ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -  MINUTES OF MEETING

REGULAR SESSION   -  AUGUST 7, 2000 

 

The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on August 7, 2000 beginning  at   9:30 a.m.,  Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with   Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman,   William F. Thorn, Member and Mike Shelton, Member, present.    By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed Minutes from the July 24, 2000 meeting.

 

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

 

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board, along with July payroll:      Voucher (War.) #79934-80364 $ 498,764.49.

 

Hiring Requests & Personnel Actions

 

After receiving a brief  summarization of proposed personnel  actions by Dick Toft, Human Resources Director, the Board by unanimous motion, approved the following Personnel Action Authorizations:

 

Dept.         PAA #             Description/Position #                   Action                    Eff. Date      

Health        089/00             Acct. Tech  #2427.00                      Replacement            8/14/00

Planning    090/00             Assoc. Planner/Enf.  #1708.03       Replacement           8/21/00

 

St. Joseph’s Hospital Contract #HS-03-99-1

 

Having previously reviewed at the June 7th Staff Session proposed Amendment to Contract #HS-03-99-1 with   St. Joseph’s Hospital, to add  $10,000 related to chemical dependency, the Board by unanimous motion approved and signed the amendment.

 

RESOLUTION #C-74-00 -  WA. STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS & CREATING A WATER QUALITY ASSISTANCE FUND LOAN PROGRAM - LOW INTEREST LOANS - REPAIR FOR FAILING ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS

 

Tim McDonald, Health Services Director, presented a Resolution committing to repay funds borrowed from the Washington  State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds and creating a water quality Assistance Fund (WQAF) loan program for the purpose of providing  low interest  loans for the repair of failing on-site septic systems. Monies are provided  through the State Department of Ecology to  be loaned to individuals  with failing septic systems who meet certain economic criteria.  The proposed Loan Agreement between State of Washington  DOE and Island County  has been reviewed and approved by the Board of Health on 2-28-00, and  discussed with the Board of Commissioners in  staff sessions on  June 21 and July 14.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Resolution  #C-74-00 as presented.

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

RESOLUTION COMMITTING TO REPAY FUNDS    )                     

BORROWED FROM THE       WASHINGTON STATE )

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING         )

FUNDS AND CREATING A WATER QUALITY           )

ASSISTANCE FUND (W.Q.A.F.) LOAN PROGRAM    )           RESOLUTION NO. C-74-00

TO PROVIDE   LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR THE   )

REPAIR FOR FAILING ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS)

 

            WHEREAS, failing on-site septic systems create conditions which are harmful to the public health, safety, and welfare and may cause surface and groundwater pollution; and

            WHEREAS, it is important to remedy this harm to the greatest extent feasible; and

            WHEREAS,    the creation of a W.Q.A.F. Loan Program for the purpose of providing low interest loans to repair failing on-site septic systems should provide an effective method of remedying the conditions and protecting the public from the harmful effect of these conditions; and

            WHEREAS, Island County has applied for funding from the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) to establish a Community Loan Program; and

            WHEREAS, all (SRF) applicants must be willing to dedicate a source of revenue to repay the SRF loan; and

            WHEREAS, loans granted  through the Community Loan Program will be secured by a promissory note and a deed of trust on the subject property; and

            WHEREAS, Island County will have the right to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default on the promissory note;

            BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Island County Commissioners agree to the following:

1.             Island County shall enter into the attached Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving  Fund Loan Agreement (Agreement) with the Washington State Department of Ecology for the purpose of receiving moneys for the Community Loan Program.

2.           Island County shall establish a Water Quality Assistance Loan Program with moneys received  from  the Washington  State Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund.

3.      The  W.Q.A.F. Loan Program shall provide low interest loans to eligible county residents for  the purpose of repairing failing septic systems according to the Agreement.

4.      A representative of the Board of County Commissioners advised by the Island County Auditor  and Island County Treasurer  is authorized to select loan recipients from the eligible applicants according to the Agreement.

5.      Island County shall set up a W.Q.A.F. Loan Repayment Fund and commit these funds to repay the moneys received from the Washington  State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund as set  forth in the Agreement.

