggested. Total committee would be 14 people. 111. 1974 WQMP Discussion, on what stays in what comes out. When county gets new word processor, will put on disk. Can to go background document and edit it also. That is supporting % document for summary. Will loan other copies out. Other copies floating around, will collect them and pass them out. Hoping for general comments, Guts of summary are (on pages] 11-33, suggestions on how to fix identified problem, with recommendations. Discussion of adoption of WQ plans. Shotwells study, 1977 Willapa Estuary, Background Studies for a management plan, . Updates of other documents. Dick S.--commented on how much he learned from reading the 77 Willapa Estuary. Discussion of 1974 WQMP, who has read IT? Dick S.--update whole thing, inany things already taken care of, some not, some don't exist, a good place to start, real help to use that format, needs work, stream practices change, Jeanne--ask Arnold to uodate?, Jim N.--that is why we are here. Jim S.--presented Henderson Inlet PLan as a model for what we are aiming for. Discussion of Henderson Inlet. Copies are available for some things. Jim N.--It appears that we are not prepared to make comments, agree to our responsibility to do it, whil@ Arnold could do it, the commissioner's appointed us to fill that responsibity. Discussion on format, progress for .4 updating a sections of the Dlan. Discussion on having small groups concentrate. Read summary as a member of that committee, comment were your expertise is greatest. Mark C.--Can"t commit to policy until problems identified. Jim S.--put major discussion of 1974 WQMP on agenda next time. Jim N.--Look at the 1974 with our committee assignments in mind. Greg G.--how to get committees together? jim N.--Committees set their own agendas. Carolyn G.--Is it agreeable for us to branch out? Committee answered in the affirmative. 1. Carolyn G.--On gathering videos, educational material, on estuaries, etc. Wants to involve more people. Has acquired three, two from Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Department of Forestry, State of Virginia, one from for Pug@t Sound Bank and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, still hard to locate those from Puget Sound, hard to locate. May show at some at next meeting, one per meeting, may pass th em out to take home or we can preview some. Perhaps copy to rev.1ew? Hand out a questionnaire to comment on them. Puget Sound has sent their printed material, Chesapeake material really outstanding, surpasses Puget Sound material, i.e. Bay Book. Discussion of 4 WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 4. material available, their educational programs, etc. Jim S.--any ind'ications of stabilizing their Chesapeake Bay situation? Carolyn, making serious educational effort to educate general pub*lic, citizens monitoring, etc. Carolyn remarks again on the general tone to material available form Chesapeake surpasses Puget sounds effort, comment on "The Year of the Sound, 1990", we might be able to capitalise on that, Discussion of sunset clause ending PSWQA. IV. Bay Center Dredge Proposal: Special Guest, Hiram Arden COE. Jim S. A draft of a proposed letter requesting a public hearing on the Bay Center dredge proposal was passed out, Hiram had received a draft copy by fax earlier. Jim S.-DNR shorelines permit (good for 5 years) for the use of the Goose Point dump site expires on the 19th of june, a single extension of one year for that permit can be granted administratively. 'This is a separate issue from the Corps' act of dredging. After the 19th of June 1990 the DNR will need a new shoreline permit. Hiram- Crops has authorized projects from the river channel all the way up to Raymond, discontinued dredging in 76 for deep draft log ships as need was not there. Shallow draft vessels traffic (fishing and shellfish) are currently what the COE is providing for now. Described COE procedure of going to a public notice, receiving comment, incorporated into a decision document, then do an environmental assessment. We weren't aware of the orocess? Process by where COE and DNR work to designate disposal sites has been in effect in Puget Sound for a "couple of years". Consequence of this procedure is sediment testing to weigh suitability of disposal. Comments on points in draft letter (Appendix A). 1. Goose Point site not addressed in 76 EIS, True. Since t--hen, an environmental assessment has been done in more depth. prior to the designation in 1979, a drogue study done for current velocities and review of existing documents on sedimentation in Willaoa Harbor estuaries. U of W concluded the Goose Point is a dispersal site based on current velocities, strongest current are on ebb. Bathvmetric information indicates it is scour area or naturally deep area. Evaluation treated at some length in an assessment distributed in 1984 (left some for review). For. current disposal, sediments sample and analyzed by Puget Sound dredged disposal criteria, more rigorous [Hiram sent WBWQOC a copy of the Puget SOund Dredge Disposal Analysis,-very indepth, 5 volumes, available for committee members perusal-Jim]. 64 chemicals analyzed by Batelle Northwest, core samples, orime concern at docks. None of 64 met minimum, screening levels as established for Puget Sound, confirms "clean nature of material" and thus by EPA and DOE criteria, is suitable for open water WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 5. disposal., Results of test left with committee. Dave N.-- Question? Where sediment samples taken from basin all the way out to Number 2?, at the head of the channel? Hiram-In marina proper, expect highest risk there for contaminants, three core samples taken in marina, next three at daymark piling, three more at angel where you go around to goose point. Sediments range from fine at marina to coarse farther out. Dave N.--How much moving? Hiram, about 35000 yds, compared with 54000 yard previous in 1984. Longer waiting periods results in greater volumes. Environmental window is narrow, fisheries criteria starts 15th of June, dissolved oxygen drops seasonally, if WQ deteriorates to prescribed levels, dredging can be halted. Coordinated with Oyster growers to reduce impact to intake water for oyster larvae tanks. Communication of these needs to dredge people alleviated potential problems in 1984 Now, is a lesser volume, starting earlier in season and expect to complete before water quality problems surface. Dave N--Will you post the approximate date of when you start.? Hiram--Yes, start after 16th of June, at least by the end of the month, before not completed till 18th of September. Dave N.-- Are you coordinating with Harbor BelL?, 900 foot strip. Hiram--In 1977 they wanted to dredge on from the federal channel in, wanted to access their facility, did not have COR permit. Discussion of coordination with Harbor Bell. At this point, Dick S. showed Hiram an oyster taken from the Nahcotta dock. This ouster is described as "chambered". The "chambering" is associated with a material known as TBTF or Tributyl tin flouride, a material present in hull paints. Concern is the transport of this material to other areas. Frequently found in Nahcotta Basin. Hiram- Justine Smith, from the COE is familiar with this material and can comment on its appearance in Puget Sound. Discussion of TBTF. Sediments from Bay Center were not analyzed for TBTF. Discussion of TBTF in Nahcotta, stocks of paint purchased before it was Dulled from market. Discussion of life of material in water. Dick S.-- if it Should be investigated I.L can be transoorted. Appearance in Nahcotta may be unique to that area's low current velocities. Comments on Canada, Newport Ore. Hiram--Boat paining repair done there? Dave N.--Not really. Local shops no longer carry it, Jeanne confirms. Hiram--Bay Center last dredged in 1964, given the 64 chemicals already test, reassuring that none of those were above minimum screening levels. If there were, would indicate higher risk.. Will talk with Justine and discuss matter with her. Have analyzed a number of areas around Puget Sound for TBTF. Dick S.--Are we trying to avoid a hearing here or what? Larry H.--As far as the Port of Willapa Harbor is concerned, Yes. Discussion of hearings, purpose, cost, outcome, New era of water WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 6. quality, public should have opportunity to respond Hiram-- A lot of areas questioned, list of materials that-were requested for analysis was 13, actual number tested for was 64. Jim S.-- That list was based on information that we had from 1976 EIS. Hiram--It is considered a dispersal site, other water quality information indicated no problem or measurable turbidity from background. Site could be.surveyed to answer dispersal question... small quantity of materials would make it difficulty to detect changes at Goose Point. Dave N.--Scouring of site 00 would *indicate it would not stay there. Hiram--material probably transported out of site. Jim S.--cumulative dumping at site over last 25 years, is over 400,000 cubic yards The problem is answering the long term question of disposal, what is the impact of long term disposal? Hiram--What would you monitor for? Discussion screening levels, cumulative dumping raising threshold values. Jim S.-- If any chemical concentrations below the screening level, that is not justification for going out and measuring it at a disposal site (in Puget Sound). Hiram--Yes. Jeanne--Another problem, shoaling, material does not go to sea. Tom R.--Are there other sites? Hiram--Hydraulic dredging in wetlands in 1973, not longer feasible, open water disposal for this quality of material is preferred as opposed to upland disposal. Jim S.--Other site is at Tokeland. Hiram--Across the harbor, has been used before, significantly more costly due to transport, timing. Discussion of cost. Dick S.--How close to oyster sites? Hiram--Bennet's are closest. Dave N.--Within a 1/2 mile. Discussion of Tokeland Site. Hiram--Tokeland is a good site. Dumping at a scouring hole is presumed to-fall to bottom, move along bottom and eventually out. Jim S.-One of the conditions which was removed from the DNR shoreline permit was that disposal be made on the ebb. Discussion of Tokeland Site. Jim N.-- Question? Did COE monitor for TBTF? Discussion of TBTF in Nahcotta. Dick S.--Is TBTF in Bay Center?, Gillnet fleet operates heavily out of there, virtually all metal and fiberglass boats use that bottom paint. Discussion of TBTF moving out of basin. Hiram--I will check and confirm weather TBTF was monitored. Option would be to discharge at an upland site. Jim S.