SAN JUAN COUNTY MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Related page

Marine Resource Committee news

May 2, 2001 meeting minutes

Members Present: Laura Arnold, Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Mike Bertrand, Mark Billington, Bill Brant, Brian Calvert, Jim Capron, Tom McMillen, Rich Osborne, Kevin Ranker, Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb, Jean Van Leuven, Dennis Willows

Absent: Terrie Klinger

Guests: Mark Anderson, Rachel Dietzman, Commissioner John Evans, Kari Koski, Birgit Kriete, Susan Schwinge, Jodi Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Phyllis Smith, Bill Wright

Chair Jim Slocomb called to order the regular meeting of the MRC at 8:37 a.m. in the BOCC Meeting Room, Courthouse, Friday Harbor. The minutes of March 21st were approved as read. Minutes of April 18th were approved with the following corrections:

It was noted that at the time of the last meeting, only half of the volunteer monitoring training had been completed; also, Dan Pentilla had not yet been hired full-time by SRFboard. Spelling corrections of names include: Fran Wilshusen, Doug De Masters, David Bain, and Mark Spalding.

Laura distributed copies of Shannon Winger’s UW Masters thesis, "Local-Level Natural Resource Planning and Management: An Evaluation of the San Juan County Marine Resources Committee."

Guest Speaker: Jim Slocomb said that, in response to a recent citizen’s complaint about drainage and run-off issues in the Argyle Lagoon area, the Port of Friday Harbor’s engineer, Rachel Dietzman had been invited to speak to the MRC on the issue. Ms. Dietzman explained that a report had been prepared for the County when the solar aquatic septage project was being considered for the corner of Mullis and Argyle Roads. She indicated aerial photographs of the area that showed the natural topography and historical stormwater flow through the area. Ms. Dietzman said that the report utilized the same data and methodology as used for the County Health Department’s Watershed Study.

A portion of the drainage was routed to Mills Street in 1985 when the airport was reconstructed (at that time, the detention pond was designed with a 50-year storm event capacity). She said it was important to note that the roadside ditch did not flow into the pond; when Mullis Road went in, drainage was shunted into the Workman pond. Also, the area of impervious surfaces and runoff potential was increased some. The pond was enlarged then to meet industrial area standards, to accommodate the extra storage volume of the increased impervious surfaces.

Ms. Dietzman described the operation of the outlet control structure. She said there has been no evidence of overflow. Water quality tests, within the past year, were for turbidity only and the lagoon was not tested. Kevin Ranker advised, and Ms. Dietzman agreed, that it was critical to test for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and turbidity on a regular basis at the outfall, since the lagoon area may be identified as forage fish habitat. He said sampling could be done, for instance, by volunteers for $12,000 per year; Ms. Dietzman said a plan should be developed first (for under $3,000) to set up a timetable for a monitoring program. Dennis Willows pointed out that the outfall is downstream from the lagoon.

Jim Slocomb said it appears that Mr. Smith’s property is the focal point of several drainage areas. Ms. Dietzman added that construction opens an area to increased sedimentation when erosion control measures are not sufficient. The Workman pond, functioning as a detention pond, slows waterflow down and allows for some sedimentation but fine particles are not being deposited below. Ms. Dietzman indicated that evidence of increased algal bloom in the area may be due to elevated nutrient levels from failed drainfields in this older development area. Ms. Dietzman said that Mr. Smith’s pond is not a detention pond designed for stormwater management and functions as a run-through (not a filter); she added that it may qualify as a wetland.

Rich Osborne pointed out that the circulation pattern in Southern Griffin Bay is quite unique oceanographically; continuous circular patterns bring "everything" to the mouth of Argyle Lagoon. Brian said that the silt issue may not as much of an MRC issue as is the possible runoff of contaminants and fecal coliform. Dennis said there is evidence that the lagoon is filling, a result of natural geological process or of serious increase in runoff sedimentation.

Mike Bertrand said the Town of Friday Harbor’s stormwater program should address past problems in the area. Dennis Willows added that the University of Washington has a strong interest, since it bought the Argyle Lagoon tidelands to preserve and study "a treasure that warrants attention."

The Port of Friday Harbor also has a vested interest and Dennis said a partnership could lower the costs of a sampling program. It was agreed that baseline data is needed. Port Commissioner, Brian Calvert, said that the Port would be more inclined to support a sampling program if costs were shared. Kevin said that matching federal funds and grants for water quality monitoring could be available under HR999, the Beach Bill, and this area qualifies as a public recreational area (bought with state funds).

Ms. Dietzman suggested that the three agencies initially hire a professional to do a report ($1000-$1500) on the multiple sources of the problem so that a formal recommendation could be made. Rich Osborne reiterated that protecting Argyle Lagoon falls under MRC’s mandate to safeguard marine resources.

Commissioner Evans offered that there is interest in developing a stormwater management protocol; he said it would be useful to identify if a problem exists in this area, with scientific basis for establishing if the reported sedimentation is naturally occurring or not. Jim Slocomb asked that members be prepared to examine the issue further at the next meeting.

Whale Watching Management Project: Jim Slocomb distributed packets of all the e-mail comments he received by noon Sunday. He asked that members review these latest draft recommendations; comments were collected around the table, moving through the document section by section, to arrive at consensus and vote at this meeting. New comments follow and relate to appended draft recommendations.:

Preamble: Members agreed to Laura’s edits and to Kevin’s suggestion to add that the status quo does not go far enough.

1. Change WWOA to WWOANW throughout the document. There was consensus on (a) and (b), adding "for the enhanced protection of whales" to the introductory statement of item #1.