6.      Island County shall also commit that portion of its current expense fund to repay moneys received  from the Washington  State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund that cannot be  repaid from the W. Q.A.F. Loan Repayment Fund.  This commitment represents a contingent liability.

 

            ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE this 7th day of August, 2000.

 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

Mike Shelton, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:   Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board      BICC 00-455

                       

                        APPROVED this 17th day of July, 2000

 

BOARD OF HEALTH

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William F. Thorn, Vice Chairman

[absent - Mike Shelton, Member]

Holly Schoenknecht, Member

[absent-Patty Cohen, Member]

 

Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Loan Agreement Between The State of Washington DOE and Island County:  On-site Repair Financial Assistance Program

 

Having adopted Resolution  #C-74-00, the Board approved Washington  State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Loan Agreement between the State of          Washington Department of Ecology and Island County for   On-site Repair Financial Assistance Program, a zero percent interest rate for a five year loan term, in the amount of  $300,000, Contract #L0100007 [RM-HLTH-00-0003].

 

 Professional Services CONTRACT– Olympic Accounting

 

The Board by unanimous motion approved Contract #RM-TREAS-00-0059 for  Professional Services between Island County and  Olympic Accounting  to review accounting procedures and train a new accountant for the Island County  Treasurer’s Office, at a rate of $50.00 an hour, not to

exceed  $3,500.00, for a maximum period of two months, with effective date of contract August 7, 2000, subject to availability of funds in the Treasurer’s budget.

 

Request to Participate in NEPA Process as Joint Lead Agency or Cooperating Agency; Request for EIS regarding proposed  changes to WAC 173-26, the Washington State Shorelines Management Act; and Request for compliance with federal Administrative Procedures Act

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed the following letter  regarding Island County’s   Request to Participate in NEPA Process as Joint Lead Agency or Cooperating Agency; Request for EIS regarding proposed             changes to WAC 173-26, the Washington State Shorelines Management Act;  and Request for compliance with federal Administrative Procedures Act, to be sent to  National Marine Fisheries Service and Washington  State Department of Ecology:

 

“The Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelines Program receives funding from the National Marine Fisheries Service and constitutes a major federal action. See 40CFR1508.18.

 

Island County respectfully  requests that National Marine Fisheries Service comply with the NEPA by conducting and producing an EIS in relation to the proposed changes to Washington Administrative Code 173-26, the Shorelines Management Act of Washington State.

 

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. @ 1506.2(b), the purpose of this letter is to request that Island County  be granted joint lead or cooperating agency status in the completion of the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed amendments to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26,  the Shoreline Management Act of Washington State.

 

Pursuant to the regulations implementing NEPA,  to which all federal agencies must comply (40 C.F.R. @ 1507.1) state and local governments may be granted lead agency status (see 40 C.F.R. @ 1508.16) or cooperating agency status when the state or local government has “special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”  40 C.R.F. @ 1508.5. 

 

In this case, Island  County has special expertise relating to the analysis of the federal agency’s proposed decision on the physical environment, custom, culture and local tax base. 

 

Additionally, according to the regulations, federal agencies shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with state and local agencies.  The regulations specifically state:

 

(b)   Agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce

duplication between NEPA and State and local requirements, unless the agencies are specifically barred from doing so by some other law . . . . such cooperation shall be to the fullest extent possible including:

 

(1)             Joint planning processes;

(2)             Joint environmental research studies

(3)             Joint public hearings (except where otherwise provided by statute.)

(4)             Joint environmental assessments.

 

(b)   Agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable State and local requirements, unless the agencies are specifically barred from doing so by some other law.  Except for cases covered by paragraph (a) of this section,  such cooperation shall be to the fullest extent possible, including joint environmental impact statements.  In such cases one or more Federal agencies and one or more State or local agencies shall be joint lead agencies.  When State laws or local ordinances have environmental impact statement requirements in addition to but not in conflict with those in NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooperate in fulfilling these requirements as well as those of Federal laws so that one document will comply with all applicable laws.

 

(c)    To better integrate environmental impact statements into State or local planning processes, statements shall discuss any inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or

Local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned.)  Where an inconsistency exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law.