--or oDen water disposal that would insure transport out of bay. Discussion of open water disnosal. Hiram--We would propose to do an environmental assessment' but not a full blown EIS. jim S.--As old as the 1976 EIS is, that is not reason for a new one? Hiram--No, as far as the COE is concerned, the 1976 EIS addresses what the federal project is, the environmental assessments are state of the art and take into account sediment chemistry and analysis, and we still have to go before the scrutiny of the EPA and DOE. They suggested use of Puget Dredge Disposal Analysis criteria, technically does not apply to Willapa Bay, which are more stringent, and we did. That was at considerable exa.ense WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 7. when compared to previous testing. Larry H.--What did you spend on testing? Hiram--8,000.00 for sediment testing in marina, a few years ago about a thousand. Tom R--Cost of this dredging? Hiram-excess of 200,000.00. Tom R.--Cost to take spoils to Cape Shoalwater? Hiram--Would have to run that out in terms of time factor. In 1977 some spoils were taken there, added cost as a result of increased towing time. Discussion of cost of dredging in Palix, inner basin, project is both dredged. Dick S.--TBTF was at Nahcotta, could be in Bay Center, and highest concentration would be in inner marina, and that-you wouldn't have to pack all of the stuff out [cape shoalwater]. Discussion of risk, removing a portion of material. Jim N.--Can't see going to extra expense if [TBTF] is not there. Hiram--What about the oyster in that area? Discussion of oyster there and do they show chambering? Mark C.--When will your environmental assessment be done? Hiram--Includes preliminary chemistry from Batelle. Draft done early next week. Jim S.--Previous question left unanswered, technically, as of the last meeting, this group asked to have a hearing. The closing date for requesting that hearing is soon, yet the information needed to make judgement on the need for a hearing, the environmental assessment, is not yet available. Hiram--Not automatic to have a hearing, pending nature of comments, if we can address them, then we can avert having a hearing. A hearing is a delay, takes time and costs money, now we are going to be stressed just to meet current timetable. Increases risk of not finishing job before the environmental window closes. Moving material to Cape Shoalwater site will slow down production. Tom R.--Fisheries comments? Hiram--Haven't responded yet, will have conditions on their HPA permit. Dave H.--Cost of a sediment analysis and time it takes? Hiram-- Depends on archive samples. Jim S.--This kind of thing can kill a commercial oyster industry and the worst case scenario is that you go along and discover these effectors, whether or not that has been properly addressed in this particular analysis is up in the air. Dick has observed the situation in Nahcotta, we nave no strict correlations. Jeanne G.--Those exist for the Mediterranean, Canada, Great Britain. Discussion of situation in water column, reduction of risk. Jim N.--I see a valid concern for safeguard against chambering and other things too, I don't see the correlation between that and a public hearing we have the expertise available to answer these-questions one on one.. Discussion of nature of public hearings. Dave N.--We are all for the dredging, we have to have it, we would hate to see a delay, or not get it done. Hiram--This work -was scheduled a year from now, moved up a year as an opportunity. Seasonal nature of WQ is a problem, felt that it was a lesser quantity. You are talking of mitigating impacts, look at history of Bay Center Dredging, more was dredged in harbor, routinely hopper dredges on bar, seas WBW'Q 2/16/89 Page 8. rough, they move to outer Bay Center channel. we aren't dredging bar, or outer Bay Center channel. In 1977, people claimed dredging outer channel was beneficial, when dredged, it stayed open, based on our experience, it didn't stay open, shoaled right in. Marina shoals in, access channel shoaas in. However, volumes [as compared with previous years] are much reduced, can be considered a mitigation. Jim S. Any modification to reduce dredging more? Hiram--Creosote and physical structures have Impacts on fisheries, no authority to do that, not a realistic possibility. Dave N.--One of the reasons for calling this meeting is the flow of information, we didn't know what wa going on, we pump water for larvae. Hiram--We have worked with local growers, previously, concerns did not manifest in 1984 has we thought, Leonard Bennett monitored situation then. Dave N.-- Timing is important, I've a bed next to dredging area, if I knew what was happening, I would have planted at a different time. We want to know the timing was the window. Discussion of expiration of DNR shorelines permit, possible scenarios. County may not allow permit for Goose Point Site. Mark C.--Committee has a couple decisions to make, a letter for a hearing, and the committees authorization to me to extend the current permit. Hiram-- Environmental assessment will be out in a week or two, is similar to 1984 but updated. One oDtion is to outline areas of concern, give up an opportunity to respond. Need to know soon. Jim N.--Would like to see that, more information can be obtained in that matter as opposed to a public hearing. Jim S.--Will have our own Water Quality person on staff this spring. Discussion of monitoring by COE during dredging. Background data that COE may have. Hiram--Longevity of 7BTF is a long time, Justine Smith is local expert. Discussion assurance of information, other agencies may request hearing. Concerns of dredging versus disposal. Hiram--First place to look for it is at inner marina. DIscussion of Coos Bay and closure of oyster grounds. Edibility of oyster. Dick S.--Hasn't been an issue in this bay, and 1 don't want to see it (become one]. Discussion of boat repair yards. Hiram--TBTF sampling that'we have done is-in the Duwamish near shipyards. List of 64 has been expanded due to concern for shellfish. Discussion of number of boats in Bay Center, shallowness of harbor. Carolyn--if we write a letter of concern and we can't reach a consensus, where are we? Hiram--Delay and possibly preclude the work. jim N.--If we sent you a letter of concern, and they are not to the satisfaction of this body are we still in a time frame to request a hearing? Hiram-we don't have that kind of time, 20 February is deadline. Jim N.--We have to decide to request a public hearing, or go with a letter of concern and response back. Jim S.--Shoreline Permit for dumping is up i9th of June, despite an extension, a permit will be eventually required and thus, a public review. Jim N.--Motion is WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 9. in order for a request for public hearing or 'letter. Larry H.--I move that the water quality board does not mail the drafted letter before us and staff be instructed to write a letter of concerns that were brought about tonight, di;stribute it to the members before mailing. Dave H.--Seconded, Like to hear some discussion from growers. Larry H.--If the Corps doesn't respond, then this group can talk to county planning and request that the Goose Point site not be certified for another year. Jeanne G.-- How critical is this for 1989. Hiram--Budgets are continuing to be cut. Lot of high priority projects vying for this money in 1990. Jeanne G.--Is the cost much different between hopper and upland? Hiram-Depends on permit process and availability of site. Discussion of disposal and costs. Carolyn--how do the growers feel? Dave N.--A public hearing would not get us anywhere, our concern is with TBTF. We need dredging done, disposal is what bothers us. Hiram-discussion of hotsuots. Dave N.--dredge schedule would be important, Discussion of scheduling, predredge conference with input from local oysterman. Discussion of growers in immediate area who don't use basin, do use basin. Discussion of conditions of dredging, including detailed schedule. ilm N.-- All those in favor of withholding the letter requesting a public hearing and to go with a letter of concern with a response from the corps signify by saying aye. Vote carries unanimously. Discussion of letter, timing. When environmental assessment can be sent out. When response comes back.. Hiram--We can respond within a week. Jim N. All those in favor of the amended motion to go withhold the letter requesting a public hearing and to go with a letter of concern with a response from the corps signify by saying aye, Motion carries unanimously. Discussion of concerns. Difficulty of finding TBTF. Sampling strategies. Sampling in Nahcotta. Jeanne G.-- Testing in Nahcotta was based on Willapa Harbors criteria from Tokeland, DOE required Port of Peninsula to redo sampling. Discussion of risk o-f any disposal in Willapa Bay. Tom R.--How can you put a price on taking the chance of disposal. Discussion of TBTF issue. Disposal in bay. Discussion of chambering and causes of. Hiram--What about the other option where you just renewed the Cape Shoalwater Site? Discussion of sites, dumping on the ebb, dispersal during disposal. Couldn't measure 'I"okeland "hump". Discussions of concerns. Primarily outlined as two areas; 1. Scheduling, 2. Presence of TBTF. Discussion of cost differential of Goose Point versus Shoalwater site. Discussion of sampling areas in Willapa Bay. Coordination wJLth Corps. Raymond sludge. Rebecca was sick, postpone discussion. Jeanne G. commented on available literature. Brief discussion on forest land. WBWQ 2/16/89 Page 10. Hiram-What does a level of TBTF mean? Discussion of those implications, Dean Meek pointed out that the presence of that chemical determines dredging, we haven't the ability to evaluate the level of that presence. Comments on the issue of dredging versus the issue of contaminants. Next Meeting scheduled. 8 March 1989, 6:00 pm. at Planning Department conference room, courthouse in South Bend. Preliminary Agenda. I. Regular Business 11. 1974 WQMP III. Raymond Sludge Dispoal 01 NEXT MEETING OF WBWQOC: South County Services Building, Long Beach. 