2. There was agreement that (c) be expanded to "Soundwatch, M3 [Marine Mammal Monitoring pilot project], and other credible observational records."

   There was discussion on changing the imperative case (e.g. "WWOA agrees) to "strongly encourage the WWOA..." throughout the document, per Rich’s proposed edits.

   Section (b) was replaced by (e) by majority agreement; (a) through (d) were approved, as amended.

3. There was consensus to change to "Determine at what distance a whale is impacted by vessels," keeping the language in italics.

4. Discussion of the proposed "800" number led to general agreement that the issue needed to be addressed, since MRC review of this option was specifically requested by the BOCC. Laura said the point is that an educational, not a reporting enforcement, mechanism is being sought here. Commissioner Evans said that the public needs a way to respond to the problem and a well-advertised "800" number could be important.

   Kevin said that the original idea came out of discussions with some operators and Mark Spalding. The committee agreed that (a) through (c) be struck and the language of (d) be changed to "...As part of a broader public educational campaign, have an "800"number for feedback, not as a reporting/enforcement mechanism." The committee also favored a collaborative approach, between the county and the WWOANW (50/50), on funding and other aspects of the proposal.

5. Struck in entirety.

6. The language of Laura’s edited version was accepted, changing (a) to "...strongly encourage regional recreational (private) boater organizations to maintain an advertising educational campaign."

7. Consensus was to use Kevin’s proposed edits, adding "...areas ‘for whales’ to the first line; changing "investigate" to "strongly encourage" in (a); changing Pile Point to Limekiln in (c) and adding "when whales are present."

8. Kevin said he was very uncomfortable with the committee using Spalding’s language as text for a proposed RFP. Commissioner Evans warned that the basis of a limited entry permit system would be political, not scientific, given the many, varied stakeholders involved. How could a fair and effective number of allowable boats be assessed? What would be the criteria for denial? Jim Slocomb said such decisions would need to be made by some credible scientific body hired by the BOCC; Kelly suggested that the concept be explored here with follow-up recommendations made later, if the BOCC requested. Kit said that the best approach would be to quantify impacts (e.g. weekly cumulative decibels), if possible, leaving the decision of who would be regulated to address those impacts to some political body.

It was generally agreed that the wording of #8 be modified to "...Investigate a limited entry system a.) by publishing an RFQ, if deemed appropriate by the Prosecuting Attorney, on legal efficacy; b.)examine effectiveness on the whale population, and possible public education component; striking existing (b); making (c) a new #9.

Chair Slocomb opened the meeting to comments from the audience. Bill Wright said that he has enjoyed the process and appreciates the re-shaped language. He hopes that what has come to light is a recognition of a decade of work by the WWOANW, an "evolving" organization; he said the guidelines are recognized worldwide. Bill’s concern is that this is an inclusive process and that major multi-national stakeholders should also be considered. He added that there seems to be about 90 percent compliance already among operators, so that the proposed "800" number may not be needed. Bill encouraged that Soundwatch is the mitigating factor and the organization would love to see more money for additional such boats on the water. He said that 50 percent of the boats on the water are private and the whale watch operators are trying to make a living without causing harm.

Jodi Smith said that, in recommendation #3, she does not agree with relying on WWOA to regulate themselves since there is science-based evidence in the bibliography she submitted that this approach is not sufficient. She emphasized that she has seen 90 percent compliance with just the ¼-mile, when Soundwatch was present; otherwise, there is 80 percent compliance. There was a vote to strike the entire second sentence of #3.

Kari Koski noted that the brochure mentioned in item #1 is a new collaborative process (therefore, strike "Canadian"); Kari also said that there is a multiple listing of existing "800" numbers that should also be utilized. There was discussion on Kari’s suggestion that language be incorporated in #7 to strongly encouraged opetarors to abide by existing federal, state, and county MPA’s to protect other wildlife; there was consensus.

Mark Anderson thanked the committee for its work on this difficult and important issue. He noted that the ESA petition is in the news today. Mark said that, with respect to the "800" number, people here are already frustrated by having called existing numbers to document incidences they have witnessed but nothing happens; he said if there are no teeth behind this proposal, they will be angered.

Mark reminded that the reason for this work is that the whales are dying (almost 1/5 of them have been lost); this death rate must be reduced and ways to get teeth into these measures must be found. Mark said he is impressed by David Bain’s statement that, as far as he knows, sound levels at legal distances cause damage, so that the 100-yard restriction may be capricious. He said the questions remain: how many boats, how many hours, what are the whales experiencing, how to document impacts? Will additional Soundwatch boats reduce the number of whale deaths?

Kit Rawson said that the guidelines make sense in the context of an overall recovery plan. If the southern orcas become an ESA listed species, a recovery plan would be federally-mandated.

Susan Schwinge would like to encourage the MRC to focus on what’s best for the whales, not the operators; she recommended getting the guidelines in place and doing as much as we can now.

Birgit Kriete noted that the whale watch operators represent a small group of the boats on the water. She encouraged more emphasis on acoustic impacts, which could easily be reduced by turning off engines (she has seen little support on this from operators). Birgit said that fish the whales feed on disperse because of noise levels.

Mr. Smith noted that the lagoon issue spotlighted concerns that tie in with whales, with respect to the food chain being impacted.

There was discussion on recommending to the BOCC that the orcas be designated as a local species of concern, based on management guidelines provided in the code. The recently-completed ESA petition could serve as the basis for this recommendation. There was agreement that this issue be tabled until next meeting’s agenda.

Jim Slocomb said he would incorporate today’s comments into a final draft that would be e-mailed to members.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. Next scheduled meeting is May 16.

Minutes recorded by Helen Venada, Recording Secretary