 

40 C.F.R. @ 1502.2(b)(c)(d).

 

Therefore to ensure that the federal agency fully and adequately considers the effect of  its proposed decision on the physical environment, customs, culture, and tax base of the citizens of our county, Island  County hereby requests to be named as a joint lead or cooperating agency.  Further, we   request a hearing be held in Island County  to consider these effects of the proposed action(s) referenced in this letter.

 

We also request that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Ecology comply with provisions of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.) in the promulgation of this rule. [5 U.S.C. 551 (4)], as well as any applicable requirements of the state Administrative Procedures Act.

 

Among other requirements, this will require publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, allow for public comments following that publication, and allow for interested persons to petition for the issuance, amendment or repeal of the rule. [5 U.S.C. (b); 5 U.S.C. (c); 5 U.S.C. 553 (e)]

 

Thank you in advance for your  consideration.  We look forward to your  response.”.

 

Resolution #C-76-00 (R-39-00) – Initiating CRP 00-10, Gogenola Drainage

 

On presentation and recommendation for approval by Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, and summary of action provided by  Roy L. Allen,  the Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-76-00 (R-39-00)  Initiating CRP 00-10, Gogenola Drainage, property located in Sections  23/26, Twp 30N, Rge 3E, Camano Island, for a total appropriation of $66,500.00, a 50-50% share between the County and the property owner per agreement.

 

Contract/Performance Bond/Retainage Bond – Callen Construction; Glendale Road & Stream Restoration; CRP 97-046

 

The Board by unanimous motion approved the Contract and accepted and approved a Performance Bond and Retainage Bond from Callen Construction for the  Glendale Road and  Stream Restoration project under  CRP 97-04, Work Order #236, per bid  awarded July 24, 2000, in the amount of  $425,272.00.

 

The Board was apprised by Dick Snyder, Construction  Engineer, that the pre-construction meeting would be held this Wednesday and project  start date expected later this month.

 

Agreement for Services-Watershed Implementation

Chums of Maxwelton Salmon Adventure -restore/preserve natural resources along salmon bearing creeks

 

Agreement for Services for Watershed Implementation between Island County and  Chums of Maxwelton Salmon Adventure was presented for approval by Larry Kwarsick.  The agreement is for the  implementation  of a stewardship program to restore and preserve natural resources along salmon bearing creeks, including Maxwelton and Glendale, under  Work Order #351.  Agreement duration is for four years, in the total amount of  $50,000.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board  approved Agreement for Services for Watershed Implementation, #RM-PW-002025,  with Chums of Maxwelton Salmon Adventure for   implementation  of a stewardship program to restore and preserve natural resources along salmon bearing creeks.

 

Standard Consultant Agreement  - Shannon & Wilson, Inc. - On-call geo-technical and miscellaneous professional services

 

The Board by unanimous  motion, as recommended for approval by Mr. Kwarsick, approved Standard Consultant Agreement #PW-002037 with  Shannon & Wilson, Inc., to provide on-call geo-technical and miscellaneous professional services, in the amount of  $50,000.00.

 

Mr. Kwarsick noted that the scope of work as contained in Exhibit B-2 includes items A through F, including  wetland delineation, fisheries/stream  studies and environmental permitting.

 

Final Approval SPR 94/95-South Whidbey Assembly of God

 

Debra Little, Community Development Division, presented request for Final Approval of SPR 94/95 by South Whidbey Assembly of God,  for expansion of Church located at 5373 Maxwelton Road, Sec 10, Twp 29N, R 3E.   Her August 2nd memorandum to the Board for today’s meeting explained that the project had been  granted conditional preliminary approval on August 28, 1995.  The application  for final approval has been reviewed by county staff finding that conditions of preliminary SPR have been met.  Staff recommends approval of final SPR, subject to two conditions.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Final Approval of Site Plan Review 094/95 by South Whidbey Assembly of God as presented and recommended.