6:00 pm Wednesday, March 29 1989. Car pool leaves from Courthouse at 5:00 pm. Willa4qpa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee Summary Minutes: 08 March q1989 Location: Pacific County Courthouse Committee Members Present: Chaffee, Davis, Gammell, Glenn, Habersetzer, Hendrickson, McPhall, Nisbet, Neva, Rotta, Sheldon. Staff: Harrison, Geqleynse, Sayce. Public: R. Damon, H. .."aylor, S. Giles, Bennet, D. Bennet, D. Meek, W. Tufts, N. Chambers. Co-Chair qjqim Neva opened the meeting at 6:05. [Our new tape recorder has been behaving erratically, some of the tape was ok, other parts were noqt recorded, minutes are a combination oqf notes and recording] q1. Regular Business a. C6qOqE Bay Center Dredging Neva oqDened discuss-on on Bay Center Dredging. Sheldon read the letter sent by the WB2qWQqOC to "Che Corps of Engineers. Neva read the COE -reply -qrcoqpies on file at Planning officel. 6qj. Sayce I- - the comparison between concentrations of TBT found @qn qDoined out , ' L t e Duwam-*sh areas of q?uget Souna and Willapa 0qBay. 4qj. Gammeqlql - h is considered one of the filthiest waterways in the Northwest, couldn't grow an oyster that you COU7 d eat if you trqfed, may be comparing apqp--es and oranges. Dick S.- na water sampling done 4q- Nahcotta? 0qj. qGa-iime 7q1 -no. Dlck S.- We know what the effects n Nahcotta were, but we don't have anythJng to compare these 1o. Corps doesniqt either. Discussion of archive samples. Sam)1es may not be able to be analyzed if held after certain time. Discussion of tolerance levels of q-q_3T. Discussion of qresu-q78qts from Corps, do they tell us anything more than what was known prev0qiousql2qu? Discussion of "qChe two issues, dispersal o4qf dredge material and contamination of two issues. Introductions made around at this point. Discussion with members of the audience, primarily, with S. Giles, on history of the disposal area, proposed use of the area. Local observations are that the materq-qlal scatters out 8qpqrett2qV well. Page 2 WqB0qWQ Minutes/March 8, q!989 Dqi scussion of Corps scheduling, county administratqive-qprocedqare. Environmental that th-e Corns must meet according to fi.sheries concerns and time necessary to complete dredge schedule. -Discussion wqith,audience,,primarily from Bay qcenter,cregarding ,dredge., S. Giles mentioned that the quicker the-project could be t-done, 'the less effect it would have on'the three water.qinta4qkes I' n thqe inner harbor.ppp. Bennet commented that they have never seen @-TBT effects qJoysterichamberingq] at Bay Center.' 4qLi"-@Hendrickson- -Relayed a0qmessage"qfrom Hiram, from Dr. Creceluis of Bateqlqle Labs, '.that these levels found qin Bay Center of TBT are typical oqf uncontaminated areas. 'Discussion with audience of dredging qin .past years near oystering grounds and effects. 'M. McPhail asked the audience if they were in favorof continued disoosal as qin the past. General resqnonse was yes, with no dissenting opinion. 4qj. Sayce, reviewed shoreline permit process oqf DNR qpermit for the dsqDosal at Goose Point and Cape Shoaqlwater. - Neva entertained a motion. 'L. Hendricksonmoved.4",ha-, "he Willapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committ6q68q6 recommend qto the county planner that we @-. approve the orojec-and that 2, we grant the extension fo-- the use of the Goose Point's Site, and [amended] the Cape Shoaqlwater site. miqation seconded,.vote was unanimous, motaon carried. b. Water quality J. Sayce- we currently have all the information of Puget Dredge isposalAnalysis for those members wishing more _i,n._crqmat_4o_m.. Reviewed meeting with Project Officer, Lin Bernhardt on 8 weeks to grant, as stated in agenda, it w' ill take us aboul I sign a contract, and that we cannot assess time %towards the grqan"t until that contract -4 signed. - This means that "he -'! we are nearing 8q6 contract date. job notice won't go out @;.L - - - - -ed She also asked for a monitoring budget review ana suggest that we might extend the grant over a two*year period. 2q.q- q-q'q@Reviewed meeting wiqlqlq-h Asqsistq-6qan2qlq- Director: Shellfish, judith Freeman on a agreement between fqfsher0qfes and the county. 44qWe have to account for every thing that we could possibly be using, Including any time froq-m fisheries personnel. Will submit a contract itemizing these. They suggested a joint meeting with Dennis tufq-ts, Marvin Tarr, Tom Northu2qp, and Ron Westley. It was suggested that a W6q3WQOC qj,q.qiember be a-, the meeting, Dave Nesbit was volunteered.- Page 3 WBWQ Minutes/March 8, 0 d. Padilla Bay Afield trip is rescheduled qfor some time in May. May visit more that one center such as this.- e. J. Sqayce reported on current legis-lation that affects us. Tough to fo-7q1ow around as bi-7'Ls are @umping around a7ql the a-letter outlining time. WBWQOC suggested that staff dra44 WBWQOC concerns and suD4qport/nonsuqpport for legislation."'6qThe three bills that were discussed are S-43 q1q8q83:-Dqirecqting DOE to commence aauacuqlture management Plans "for the state, S0qHB 1q392: Adont 6qUS0qFWS defqfnqitioqn of wqet-7ands, SHB 1369: Allow eqxnansion of current non-confornqing septic systems wthqin. _ - L , 100 foot setback of shorelines to be exDanded uqDon; qit4-ee voiced concern and no su-) Coin= -port for tqSq83 and 7369. II. New Business. a. 0q3r-;.e.' disc ussion of Raymond S-dge DqisPosalL Plan, appears that Raymond may transport sludge out-of area and forest land disposal may become a non-issue. b. Lengthy discussion of a new water quality management- qP I a n .Committee does not --ave time to qnersonalqly wr-1-1"e the new document, it was suggested 4--nat we go to an outside consultant but thaqz defeats purpose of committee. Outcome Is that 6qj. Sayce will outline a new draft of the 7-974 plan based on vilhat new material should be added, what old material is still relevant and what old qmateria-L shou7d be removed. C. Dean Meek exoressed interest in the workings of 6qW0q32qWQq= and h4Ls w.11-ngness to serve on the con-YI-LI-tee. Aft , qr discussion, tthe commit-lee voted to unanaqmously recoqna-mend o the 3qOqCC I"qInat '-,-e be aqD)oi_-4I--d. Dean qfs a resident of South Bend and is qt0qhe oDeator of Bud's 0qLuqmber. SH County of Pacific Department of Planning 0 P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 tau South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-447.5 NaseHe 484-7136 NEXT MEETING OF WBWQOC AT 6:00 PM, 19 APRIL 1989, BOCC MEETING ROOM, COURTHOUSE,.SOUTH BEND. Summary Minutes Wqillapa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee 29 March 1989, South County Services Building, Long Beach. WBWQOC present: Chaffee, Davis, Gammell, Glenn, Habersetzer, Hendrickson,. McPhail, Nisbet, Rotta, Sheldon. STAFF: Gelensye, Sayce. PUBLIC: Meek. Carolyn Glenn called meeting to order at 6 p.m. ,I. Regular Business C. Glenn gave a quick rundown of a conference sponsored b4qy PSW0qQA, May q10, q11, on public education, , called PqIE0qZ, 47 ways to educate peop fous aspects of wqa. _L qle on vqar' q(0qjJm has brochure for anyone interested). Passed out videos, two from Chesapeake bay -es@ loundatqfon. q[Questionnaire for videos enclosed with mnul Suggestions that people get together for viewing of longer videos, the shorter ones we can show during our meeting. Commented also that only one video has currently been done qfor Puget Sound area in general. Discussion of Moore Productqions .L-e a bit of qin8qk-nd film on Long Beach, cost was about 10,000. Qu t service on that project, was hand-Led primarily by DOE. Discussions of ways qto cut cost, use ink.-iind services qfor some asqnects.. Dqiscussqion oqf high school classes using video has both learning too! and water quality message. Discussion of qw0qho qis audience? qPacif"J"c County? Schools-, Perhaps do several short videos, or segments. D. Nisbet- use money to match 6qP6qBS grants? 4qj. Sayce-might be possible, contract is not signed yet. Discussion of having a film editor come to our grouq-qpq. D. Sheqldon-co4qlle24qge level filming should be investqJLgatedq.- M. Mcqohai4ql-what about use? Discussion of utility of such a film, any way to make iqt more attractive. Aim is to educate more '4qt-hat do a video that we set aside. Discussion o8qf use oqf LB video, q.0q7. Gamme4ql8qlq-q-amazq-q4ng how many people have seen it. Discussion of modifying grant, especially with a school programq. Discussion or- timetableq. Dick S. there has to be a theme. What are we trying to do? How Pro do we have to be? Gammel4ql-succqess is we already have, a pristine area, somewhat, zero in on problem areas. Dick S.-What are we_tr48q@qing to do? M. McPha8qi4qlq-q-W0q:q,q-0q: are.talking about the young people hat are going to live here, they'll have a change in to rever _n' attitude, no, going ul up -he bay, "how to p R. Chqaffee--important to geqt them out there, especially school kids, 141te in wet.Lands hands on classes. D. Sheldon"-qIsee iqt as 11ingqour project toa qlqot oqf qDeoquqle, we are going qtqo be grants for'eve'r.`I'-qL`0qM.@, McPhail -Maybe 8qKe "are doing -,'4@foqr 0qD qO'A Discussion on 8qgrant-s, .educat-Jonq;* "how'to sell i_-,'C'-"0qGlen,. a ,lot of people in 4qPacqitfqfc County are unaware. -1--visqitlqed Padilla Bay, small 500,000.00 -8qY, D.isbe n dqirectorsaid q11 was a boon-.-for education because ''so manypeopqle ha8qd noidea'what resource'they had.-. ,Padilla-Bay was proposed has a housing de,;eqIoprPent.`.Two nearbqv marine stations,,-,. @investigations-started around the deve@opqing controversyp result .in research. Discussion-of a trip,,overnight.housin8qg- 'there. Also .,reported on habits of eelgrass, and marine habitat inventories, use infrared to buiid an aerial map, then groundtruth.qthe maps qon foot. suggested as a possibility for Wqillaqpa. q1--@-qIghly recommended t----e facJ1_41@y for a visit. Good public ed and displays. 4. Sayce--com-qmenqted on recent- qnh.oto 4@n4-erore+.*a"-ion'works--n.oqD in Seattle, potential qfor use iqn1pemote area is good, requires ,leg work on the ground. Monies for a s"'qniqlar ?adi-7q:a :facqi'.,t4qy may ,be there if we can but together a real 'light proposal. M. McPhail co-qmqmented on sophistication of '-qHatf-qield center in Newport. , A 'real mix of administration, research aqnd pub-Lqic educaqtqon,-aquarqiuts, etc.- Discussion of placement of qfacqiqlqitles similar in -_Pacific County, discussqion,of-USF0qWS J-acqiqlqity and their to change, expand, pubiqlc eaucat-:on, e-11-c. Sane feeling for 'Fisheres, unsure of how to develop what they have. Dqlscusslon of: water in-varqlous areas of the bay. A. -qT0qa6qWQ Grant DOE recommendations. Suggested that vie begin screenqfng 4qb4qy _Ld the probqler.,i areas and s e _ e c qt _4 ng a@ control and exqaer-qmeqnqtal area, cominittee would select areas and sampling sites.-.Gqave examoqle of M;.qnter q3urq:q17 study and how sqaqmqpl.-qIqn2qg is done frequently enough to establish pollutant qvqa -I lie G W t h -':L.-L t t 1. ev a r a -.