HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources December 9 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
December 9, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9:33:13 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Sam Crawford and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Barbara Brenner, Pete Kremen, Rud Browne, and Ken Mann.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TITLE 20 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SURFACE
MINE PERMITTING, THE MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION
PROCESS, AND MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION CRITERIA
(AB2014 -344)
Joshua Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department, read from the
staff report dated October 27, 2014, beginning on Council packet page two.
The committee discussed whether environmental assessments should happen before
or after an area is designated as a mineral resource land (MRL), whether the County should
do a countywide survey to determine what areas in the county have appropriate mineral
resources, a past MRL expansion request during which they discussed getting enough
information to make a decision to establish an MRL, whether environmental impacts can be
assessed with or without a mineral extraction plan, the cost of assessing environmental
impacts, combining the processes for MRL designation and mineral extraction permitting,
and notifying the neighbors.
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Weimer stated add language that indicates that neighborhood notification within
2,000 feet should also occur during the MRL designation process, not just during the
permitting process.
(10: 02:46 AM)
The committee discussed how other counties designate MRLs.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/9/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner asked Mr. Fleischmann to contact other counties to find out about their MRL
designation program and processes. She would like to see the two processes consolidated
to make it more cost - effective for applicants.
Browne stated work out what areas should be MRLs, considering several economic
factors. People should know whether they live in a future potential MRL. Also, don't require
businesses to incur any costs, such as the cost of an environmental impact statement, until
they can actually begin to generate revenue.
Weimer stated begin discussing the general MRL lands in Whatcom County. Today
they are working on something for the short -term. He moved to work with Exhibit A,
recommended by Councilmembers Weimer and Brenner in the application, instead of Exhibit
B, recommended by the Surface Mining Advisory Committee.
(Clerk's Note: The committee did not vote on Councilmember Weimer's motion.)
George Boggs, Conservation District, stated they must identify 50 -year
requirements. Speculating and doing environmental review before they know if there will
be a viable gravel mine is a waste of time and resources. Focus their time and effort,
including public hearings, on site - specific applications. It's unavoidable that the permit
applicant will incur some costs. The current processes aren't broken.
Meredith Moench stated she lives near the Lummi Island quarry. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) law supports substantive environmental review at the
beginning of the process. A phased SEPA option is not appropriate for MRLs. Impacts from
mining go beyond 1,000 feet. She approves of the Snohomish County notification
requirements. She supports the Exhibit A option.
Elizabeth Kilanowski stated she supports the Exhibit A option. Mines should be well -
regulated and pay plenty of property taxes. She supports the 2,000 -foot notification area.
The Lummi Island quarry exported 80 percent of its product out of the county.
Browne stated hold in committee to get more information and discuss further.
Weimer stated don't introduce it tonight.
Crawford stated he would like input from the industry before the hearing. He
described the map of Whatcom County MRLs compared to the MRL maps for Skagit County
and Snohomish County.
Buchanan moved to hold in committee and work from Exhibit A going forward.
Weimer referenced Council packet page 28 and the Planning Commission idea about
contiguous parcels, which is a good idea and should be included in the final version. He
would also like to amend it to add notification to the MRL designation process. He can bring
those amendments forward in January.
The motion to hold carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Crawford and Buchanan (3)
Nays: None (0)
Natural Resources Committee, 12/9/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Browne referenced Council packet page 17, section 2.73.153(2), and stated he
would like to know if a ten -foot vertical protection zone is the right number. Wells generally
have an 18 -foot zone around the wellhead.
2. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO SEND A LETTER TO THE ARMY CORP OF
ENGINEERS REGARDING THE PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) (AB2014 -428) (10:24:03 AM)
Weimer stated the comment period has been extended to January.
Crawford moved to recommend that the Council approve and send the letter.
Weimer asked if this letter is necessary, given the letter from the administration.
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, stated the administration can send a letter
subsequent and complementary to the Council's letter that is more technical.
Ed Blok, Agricultural Advisory Committee, stated the Agricultural Advisory
Committee's purpose is to preserve farmland. The letter makes it sound like they are
trading away agricultural land. The Council should try to save the land. They lost 2,500
acres to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). They lose land to urban
expansion. This is a big chunk of land that they are going to lose. The letter should
indicate they are going to try to hang on to the land for agriculture.
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment to approve the letter and amend the
first paragraph of the second sentence, "We believe yei� tea+ there are solutions that
can be a win - win...."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
The committee discussed adding language about no net loss compared to language
that specifies they don't want to lose any productive agricultural land.
Brenner stated include the sentence, "The land in question is productive agricultural
land, and we don't want to lose it."
George Boggs, Conservation District, submitted a handout (on file) and stated the
Conservation District Board is adverse to any net loss of farmland. Get development rights
off the prime agricultural farmland.
Dick Bedlington, Dick Bedlington Farms, stated he owns 425 acres of the land in
question. He needs this land to operate his business. This land can't be replaced.
The committee discussed the importance of agricultural land and the agriculture
industry to Whatcom County.
Weimer stated the Council should get a presentation from the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to find out the impacts of the program.
Buchanan restated the motion to approve the letter and amend the first
paragraph of the second sentence, "We believe y-ei� pFepesal there are solutions that can
be a win - win...."
Natural Resources Committee, 12/9/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Crawford and Buchanan (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:52 a.m.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barry Buchanan, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 12/9/2014, Page 4