 

Application:    Final Site Plan  SPR 094/95

Name and Address of Agent, Applicant, and Owner:

 

Applicant:

 

Owner:

South Whidbey Assembly of God

South Whidbey Assembly of God

5373 Maxwelton  Rd

5373 Maxwelton  Rd

Langley,  WA  98260

Langley,  WA  98260

 

 

Requesting The Following:   Approval of the Final Site Plan for the church expansion to include construction of a new multi-purpose / sanctuary structure with attached foyer and two story class room wing.  Now located in the Rural Zone.  (This was zoned Rural Residential when originally approved.)

Upon The Following Property: 5373 Maxwelton Road, on south Whidbey Island slightly more than one mile south of Langley, in Section 10, Township 29 North, Range 3 East, W.M.  (Tax Assessor Number R32910-323-2670)

 

Island County Staff Recommendation:   Approval with the following two conditions and for recording.

1.               The restoration plan prepared by Langley Botanical, dated June 2000, shall                         be implemented  in full.

2.           Monitoring and maintenance of the restoration planting shall be as described in the addendum to the plan received on July 7, 2000.  Monitoring reports shall be submitted no later than October 31 each year following the initial restoration planting.  The monitoring reports shall describe the status of the restoration planting, including mortality rates, invasion of undesirable species, and other relevant information.  Photographic records are encouraged.  The reports shall also contain recommendations for correcting any identified problems.

Director’s Approval

Larry Kwarsick, Director

Public Works Department

Board of Island County Commissioner Decision:

            APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th  day of August, 2000.

                                                                 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                 ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

                                                                 Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

                                                                 William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:    Margaret Rosenkranz          Mike Shelton, Member

Clerk of the Board       BICC 00-462

 

Bid Award - Beverly Beach Drive Culvert Replacement

 

The Board, by unanimous motion, accepted the recommendation of  the Public Works Director and awarded bid to the low bidder,  Island Asphalt, in the amount of $49,690.00 for the  Beverly Beach Drive Culvert Replacement project,  CRP 00-07, Work Order #280. 

 

Resolution #C-77-00 (R-41-00)  Initiating CRP 00-07, Beverly Beach

 

Following award of bid for Beverly Beach Drive Culvert Replacement, the Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-77-00 (R-41-00)  initiating CRP 00-07, Beverly Beach Drive  Culvert Replacement, Work Order #280, for a total appropriation of $75,000.00.

 

HEARING SCHEDULED ON  Ordinance #C-78 -00  Amending ICC 17.02.110 ICC, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

 

A Public Hearing was scheduled, on unanimous motion of the Board,  to hear   Ordinance #C-78-00 (PLG-022-00),  Amending Chapter 17.02.110 ICC, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, to comply with the Order of the Western Washington  Growth Management Hearings Board, on  August 28, 2000 at 2:45 p.m.   [Ordinance #C-78-00 introduced and set for hearing -  GMA Doc.# 5873]

 

Resolution #C-79-00  (PLG-024-00) - Response to Revised

Draft of DOE Shoreline GUIDELINES

 

As presented by Phil Bakke and Jeff Tate, the Board by unanimous motion  approved Resolution C-79-00  (PLG-024-00) responding to a request for comment on the working draft of the State Department of Ecology’s State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Shoreline Master  Program Guidelines,  and approved and signed the attached letter to Tom Fitzsimmons, Director, SMA Guidelines Update, Washington State  DOE, with the following  changes:

 

-        Letter to be signed by all three County Commissioners

-        Page 1                 Add in the third paragraph of the first page “Island County supports the                                            broad principle of fish and habitat    recovery in Puget Sound

-        Page 4 of 8          Under Page 47 section, add a statement about mitigation banking

-        Page 6 of 8          Top of the page, first complete sentence add “…or some percentage of the total”.                        Page 6 of 8         Under Page 93 section, add a statement that standards need to be identified                             to discover when  PFC has been achieved.

[Adopted Resolution #C-79-00 GMA doc. #5875]

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

IN THE MATTER OF RESPONDING TO A REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON THE WORKING DRAFT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S STATE MASTER PROGRAM APPROVAL / AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM GUIDELINES.