-.2L on. Co.,,mqi: +,.* qt ee p-L cks out a-r eas on maps to investigate, outfallqs, sma1-1 streams, culverts, etc.- . 8qQueszqion? location and number of sites? aim S. .7 don't really know, -q,qLaqr28qy locations are based on local knowledge. q*qTq.f you asked be qto locate sites on Tar4qle2qtt sq"4qlough, or Whiskey sqlou24qgh,-q'0qI could, would leave site selec q+,4 on at N20qOrth River to those who best q_q@q_2qnow the area. The reason cqc;q-q,qi2qmittees do this 0qis that they eqyq-2qpecqtq, their ox to be gored, so they wan-, to know exac8qtly.6qas they ca8qn then contribution to Polqlutq-6qi2qon so q-@h2qat qlqChey can defend the2qmseq:ves .against supposition and heres2quq. -You can't Dick these areas A wi6qtq-hout"q-2qsome local 28qknowqleq'24qdge. Suggested we put as much money into ling as possible/ Suggested two ares, sm8qp rq4vers into bay,, sloughs into bay -from penqLnsuqla. Page 3. Not what comm4*1-1-ee h a n m Discussion o-9 this project. I a -Lnr-. Discussion of 'Location of sites, number of stations. Ab_q"Z4.8qY to .L- , 4 from feeders samqDle. Discussion ol Looking for _nput sources streams, etc, to sloughs, rivers, etc. q71'eauires investigation major -4nputs to one river,stream system, D. Sheldon--again what .are we trying to do, trying to prove something or get long term background data, oqr-Irying to solve an immediate problem,'? D. Nisbet,Any scientific survey is done to answer a question,'and where have we raised a question? What are we trying to answer, J. Sayce-@-Where the problem areas are in the bay. M. McPhail- This'qis going to-represent the bay, essentiaql2y a tiny bit of information, 0qj. Saycqe--yes true, but intrinsically more valuable- -4- because of its focus.' 4qM, McPhaiql-true, but LA_ qi.q; thorough information, but still only 10% oqf the total. J. Sayce--with the kind oqf staff we have we can't do 600 stations, and DOE's - suggestion is to start with suspected problem areas and slowly branch out. D. Nisbet-are we lookqina 'For Co_7orm or what? qj. Sayce--qPrimarily, co-Iqiform, Des t4 cides, heavy metals, and traditional water qaua@-tv, qDarameters, d-Issqolved oq%y8qgen, temperature, saql-inqity, etc. 0qM. Mc0qPhaiql--take StacKqDoqle Slough, t . would you sample in qthe bay? 4qj. SaX7ce--no a the Doqint that it enters the bay. Take Whiskey Slough -for example, there are different Doqiqnts that vou would sample a1oqng, say four or five, looking to identify the localized source of qinqouts. Th.e tidal exchange Ln the bay complicate factors because of the flush-qMg. What couId be qQqnqvqisqionecql is 20 or so stations thqaz would be examined during a freshet, when the ground is saturated and surface runoff is 8qgreates'-, samn@le at qfreqcueqnqt intervals, say everv four hours over a several day period, to establish the rang; of concentrations for parame"Cers for -11--haqt drainage. C. Glenn- wou- I'd our people do this, qj. Sayce, welq!, 'I p:an to be a part of it, as would our tech, however, Tim Dqeterqman suggested employing as many people as poss-4b.7e to qin the moniqto-rqiqng. A sort of citizen participation. D. Sheldor.--l am con-fused. %Why start oqut with so many Stations until you have identified a problem, start out with a few, then add more iqf a problem area qis 'Zfound. M. McPhaf;q!--vihat your are say-Jn4qg qjfqmn that you are refining your method, and wqhqa,: Dick is saying is that what is needed is a sort of reconnaissance Imeqthod. M. McqPhaqil-qwhqat concerns me is that we get small amounts of information from here and -here and "hen 2qwe don't have a2qny2qth-q4ngq., qjim Sq.q-q-2qvou need rene2qatq- samples from sqxng-e sqta t4 ons to estabql4sq- A a -range of variation, D. l20qNesbitq-20qBqac24qkgro6qund. .qOq,qm S.-qrqes, and in aq.s24qyste6qm that has a range of inputs, a sewer from a t_2q@eatment plant, a sewer from a street, an o2qutfa8qlql from a farm, or hq_-0qI24qghway, you go to those areas and treat them as collection 8qooi8qnq-q1q1-qs of non- point sources. M. McPhaqi4q!q-q-say Stackpo0qleq, why have three?, why not have one in S2qtack2qpole, one in Whiskey Slough, o2qne in East Main, one in Taqrqlet. 16qWhy it may not say where uq-q-.q) the s-8qloqugh you have a problem i0qt does say that you do 96q;r do not have a 2qDrob8qlem that Page 4. drainage, that is.-what had qin m8qy mind.. Discussion qof L trqaveling between stations,@time at stations. Discussion of- t length of. sampling per Load, starting in q4ate faqlql,..af ter. is :freshet qS _pesticides bes sampled from.sediments. 'Discussion of.,, sa:rfipqling,technology.and are we qualified -11-o interpret our results.1ppppo convince people of a pr oem, you have to show them. numbersand the 'numbers have to be good. 'thing that..have,seen hqaqoqDqen is th.at you select your sites and 7 '@ ' I' - it looks 'q@,ikeyou are picking on certain people,@I%-.hat you are ouqt after peoqple,-what !.want to see.and 0qwhat1p2pphough we were doing was sampling the.,whole,-thing.and,having a picture.,rather -than -peo-o.Le.,,,J--Sayce----n the draIna picking out certain geqs in Pugetq- So-and, people wanted qto know who ox was being gored and qLf they were contributing -"-'o the loroblem. Discussion of.persecution an ----8qI-think we have an entirely preconceived notions, Dave N different situati4on,.those people are getting hammered up there, .we are lookina -for a baseline study-to establish water qua1it8qy a4qt .this point in time., and geqt a snaqo shot oqf the bay,.So we know what we have, so tq1hat somebody want to come in Jim s> What, I am hearing from, you is that you want to screen the Da4qyl YOU .want to pqic"'C', every mouth of rivers and streans and initially screen the bay, and do ilt by going to every source, committee answered in aff@4q=ative. Discussion W-411ana 0qRlver sources oqf coqliform, do you keep measu Iring it?8qyear.a@:.er.year?, Dick S.--an incqIude alql these other areas as background. qD '"iscussioqn of -qing up sqteaqrns. DIscussion of data from certain areas of samp L qthe bay, bqas-qIcaqlly limited information. D. 0qNlisbet--q1, think we should emqohasqize the good part, productivity, how much he estuary can support. 6qj. S--you've got two problems their, one s .that much ofthe bays qD Iroductivity comes from the ocean, and you can't go out into qtqhe bay and measure water quality parameters input from the waterqshed,d how have to back up to the stream and treat them as qthe source. Discussion of the heightened awareness in Puget Sound and the more refined interest. Discussion of : - Doe's purpose. Education, -q;qm S.--q-Jm mentqfoned that DOE went in initially and dqid an intensive monitoring program, in 'Minter- Bar. jqV, and i. - t e-ra'L had o s tart over and lor qing qt4qhe pub I qi c in on a new program such that- he public wouLd bqu2qy qfnto the outcome of the monqftorqing. They had a vested interest -n t.ae outcome anqa they participated . -n the program. D.Nis8qbeqt, ins-lead of going to t--he problem, go to the bay and show it how it, works, q-q'q@n productivity and "hey will out the pieces together, educate q-,q*q-q-,eqrq-q.q. from the q'fronq"qIq" without poq-qxntq-4ng fingers. q-qJ. qG2qaqm2qmeq-q18q1-q-20qBe 2qD2qosit4qive. Discussion oqf weather they would accept our qlqo"oq-qposa0ql. Suggestion on 0qinvitqJqLng Ti2qm down, maybe qLom Mumq.q-qI:ordq. Discussion on how parameters 12q6q1q1 traditional water quality are having different co6qm8quonents added. Discussion of changqIng grant. Discussion of tailoring water quality sam2qpqiing to our bay. Discussion of concentration or you sample on all drainages and have some idea ofall sources, versus Keying qin on a few... Discussion of monitoring DOE's way, e2qtc. Page 5. Money needs, etc. Discussion of mate-r-faql we have,-fnforqrnatfon on sampling. Discussion of previous monitoring.sysqtenis in bay, few .il7e" Or stations in northern part. Ambient monit-orqing._fqn a r bay tells you about the total river condition, but not about source;. a 2. Sampling methodology. 4qjim noted that severcA recent manqua.Ls have been published in t8qhe last year and ew months that have good protocols established for water aqua3ty monitoring. A I I L.L - n talking with people aqoout'rionitoring in willapa bay, they suggest to use techniques and methods that can be translated to other 7 areas,. 3. Scheduled Fisheries o talk about their Interests qin saqmpqIIng. 4 Discussion of legislative information, use of hot line, keeping track off- bills.- Will send letter on Septq!c "Ianks near water SHB q1369. Wetlands Bill sent to Senate Ag Commi t- -tee. More discussion of q13q69 and putting the W3OQOC on. record qto regisqler not suqooorting 'this b-Lq::. Discussion oqf W0qBWQ6qOC impact. Dqifflculi.tqies of 0qgettqfn8qg- information from 0@17M'Oia. D. Nisbet passed out some more information on Pad-ilia Bay, research prospects and a bibliography. CZM. Grant will be sent in to run W6qBWQOC for another year. Sunset on group wi@7q1 be 0qjuqly of q1q990 1. Old Business. A. Forest Land DqisqposaqI. 0qR. Chaffee-a7.1 treatment plants produce sludge, forest and agriculture disposal is common, qIlwaco and ong Beach both qdqispo.se of sludge in forest. Welqve go-, to come up with some regulations for disposal. Discussion of '-:--.eaqlt.'-. requIreqments, may be to st.-qingent? DqIscusion of status oqf Rainbow Land 0q?qi@q!, qleachate. Covering u-o wIqll reduce volume, increase qlach-ate concentration. and f..iL qne.-atqfon. Discussion oqf sludge volume per day. qSqoxraqdiqng method via, spray-Jng. 0qT. 110q"ta-why is Incineratoqn out o,_12 th a qu s t 4. o n ? qR . Chqaffee-drying it is the qDroblem, discussion of trqins/qloads 0. to sludge per day. How other counties are hauling sLudge around qt neighboring c6q;unqt4qiqes for disposal. Growth response of q-q1q-q1q-ees 2qto nitrogen from s8qiqrqAd28qgqeq. 