)

)         RESOLUTION C-79-2000

)             PLG-024-00

)

)

)

WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology has requested comments on proposed shoreline master program guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC); and

WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology issued the first formal draft of Chapter 173-26 WAC in April of 1999; and

WHEREAS, as a result of public comment received by the Department of Ecology, the DOE issued a revised working draft on December 17, 1999; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2000, Island County adopted Resolution C-19-00, responding to specific issues within the working draft; and

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2000, the Department of Ecology filed its second draft of the revised rule (Chapter 173-26 WAC); and

WHEREAS, from June 7, 2000 through August 7, 2000, the Department of Ecology is accepting public comments on proposed shoreline master program guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC); and

WHEREAS, the draft rule proposes substantial changes to the existing shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173-16 WAC) and includes a two path approach; and

WHEREAS, path A requires compliance with the proposed revised shoreline guidelines and allows local jurisdictions the ability to negotiate directly with the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFW) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to achieve compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with specific regard to protection of recently listed salmonid species; and

WHEREAS, path B requires compliance with the proposed revised shoreline guidelines which includes master program requirements, in addition to those in path A, which have been reviewed by USFW and NMFS and determined to be in compliance with ESA; and

WHEREAS, due to the on-going budgetary constraints related to I-695 and the burden of additional State mandated requirements, tasks, studies, evidence, science and projects that would be required in order to comply with draft guidelines, Island County will not be able to satisfy the goals and requirements of the guidelines without significant financial assistance from the State; and

WHEREAS, Island County will not assume responsibility if a taking claim is filed due to a loss of reasonable use of a parcel incurred as a result of implementing these guidelines; and

WHEREAS, Island County will not assume responsibility if personal property is damaged or lives harmed as a result of a property owner not being able to adequately protect their homes due to implementation of these guidelines, NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Island County Commissioners have reviewed the working draft rule entitled “State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines” and offer additional comments attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Island County Commissioners have reviewed the Department of Ecology’s Executive Summary dated December 17, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and believe that further integration of these revisions into the guidelines is necessary.

 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August, 2000.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William F. Thorn, Member

Mike Shelton, Member

ATTEST: Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board         BICC  00-466

August 7, 2000

Mr. Tom Fitzsimmons, Director

SMA Guidelines Update

Washington State Department of Ecology

Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program

P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA  98504-7600

 

RE:  Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Guidelines

 

Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons:

 

The Department of Ecology has requested comments regarding the recent working draft of the “State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines.”  The rule, if adopted, would replace the existing shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173-16 WAC). 

Island County fundamentally supports the broad principle of fish and wildlife habitat recovery in Puget Sound, however, there are a number of detailed issues and questions that must be addressed.  Prior to supporting any set of draft guidelines, such issues demand attention. 

 

Island County offers the following comments regarding the draft Shoreline Master Program Guidelines.  Comments are divided into three different topics, those related to the concept of a two path system, those related to specific requirements proposed in “Path A” and those related to specific requirements proposed in “Path B”

Two path concept

Island County appreciates Department of Ecology’s efforts with respect to drafting an approach that allows local government the option of choosing between two different paths, “Path A”  that addresses compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and “Path B” that intends to address compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the recent listing of specific salmonid species, in addition to compliance with the Shoreline Management Act.  However, Island County has a number of concerns regarding this approach.

 

On July 19, 2000, Department of Ecology staff agreed to meet with the Board of Island County Commissioners to discuss the revisions and the differences between Path A and B.  DOE staff provided some additional information that was quite useful, however, it was evident from that meeting that DOE staff were not in a position to address a number of questions that require definite answers and clarity in order to determine which path is most appropriate for Island County.  The Board of Island County Commissioners was assured that answers would be provided prior to the end of the comment period.  To date, these questions have not been answered.  While Island County does support the concept of a two path approach, we can not support the concept of this two path approach and the specific proposed regulatory amendments until these questions are answered.  These questions are as follows:

 

1.  Both the Focus Sheet entitled “Key provisions of proposed shoreline rules” and Part IV of WAC 173-26 state that “Path B is written so that master programs based on them would insulate local governments from liability under the federal Endangered Species Act.”  What does the word insulate mean?  If Island County follows this path, does that mean we are not liable if a taking claim is made?  If the Services have approved this approach and if DOE has approved the County’s master program, does that mean that the Services and DOE are liable if a taking claim is made?  

 

2. Assume the County has adopted a master program under the Path B approach and subsequently approves a shoreline permit which is in turn approved and filed by DOE.  If a taking claim is filed on a project that was constructed consistent with the conditions of approval, who will defend this claim?  Will DOE and/or the Services be prepared to provide legal services to defend the decision and the approved regulatory framework?  If DOE and/or the Services are not prepared to fully defend such claims, Island County would like to know what sort of insulation Path B provides.    

3.    Under Path A, can the County choose to not adopt any more regulations that are intended to protect federally listed endangered species in lieu of including a condition in every project approval within the shoreline jurisdiction that it is the property owner’s responsibility to achieve compliance with ESA?  Currently, the County takes this approach with respect to a number of federal and state agencies that regulate aspects of a project that the County does not currently oversee.  Examples include DFW requirements for Hydraulic Project Approval, United States Army Corps of Engineers requirements, DNR requirements related to public use of subtidal lands, and others.  In these circumstances, the County merely conditions permits by informing applicants that they must contact these agencies for the purpose of obtaining the appropriate permit.  Please provide reasons why this approach can not be implemented.  This would shift a liability of a property taking from the County to the agency passing and enforcing the regulations.  If the County was the enforcement agency the potential of taking claims that could be filed would be a great strain on the County’s fiscal condition.  Island County does not believe that defending taking claims by individual property owners is a fair and just use of tax dollars that are collected county-wide     .

4.  Path A and B set forth a requirement for local jurisdictions to conduct a very detailed shoreline inventory, identification of shoreline ecological systems,  an analysis of the cumulative impacts, an analysis of future demand along shorelines  and an analysis of the ultimate build-out on shorelines.  Path B includes a more specific list of elements to be described in the inventory.  Both scenarios will require a massive financial commitment.  Who is going to pay for this?  Will DOE and/or the Services be providing the financial means to accomplish this task?  Island County does not have the financial means to satisfy this requirement   .

5.   Enforcement of ESA requirements will be an extreme financial burden.  Under Path A or B, is the State and/or Federal government prepared to allocate significant funding to aid the burden experienced by the County for the purposes of enforcement?          
 

6.   Under both Path A and B, ecological restoration is a high priority.  The County can condition a project to require ecological restoration but monitoring it and ensuring its success is extremely difficult.  Will DOE and/or the Services be providing funding and/or resources required to monitor such projects?

 

Path A

Page 29 – Sub-section (c) requires local jurisdictions to conduct an inventory of shoreline conditions.  A list of minimum types of information that should be collected is provided within this sub-section.  This list is extensive and many of the items would consume an unreasonable amount of time and fiscal resources.  For example, determining the location of structures, the amount of impervious surface, vegetative characteristics and the location of shoreline modifications on more than 300 miles of shoreline would require staff, fiscal and time resources that Island County is not in a position to provide.  In order to collect this information, Island County will require significant financial assistance from the DOE and/or the Services.

Page 31 – Sub-section (d) requires local jurisdictions to prepare a characterization of shoreline ecological systems.  Once again the issue here is cost and resources.

Page 31 – Sub-section (ii) states that local government shall be required to conduct an analysis that will inventory current shoreline space and to then calculate future shoreline demands and needs.  If the intent is to require a similar analysis as that which is listed in RCW 36.70A.215, commonly referred to as a buildable lands analysis, this task would be formidable, expensive and extremely limited in its functional use as a planning tool.  While it is recognized that an inventory of current conditions is valuable, projecting future demands and needs of shorelands is an exercise in futility given the number of very broad social, economic, geographic and demographic assumptions that would need to be made.  Furthermore, shorelines are not urban growth areas.  Urban growth areas are assigned zoning and densities in order to encourage growth.  Zoning, densities and boundaries of the urban growth area are modified over time in order to adjust to shifting population trends.  An analysis of future demands along the shoreline should not be used as a means of establishing shoreline environment designations.  Environment designations should be based on existing shoreline conditions.

Page 32 – Sub-section (iii) requires that local governments project the ultimate allowed full build-out condition for existing and proposed master program provisions being considered.  Additional conclusions should be made regarding the potential impacts that occur a