20qDIq-20qM dredge d6qis28qpos2qaI. Passed out brochures from CqC4q-'q:'-q-qIo describe Puget Sound Dq-re28qdge Disposal Analysis. Five volume document 4qfs technical support [we have a co8qpyql. D20qXR has q1,q7et -q0 officially apply qfor their new permit, 'nave been told that their application wilqi not be much different from previous year and w8qi"qL8ql be the same document. COE does not feel that an 6qZq'6qIS is necessary, DNR will still have to apply for the permit. -COE does environmental assessments rather than and 0qE0qIS 8qfor some qTqorojects as 0qEIS process can be time consuming and expensive. Page 6. ill. New Business. A. lease.on mineral mining off of North Head is being considered, though no application yet submitted for Shoreline Permi"C. .;-!Lease is immediately off North Head. An 4qZIS has been already done for a previous project. DIscussion of. project, B. DOE uqndate on 6qW0qZYCO fuel leak on Wiqlqla-ja River 'passed oqut to. L all]. Example of a point source of a-contaminant that we may want- .to include in a long term monitoring program. Discussion o f -'A amount and volume oqf leak. About 6000 gallon recovered via a recvcq14ng and recovery system. Discussion oqf other si-tes of nd0q@strial faC4' 'ties-and possible burial of contaminants through dre8qdg-fqIng and-sqnoqills qdi-sqnosaql....L. HAendrqicqkson noted that he could see oil sheen on water a-,- their net Dens and the port dock. BqI. Staff qDassed out. Letter to those interested on declaring Long Beach Peninsula a..Ground Water Manageqmenqt Area. C. qNatIonal Mar.qIne S qnctuary Status for outer Wash Coast. BOCC asked Staff to draft qa.qletter declaring a qmortion of water to our west as a 0qNa@@'onA.-, 6qMa.-ine Sanctuary. 0qBoundar- that is suggested represent area for Tvq"-Ich currents nave qnroqf:ound influence on of'shore and W4 `apa 0qBqaqy'ecoo8qgy, D. NJ --L - - I Lsbet-qBoundaries?, qJI. Sayce-- offshore eqx-ent-, has note been established, 50, 100 fa-,110q- lines have been suqcqgesqtions.. 4q?ub.--c scop.-qnqg meetings, are 'being held to weigh qi-qfor.7zatqion on status of a sanctuary. S.- thinks it would be a could idea. .q7.SqaX7ce-'@7q0AA sqav-s sancqtuar-r qmus-, stand on bioqloqgqica grounds alone and not used as a hammer against of-L eqxqnq2orat.-qIon. Discussion of- Oil influence and eqf-fecqts of Graysq1--qarbor and Alaskan Oiql Sp`.qIql. DqiscussLon oqf oossbqle boundaries. @LJ_Lscussfoxi of managemlent dqfffqicuqltqfes within a sanctuary,Discuss4on of how management effects work in sanctuary, status of current f-qIheries reqmaqJLns unchanged, but cou78qd have an imoact on future fishlerqies that have yet to be commercially harvested, etc. D-iscussioqn of' Natqiona- Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine 'Research Reserves. AuIqnority can extend -0 shorelines. Curren-, boundary looks because of the 7 location of Oqlym4qpqlc Nqaqtqioqaal Park. -"-'c4qk S.--has I see iqt does .qC qI.q;q.ve some q;.qOqc8qaql qcont.q-q@o8ql to an area we have no influence over. Discussion of poqsqsqi24qb4qiq_-q_@q-qIq_y of oqi8ql o4qf4qfsq'q-q-qlo-e. q"q7q.8qxol8qorator4qy dqr0qiqlq7q.iq. done Jn the s ql8qxqtq-6qIeqs qof-fqshqore. Sq_q-ze of sanctuary somewhat deqoendent on the regions ability 0qto manage it. DqiscussqiqLon of oqL0q1 drilling versus oq_48q1 tq.-r4qa2qnqsporting. D0qisc-qass-4qion A8q:aqska qS8qPq4q1q1 Further discussion oqf marine sanctuaries. Meeting Adjourned at about 8:30. 20qPre4q!-Im0qinary Agenda. 4q1. Regular Business (Education, ?adq.418q1a Trip). !I. Screening 20qWi8qllaqp6qa Bay: Review Proposal !I:. Discussion q0-qF 0q1 with -iqin Determan 7D6qO2qEq7q1q. q@ 2qDro4qnosa I I ISHEJ County of Pacific Department of Planning P.O. Box 68 South Bend, Washington 98586 Courthouse CPU South Bend 875-9356 Long Beach 642-9356 Naselle 484-7136 SUMMARY MINUTES WILLAPA BAY WATER QUALITY 19 APRIL 1989 COURTHOUSE PRESENT: Committee: Chaffee, Davis, Glenn, Habersetzer, Nisbett, Neva, Sheldon, Staff: Sayce, Geleynse, Guests: Tim Detterman, DOE Shorelands, Water Quality Specialist. J. Neva opened meeting at 6:00 C. Glenn Comments on Education. Tentative arrangements for overnight trip to Padilla Bay. J. Sayce (some editing with further information) - Overnight trip, meet at Padilla at Seven, overnight in Anacortes, tour Shannon Point Lab, then head back via Sequim and Batelle Northwest Labs, then return to South Bend. C. Glenn--PIE conference in Seattle on the 12, 13, 14. Education on Puget Sound Conference. Discussion on compensation for travel, J. Sayce-Some areas, such as registration, etc, yes. Hotel and others, is expensive, J. Neva--if we are trying to help some people educate themselves, at least we aren't taking money out of there pocket to do it. D. Sheldon--Disagrees, why should we take compensation for community service. R. Davis-- ' There may be some people who can't do that. J. Sayce-- Will look into-it. D. Sheldon--A bad pclicy to start. .J. Sayce--Handed out questiornaire for videos, fill out when you view a video, return to J. Sayce, or C. Glenn. Discussion on videos. Moving videos around. Keep in mind what we want out of our video and how do we want to do it. C. Glenn--PSWQA did not do a video and they were split as to if they should do one or not. They did recommend the Puget Sound Bank one, cost 40,000.00. Worth pursuing. Two from DOE recommend, only four on the list for water quality, not a lot. The Long Beach Comp Plan Video cost 10,000.00, received in kind service from Bell Telephones Video Lab, reduced cost substantially. Legislative Update. Letter from Al Bauer regarding comment on Page 2 SHB 1369, J. Neva read letter, J. Nesbitt read his update from the Oyster Grower's Association. 1369 passed and was sent on to the Governor with amendments that include fecal standards for replacement of nearshore septic systems equal that of secondary treatment plants. Wetland bill (included state mandate to inventory wetland areas) drowned in a sea of controversy, bill was killed and will probably appear as new drafting in 1990. Pacific County has about 300+ square miles of wetlands and is ludicrous to think that we have even a start at inventory these areas. Aquaculture-Died, referred to net pens in particular, always a source of controversy in Puget Sound. Discussion on 1369. NMS Proposal--BOCC working with Unseold office to put southern area of Washington state on sight evaluation list for a National Marine Sanctuary. Strong support for the extension south of current proposed sanctuary. Suggestions are to create a new sanctuary south and not mix up the two areas. Discussion on size and original proposal on size, federal support for sanctuaries, management is key point, access is important, easier access in south. Good response from Jolene Unseolds office, getting legal opening on effect on'sanctuary designation on as yet untapped fisheries and aquaculture. A SEL starts the process of consideration for a NMS. Discussion of NMS, and Unseold visit. Ground Water Management Update- Peninsula is designated a Probable.GMAW by DOE, this serves as official recognition of the needs of this areas.. Future Pacific County budget predictions are gloomy, may change strategy for funding and future planning. B. Harrison and J. Sayce will meet with BOCC. Willapa Bay Water Quality Management Plan. J. Sayce-working on the outline and hope to have it out by next meeting. Introduced Tim Detterman, technical assistant to Shorelands Division. Is our contact for reviewing our proposal for water quality monitoring. T. Detterman-Initially I was in the mind set of the Puget-Sound experience of decertification of shellfish beds.. We do ambient monitoring and intensive surveys above and below suspected contamination sources. Word back from you indicates that extreme condition do not exist yet, with this-in mind, we reviewed what was proposed, we came up with the latest proposal, a targeted time frame for sampling, more of a screening process, instead of looking with each individual watershed instead concentrate on what Is coming out of each watershed as an aggregate and site Page 3 stations at the mouth of those watersheds. Is interested in hearing what the issues really are and what you--want to accomplish with this information. J.. Neva--as far as parameters?, T. Detterman--no in the long sense, overall needs. We can determine loading within a watershed, but not up the watershed this is more of a screening program. If that is as far as you want to go as a goal, then I think that this program would achieve that. D. Sheldon--I don1t think that is as far as we want to go, we want to establish a point in time that there is x water quality in willapa, so that in the future, if there are changes we can see the changes. In the past none of it has been tied together year after year, as inPuget Sound, no one really know s what it was like 50 years ago. I am talking as an oyster man and crab fisherman. T. Detterman, so you are looking at long term trend monitoring, how can you go back and say this has happened. J. Neva--I agree, we want to start something that we can carry on, the problem is not going away, we can monitor the twenty areas, and address upstream areas, but we also want to set up something that can be continued. T. Detterman--The idea of setting up something like that is sound, hasn't been done in Puget sound in specific watersheds, we have a monitoring system that tried to do that, however we designed it as a monitoring system in isolated places so that we could get an integrated look at things happening around it. In retrospect after 15 years, that data does not show the kind of things that we see happening which is why we are redesigning monitoring programs to time and event specific parameters. Instead of an average site sampled once a month year after year, now we look at critical periods, during heavy rains, etc, and seasonal type of events. And then we have a pretty good idea where the problems are, then we propose changes, etc, Septic systems,. forestry, conservation districts, etc. Then devise specific programs for those subsystems to describe how -they work, So we are getting away from the arbitrary collection of samples every once in a while and now we are getting more time and site specific '. Jim is thinking of this and I support him in this , of critical times during the year when rainfall occurs, in the past with other projects, the people in his position have come to me and asked which is better, finding a little bit about everything or quite a bit about certain places. I have leaned towards figuring out the typical stream and cut down the number of basins to make better use of your resources. In cases were people don't follow that, they end up with insufficient samples over a large area. They don't have the ability to look at averages and Page 4 ranges with any degree of confidence. Lots of money spent, stand up in front of a group and you can't answer definitively yes or not. The plan that you have come up with has elements of both intensive and broad sampling, with cross connections between areas. The problem is if that you want to continue it on, the effort has to be funded and staffed for continued staffing. Discussion of continuation. Tim-same problem in other areas, years after someone has to pick up tab. Discussion of grant, Dick-unique situation in bay, possibly best of the best, bay as a control site, put the point across that it is important estuary and the state should not ignore that fact. We want the state to continue this type of funding, and this was the goal of the previous water quality group. J. Neva-Here they are giving us the grant to get the ball rolling, but I don't doubt at all that they expect the local population to carry it from there. Discussion of grant funding and ending cycles, up to us to continue funding. T. Detterman--Wac 400-12 is what our agency is governed by and it says that the state will come up with grant money to set up committees to review and set up plans, and explore funding to continue process, grant is only to get people started. After you review your information three of four areas will be undergoing the greatest amount of @hange, you can tailor year by year work on those areas. A complete reassessment could be done every five years, for your areas, that may be more realistic. In Puget Sound, things are changing yearly and they have to Commit to a more intensive effort. R. Davis--I so see changes around with respect to industry. J. Neva--One of our responsibilities is to come up with alternative funding sources. C. Glenn-- What is your opinion of citizen monitoring and has there been any successful programs in the state? T. Detterman--i was asked by the non=point core group to write a paper on it, nationally people are. very enthusiastic, but perhaps for the wrong reasons, a lot of local governments area asking about it because of the cost cutting and free labor, that could be true in urban areas where you can draw on a high level of skill within the citizenry, especially the retired techs, less populated, less successful. No matter what system You use, there must be On person at the local level responsible for the scientific integrity of the dater and a high level of community action skills. They have to design the program, train the people, coordinated date, feed data back to citizens to keep them motivated, continue to renew the ranks at constat intervals, a Page 5 lot responsibility on that person, and without that person, the monitoring may be good p.r., but not good data. In sound, we are putting more effort into it, a young program.. DSHS collection of shellfish for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning is an example, collecting shellfish and putting them on the bus. Discussion. Not that technical. Good for some types of parameters. Not good for others. Has to be carefully developed. People think they save money, probably better ways. What ever scheme you use, important to keep a qualified person on staff, hare to do as you go from project, hard to keep staff in an unstable situation.. Glenn, how to other counties work this out,. Time, varies from one to the other, King no problem, Thurston comes next, with a commitment to continued monitoring they have an office of water quality, have people who are trained to collect and analyze data. Discussion.. Mason county has one registered sanitarian who is a jack of all trades, Jefferson COunty had two, one left when funding ended, one is patiently waiting renewal of another grant. Structure is usually from Planning or Health, In places with a lot of local expertise, in rural counties a kit of my time is spent working with them. J. Neva, I've a place on the sound, in Tauten Inlet, I received a letter in the mail from a committee like this, how long have they been in business? T. Detterman--Started like you, about a year and a half ago. They had a two year grant, early action grant. They were singled out for early attention, underway for a while, first year devoted to what you are doing, asking questions, inviting people in, hammer out an action plan. Through a review process, very specific things that they want people to do, strong orientation to education, Health Departments improve septic tank standard, more rigorous enforcement, second year is implementation, we are funding both of those as one package. Review of funding is one task. Implementation takes place in second, takes a while for effects to show up in data. One .project area we have been working on since 83, after a tough start, citizens formed a group, started that process, totally voluntary from farmers, about 30% involved, things are slowly improving in the estuaries, if things will be opened remains to be seen. A conditional closure plan may eventually may be established, that has taken fiver year, relatively small watershed, each about ten thousand acres. Similar systems next to big urban centers are changing daily. D. Nesbitt--One of the things that I was questioning from the last meeting, how big a difference we do have between Willapa bay Page 6 and Puget Sound, one of the reasons many of the-things are being done their is because of decertification, or about problems that are apparent, down her we are not quit to that stage, How much of your budget should we spend on education versus implementation of a monitoring program? T. Detterman--i have my own opinions, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has a strong emphasis on education and I don't want to downplay that. D. Nesbitt--My feeling that an important part of education is finding out where you stand, so you can tell people where we stand, we already send our stock in for coliform counts and so far we've a pretty clean bill of health. Maybe the key to this group is education, a map of the bay showing various aspects of the system working, carbon cycle, etc, educating the public as to how the system works, and approaching from that route rather than just going out and measuring to begin with,. My feeling is that we aren't to that stage yet. T. Detterman--That decision is up to you, I have sensed that part of what you want to do is start that baseline, you are making some assumptions that everything is o.k., that is a hypothesis that needs to be tested. D. Nesbitt--Where are some of the things specifically. What should we be measuring? We have a different system than Puget Sound. T. Detterman--My interest professionally that last several years has been oyster, shellfish industry problems with contamination from fecal coliform sources. Another thing that would be nice to now is heavy metals, or organic toxic substance that is around. From a standard parameters, nitrogen, phosphorus, and from what Jim has told be, your are interest in how the system is functioning, and those parameters, what comes out, what is exchanged-with the ocean, those would be good thing to know. Worked out to around 100.00 per sample. D. Nesbitt-- the only fear i have is that getting good data that will really stick. J. Sayce--That is one reason why you have to concentrate to specific areas. T. Detterman--The way that you want to do it is a screening. yet specific enough to givo you maximum value for date, at rainfall, so that you can pick up loadings, plus coupled with measurements going in and out of the entrance, the toughest thing that you are going to have to deal with. D. Nesbitt--Do you determine any of your sites by aerial photography? T. Detterman-- Sure, in the Burly-Minter project, that photos are vital in telling you what is happening, ground truthing has to be done, but the photography is quite useful. Discussion. our department went to some effort to put together a draft of how to do you effort, sampling, screening, etc. That combined with your own measurements give you a good basis to pursue hot spots or a Page 7 future reassessments. I sense that you are a little reluctant to point fingers at people. you want to find where the issues might be. D. Nesbitt--Easier to point fingers afte 'r their educated. Discussion of education budget., T. Detterman--Most of education is being done on a watershed level with newsletters, brochures, etc., the most important thing is getting people in county government that will do that, getting people available to go out and talk to farmers, schools, fairs, shows, etc. Innovative and low cost, small-scale research projects, etc. Citizens monitoring is with that. J. Sayce--We haven't elevated ourselves to that yet, but we've given talks to the Shriners, Lions, Kiwanis, and we will have a newsletter that will be published. T. Detterman-Let me back off and give you two models that we used in Minter-Burly, one is for people in county governments to form committees, get measurements, to have a document, present to community as a solution, public was very upset because they were left out of the project. The other model is Tilamook Bay, the DEQ got people together with a community action and meet locally and form a community discussion group and involve the citizens in the outcome of the work, people were making suggestions as to where to put sampling stations volunteering to collect them. Conditions have improved slightly. BMP systems for the dairy farms were costly, but it worked. D. Nesbitt--I think that the industry did not want a black eye and did not want to associated with a polluted bay. J. Sayce-They have a quality product and wanted to be associated with a quality bay. T. Detterman, Sure and that is what education buys you. D. Sheldon--We've got two situations here, one is in the east bay, and one is in the west bay, we are faced with a real bomb on the-Peninsula. So we have some immediate oroblems that will be comparable to Minter-Burley this is why I like the baseline study. Over here it is really a bit di'fferent, a few dairies. T. Detterman, The nonpoint wac was development of the Tilamook experience, membership of the committees are by folks .with axes to grind, developers, septic tank pumpers, foresters, tribes. And if they didn't go through the process together, then they could not agree on the final action plan. Their goal was to identify sources and then clean them up, may be somewhat different than this group. At this point this grouD might consider more of an outreach, get them into committee now. Another key point we made is that who ever comes to the table, get back to their consistency, to make sure that they will buy into the plan. Plans have been general and educational and not hard-nosed. D. Page 8 Nesbitt--That is why education is a priority. J. Sayce--You've got to remember also that our scope of work has already been approved and that we don't have a lot of leeway within each element, you are right, though that this will never fly without broad public support. D. Nesbitt--The people should understand what they have in their back-yard. J. Sayce- Yes, and that is why we are going to Padilla Bay, D. Sheldon--and the purpose of the video. T. Detterman--When you start your outreach, telling them about the bay and where it stands, that is what they are going to ask--where does it stand? That is where the measurement that you are going to make will be very helpful. J. Neva--There has been all kinds of theories and innuendo thrown around, but it has never been proven that we are causing a problem out there. T. Detterman, that is true and that is why we are backing off from that sampling every month and looking at the results after a few years, and instead, looking intensively and getting a clear picture of specific areas. I worked about a year in Minter-Burly using the ambient and targeted approach and there was a lot of flack directed towards government, I spent 8- 10 hours in front of their handoicked tech committee, but they bout off on it. there was a problem and they agreed on that but they did not agree on a solution, that is great as long as they understood where the problem is and that is where the measurements come in. J. Neva--One good point, as Dick mentioned, the Long Beach Peninsula is where the high growth is, and we haven't gotten any where with the argument that we can't continue septic installations because we are going to ruin the oyster industry. But if you can prove it, that is tough to argue with. D. Nesbitt--I think one of the problems is telling when the system fails, D. Sheldon--or telling how it works, D. Nesbitt-- That is why I was impressed with the Padilla facility is because- it shows this. D. Sheldon--What brings this up we had an expert oysterman come in and give testimony at that last big development and his opinion was that the bay was so clean that it could stand pollution, there was no problem. He was from California. R. Davis--You can turn that ooint around. Discussion of pollution and future of industry. R. Davis--Good to sample to just understand what we have and educate people to what would happen if this happened. One of the concerns that I have is that the Commissioners have a strong long term commitment. The funding is going to be a problem. T. Detterman--A lot of the funding options will change as you get down the road, we are generating a lot of information of such Page 9 things. C. Glenn--How many years of monitoring do we need T. Detterman--Depends on how noisy the information is. A developed watershed jumps around in values, produces an average with a lot -of scatter in it, as opposed to an intact watershed with more predictable values. We are talking about 15-20 years before we really know if this works. People have not addressed the problem like you have, what are we going to do down the road, they have instead thought, we'll get what we can with this grant. R. Davis--I don't feel comfortable.with that approach. T. Detterman--From a state agency I don't like that cause the report goes on a shelf. R. Davis--We pay for those grants and even if we fail, we have some planning with respect to funding. We need a commitment. J. Neva--A revolution if they were. I think we have to educate the commissioners to change that attitude, because that has not been their attitude for the last 12 years, if there is a free dollar out there for a program, will grab it and if the dollar stops, so does the program. It has happened time and time again. If they want a commitment out of us we want a commitment out of them. D. Habersetzer--you are absolutely right. D. Sheldon--From preliminary meetings in Naselle, Raymond and Long Beach, Both Wolfenbarger and Markaham indicated a long term commitment, before there was any talk or commitment of grants being available. J. Neva-There are different commissioners now from what there were a few years ago, like I say it would be a real change from the past. R. Chaffee--I think that we could design a program that would be useful once we get the initial sampling done, we can continue as a committee and educational coordination, D. Nesbitt--and money for monitoring, D. Sheldon-- This was our origina-1 task to set up for the future, not to be hands on like we are doing. J. Sayce--Time, their funding under a CZM grant is totally separate from this grant, and the Centennial Clean Water Grant was fortuitous, it was written before the committee was formed and we tried to project forward what we thought was important, and virtually everyone we talked to said there was a historic lack of interest in the type of program that we thought was appropriate and the ability to project back 50 years was not there.No attention. C. Glenn--we spend a year, two years and we discover an area that warrants further investigation, how long does it take before you go in, a couple years of date. T. Detterman--If I found strong signals I would replicate a couple times just to see if the picture is real. Within in the same season if you have the funds. if follow up samples determined that the sample was real, then I would continue up the stream, dependent on your funding of Page 10 course. j. Sayce--remember that you folks want the whole bay done as a unit. Discussion of subsampling up streams. R. Davis- -Do we continue to monitor the areas without a problem? The .strategy I would use is switch to five year cycles. Discussion of sampling tributaries on a longer schedule. REAL PROGRESS FINALLY. D. Sheldon--Could this be used with other agencies? T. Detterman--The screening sampling that you do be tied in with Gary.Plews at DSHS and coordinated with his crews. They have sanitary surveys they do on their growing areas. Discussion of DSHS routines. and getting a bibliography together. T. Detterman--Your earlier perception is correct, in that if no one perceives a problem, no one studies it. Discussion of studies in bay. J. Neva--They haven't documented it and they don't perceive problems. Discussion of sampling DOE has done in the ambient program. R. Davis--On sampling, what periods during the year? T. Detterman, winter with maximum runoff during heavy rains, you have a big window, the method you have is checking high flow data against low flow . Discussion of window of an activity and if it can be sampled and residuals. T. Detterman--handbook describes two ways, screening-versus designing a specific sampling effort to define a water quality problem. J. Sayce--The most intensely investigated water quality issue in the bay is Sevin. Discussion of Sevin. T. Detterman--Nonpoint WAC is designed to address those problems. Wide range of committee people. J. Sayce--There is another way at getting at water quality impacts and that is to sample something in the environment that accumulates a pollutant, say sediments or an organism. C. Glenn--This has been very helpful, thank you for coming down. Discussion of sampling costs and budget. Salary for a water quality field investigator may be handled better by contracting out'sample collection at those times of the year when we need it, save money here. Stream cross sect4Lons will be needed for some streams and rivers to define volume of water passing at a given time. We can contract with USGS for some of these. Discussion of location of sampling stations at a point nearest the mouth of each stream. Discussion of local contractors who could do the sampling and cost savings associated with it. Discussion of sampling and fisheries and analysis. Discussion of quality control and assurance. Discussion of commercial labs are not yet certified unless permit requirements are under examination. Discussion of sediment analysis and cost. T. Detterman--it is something that is very important to have, and if you can get some one else to do it, great. J. Sayce--Cost can run up to Page 11 800/sample. Discussion of sediment sampling and how it picks up cues that you can't find in the water. D. Sheldon--How would you suggest doing a sediment analysis on our budget? T. Detterman-- Well, I suggested this to Jim, It kind of depends on how specific you want to be and finger pointing. To save costs, look at what is happening in your watershed, you know where things are happening. It nothing is happening in the watershed, you may not sample there. I would sample where I think where I am going to find something. Discussion of ways to save money. T. Detterman-- Instead of running 1500 for all possible chemicals, break it out into one of five groups. You will have to think through which of these you want to look for. J. Sayce--Committee has to decide that. T. Detterman--It does involve a certain amount of finger pointing in that you are targeting specific chemicals. J. Neva-- It also may end finger pointing by answering the question. Discussion of sampling method and bringing in the suspected chemical and responsible applicant and having them buy into the questioning and deliberation process. C. Glenn--And if you find the chemical and are worried about its impact to the bay. T. Detterman--That is another question, but you can't get there unless you answer the other one first. Discussion of politics of it and politics of Sevin and similarity of that process. Discussion of how sampling can not stop finger pointing. Discussion of rearranging budget for sediment sampling. Discussion of watersheds and bay. Discussion of tidewater and sampling at that point. C. Glenn--What are other groups doing with sediment sampling? T. Detterman--The places where sediments are being actively sampled are in areas of urban stormwater runoff, a lot of interest in rural environments. Because of the cost, few studies started. New Business-Harbor Bell Dredging of Palix -access Channel ADJACENT TO Bay Center Federal Navigation C.,liannel. Discussion of Harbor Bell Project. IC,000 cubic yards, disposal at Goose Point. Discussion of sampling of other areas. Committee voted unanimously to approve an exemption for dredging and disposal. Adjourned 9:00 Page 12 Next meeting at 6:00 at Long Beach, 31 May 1989 .Preliminary Agenda I. Regular Business 1. Recap of T. Detterman's visit 2 Willapa Bay Water Quality Management Plan II. Old Business 1. Centennial Clean Water Grant a. Monitoring: The Plan b. Video: Make a decision on it 2. Trip report from Padilla Bay, Shannon Point, Batelle NW III. New Business 1. Spartina update 2. Federal Programs with respect to estuaries a. National Marine Sanctuaries (NOAA) b. National Estuarine Research Reserves (NOAA) c. Estuaries of National Signifigance (EPA) ISH County of Pacific Department of Planning q1. P.O. Box 68 Courthouse South Bend, Washington 98586 Extension 373 South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136 Summary Minutes Wiqlqlaqpa Bay Water Quality Organizing Committee Meeting 31 May q1989 South County Services0qBuiqlding. Committee: Gammell, Hendrickson, McPhail, Nesbit, Sheldon, Rottla Staff: Sayce I. Discussion of Tim Detterman's visit. J. Sayce- Design of monitoring plan is acceptable to T. Detterman, decision is whether or not to go heavy on the sediment sampling as that would run up to $1500 Der sample or noqt do as an intensive sampling and reserve that money for water analysis to resamqole those river mouth samqoles that have anomalous results. 7 Suggestion is to qoick several broadly distributed comqoounds and only sample t0qhe sediments `-or them. Discussion of various chemical coqmqDounds in sediments, 2-4-D, Carbarqyl, heavy metals. Sediment information will slowly accumulate from the dredge st)o.I.L analysis that the Corps will be doing. T. Ro-11-ta-ILf you dqid find something, you couldn't do anything about qiqt (in sediments), but if you found someqthJLng in the water, you could do something about that. Discussion of sediment sampling as an accumulator of .Low levels of pollutants that would be di.-Lcficu'Lt to sample in water. Discussion of Lake Washington heavy metal sampling in sediments. D. Nesbqit--any components of radqioact.-qIvity in Columbia River? Discussion on sampling for that. Discussion qoqf prices for testing for various chetqicals. Ma-lco-7qm-west coast @oab are always high when compared with mqidwest "Labs. 4qj. Sayce-may be exqDensive to split samples uqn among -abs. D. Sheldon-At meeting in Reno, Dave and I talked with jack L.4q1ija, DSqIES, wasn't aware that we existed. J. Sa8qyce-Odd, I me-, with him about 8 months ago. Discussion of break up of DSIqES. D. Shel4qdon-6qHle was supportqive oE working with us on samp-L-ng and coord4na-lion. D. 4qXesbiq@,--4qjackls comment was that a lot of sa=Iqfng has already be en done. qj. Sayce-T don't doubt what you area saying, 7- talked with him 08 months ago and asked for all +ChefqLr data, he said they would send it and it never came in the maiI. DSHq-S has had a baq-qltq_@e with counties that have used their information against them, 8qthq.e6qiqr credibq.q4.q'qIq;-v has been damaged and you have 2qto buqiId a trust with them. Discussion of their problems in Puget Sound. Discussion of how group is slowly gaining credibility and the importance o0qf qL Dave and Dick talking about 12qWBWQOC with jack. Discussion of 6qPS12q? monitoring, import of shellfish o4qf Chile. 16qj. Sayce-When I last talked with jack, he mentioned that their sampling in Grays Harbor was much more intensive than Willapa and q-Ihatq.a recent mandate from EPA will lead Page 2 WBWQOC to a more -intensive sampling program. Discussion of their sampling in the bay. Discussion oqf contacting and coordqinatLng Wqit7 n other groups. D. Nesbit-Dqiscqusqsiqoqn oqf building a bibq!-Lo with respect qto sampling and information. J. Sayce-much oqf the informaqt:'Lon that state agencies collects has to go through an internal re,,,riew, thus much information ends up in a gray literature state, with no internal review, and as more dqiffqicqu-7t to access. Discussion oqf hiring an individual to contract with .Lor a biblqio search. Sandra Major, at EPA has done one literature search, will. soon be available. Discussion of hqiri-ng people under contract. Discussion of- monitoring time scqhedu.;.e. Discussion of sampling scheme. Discussion of our monitoring plan and attempting to integrate that with other sqpecif"oc types of monitoring such as DSHS co."Liform, CorqDs sediments, eqtc. 0qj. Gammeqlql-what about Just signing a contract qto do some of this inqitiaL gathering off information? 0qj. Sayce-qI will waste a lot of. time with qn-;.ecemeal contracts. Long discussion on what DOE wants, how we 'nave initially satisfied a monitoring plan, qDrojecz design. Discussion oqf time _7ost with resnecqt to discussions wqi'th DOE on plan design. Discussion of trying to integrate past data with a new qnq1an. Discussion oqf what we have to do qto settle a contract. Discussion on the minimum we need qto do sign a contract -;.s qto agree on the principle of the proposed sampling scheme, is -qhe video an aquqnroqDriate method for addressing public educatIon. Discussion of an education element that would Droduce a qDamqon-e-I instead oqf a video. Discussion of video ideas. Discussion or Jfics 'or contract s4g--ng, cross-sect-ona7 profiles of sDec;. I - I. _L . culverts, stream-beds. Discussion on doing a trial run on logistics during the early Dart of grant, get a range of "poqlluCion no.qIse". 0qZstabllsqhlnqg the east bay sites. Dick S.-6qBrqidge s-L-,es may be realistic qfor S4 Ltes, hard to know influence of- lower marsh flat. D. NesbLqt- Dresented boqt -7 e analogy for samqpqlIng a river. 7ur--er discussion on bridges sampling. M. mcq-`q@ha_4qi4ql-Unim2qnor0qtant as to where exactly the sam2qDl4qing will be with res2qoect to the mouth of the river, but that we approve tonight the sco2qDe o4qf work to samqnq-4qle at the mouth of qr- q_q;q.ver. Discussion of hiring a person 6qto review a literature search, perhaps do trial runs on samp4qlqfq;q.ng. Type of person to do sam2qplq.q-qIng in 2qDrecqise and methodical manner. J. Gamme8qll-Hire 8qnerson to do literature, then do samples Jn fa4qlq@ a qL qL Lor sediments, then 'Later on hire a Derson for the sam6qu8ql0qlng in winter. Discussion on qualified people who are here locally and can do that kind of work. Page 3 WBWQOC 's suqDqDortive o-,: What we need now, scone of work "tha the group that we can send to DOE. Discussion of scope of work as ou'-4qned to Deqt-qterman. Discussion on samp!4ng at the mouth oqf the bay an0qd treating the bay as a black box. L. Hendrqickson--qi move that 6qilLm submit a scone of work as discussed do DOE to obtain contract signing as soon as qDossibqle. J. Gammeqll-Seconded. Motion Carried. M. McPhail-! move that JJqim contact USGS to see about stream cross-sections. D. 1N-esbit-Seconded. Motion Carries. 0qj. Sayce-2qWor0qking on Water Quality Plan- Suggestion on conqtact--ng the critical Deoqnle who work at the water qua-Lity interface qtqo initially coqnt-act in terms of Anput/educat- ion. Those people have jobs t-hat can have influence over water auaqliqt8qy should be contacted as qoart of m% *ob. Discussion of qj. Sayce and job J performance wIqt.q1 respect to other 0qnroqjects. Discussion of work load in planning with respect to other jobs. Padilla 0qBav Tr-qn- Steve Cra--g, 7ee Fisher, Dan Ch.enev, Rebecca Chaffee, Jim Sayce, Clyde Sayce attended. Pad-qIqI-a Bay, Shannon Point, Ba 4-eql @ qle 0qX.2qW Seauim :jab v4As_-Ied. qDLscusslon oqf those areas and how they are used. Padiqlla-focus is public interpretation with some basic field labs ava4qIabqle. Shannon Point :"s Jtulional/educatJon facqi-ty, Bateqlqle 4s high traditional @nti .Level t)r--vake/contrac",-/government facqiqlitv. General discuss-4on of facilities. Prqoqnosal for one day field tq;qn around the bay to visit areas in the bay that currenItiv support nterqpre'llatqion, research, etc and see what works in some areas and what works in other areas. Discussion of touring t-he bay with a bus. G. Gqammeql-Described her trio to Hatfield Center Videos, hands on aauarium, educational materials. South Slough National 6qEsCuaqine Reserve (South Slough of Coos Bay)- has qinterqoretive walks, 'ded vi@h a docent. Dunes at Florence. --rin4dad-Co'-ege of 9952;40;64qL q- q-qiq..q.L Humboldt Bay. Dunes walk at Arcata all reclaimed area. South Slough has good small facility, brings in q-qoeqop7e from outside area. Similar res2qDo2qnqse at, 6qPaqcqLqi4ql8q:8qa Bay, serves as magnet for estuarine research. General 8qdq_q-qSqc2quss6qfoqn of educational facilities. Carolyn has informat8q"qLon to present at future meetings. Discussion of article on S2qparqtqlqina in Longview Daily Nevis. Discussion o8qf federal programs in estuaries; National: Marine Sanctuaries and 0qEstuaqr0qiq-qne Reserves get fund 4ng 4qfroqnqa qzhe somewhat financially strapped National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, whil e Page 4. WBWQOC Estuaries on National Significance receive monies from the EPA, which is currently spending money like water on projects in Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay. D4SCUSS-on of federa7 management 11programs" in areas 'Like Pacific County. Discussion of lack of a Problem to justify fund4ng. Discussion of how management may .L A. limit or require different approaches qto current practices. Make up and tenure oqf Water Quaqlit-v Commiqttee. Discussion of -tee without other nominations to committee, coming from commit support for generac community.. At some time -Ln next two qto three meetings, need an assessment oqf how group should be made up, .Length of time on, etc. Possibqiv advert-Ise for oqDenings on committee in Herald, Observer. Previlminary Agenda 28 june q19089, 6:00 pm- Courthouse, South Bend, Planning Deoartment. Water QualqitV Grant, comment from DOE' L a. USGS comment on cross sections, bridges with respect- to cross sections. Management Plan: Go over rough draft at- meeting., ABSTRACT #3 TITLE: Shorelines Management Administration and Enforcement AUT-SqHOR: Pacific County Planning Department SUBJECT: Administration and Enforcement oqf Pacific County Shoreline Management Plan DATE: july q1, q1q988 through June 30, 1-989 PARTICIPANT': Planning DeParqtqment Director, Admiqn-'st-"qatiqve Assistant and Prosecuting Attorney PR OjECT NUMBER: Grant '@'@uqmber G0089033 SERIES NUMBER: SUMMARY: Pacific CountqV continues to rely upon Coasta- Zone Management funds for the administration ana enforcement of the Shoreline Master Program. The equivalent of a full-time planning qDosition was funded and divided among the Planning DJrecqtor, Senior qPqlanne_- and Administrative Assistant. No new pnersonnel were hired as a result oqf qthe grant. To a minor extent, Coaszqa-- Zone Management funding was used to pay for --eqgaq: support on enforcement actions. This was due in Dart to the County Commissioners hiring an outs--'de Ciqv-4q: Attorney wh-'ch was no-, dependent on Coastal Zone Management funds. Pacific County received 225 Shoreline Permit's the qnasqt veqar. q.qL q- (6q8) notices of Shq.ore8qlq.L Planning Department sent out eq"ght q-ne Violation durqIng the year. None of these reqau4qfqred court actqfon to gain abatement and com2qo4qlqfance. Su-2qDrqis0qin24qg8qly on-q;y one (2q1) no-lice of violation was issued for 16qPrq_0qimaqr4qy Dune Modification. The Planning Department pursued Shoreline Vqloq:2qat0qio2qns aggressively during the year and as a result compliance 4qim2qnroved compared to previous years. DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTFD IN IJ S A 366 141074932 68