HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole October 21 20081
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
October 21, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Bob Kelly
Sam Crawford
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Seth Fleetwood
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PREPARING AN INTER -GRANT EXCHANGE AND SUBSEQUENT RE-
CONVEYANCE PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSFER OF LANDS WITHIN AND
ADJOINING THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED RESERVOIR FOR PARK
PURPOSES PURSUANT TO RCW 79.22.300 (AB2008 -074B)
Brenner moved to fold this into the budget hearing material. A question remains of
how this affects the County budget now and in the future. She has information that lost
revenue could be up to $1. million per year and total $5 million.
A 2001 letter from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to Commissioner of Public
Lands Doug Southerland asked how Ecology's total maximum daily load (TMDL) study will
affect Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land. The letter was written before the
County passed its Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan. She read from the letter. Forest land
produces the lowest loads of phosphorus per acre. Properly managed commercial forest
land has been recognized as the most benign active land use for watershed protection for
some time. Cleanup for Lake Whatcom is more likely to be focused on reducing pollution
from non- forestry land uses. She continued to read from the letter.
Other information from Ecology says that well- managed forestland is insignificant in
any contribution to water quality. The reason for declining water quality is increased
development. Many of these letters say they must protect water quality by preserving the
25 percent of the watershed. They have done better than that by creating the Landscape
Plan, which protects all DNR lands in the watershed. The County hasn't gotten any credit
for the Landscape Plan.
They have limited resources. Reconveyance can rank high in the coordinated water
resource integration project (CWRIP) process with high maintenance, and can rank low with
low maintenance. The maintenance level planned is minimal. More than half the members
of the advisory committee had already publicly stated they wanted the land reconveyed. At
the beginning of the process, there wasn't even a commercial forestry representative on the
committee. The environmental protection of reconveyance is a wash either way, but the
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, Page 1
1 cost of reconveyance is significant. The public has the same access either way. As a park,
2 the County has many more costs. If the environmental benefit is a wash, she would like
3 this to go through the budget cycle. Get a breakdown over 20 years, not over 200 years.
4 Those costs will keep incurring for the first 100 years. Put this through the budget process.
5
6 She asked why this is a rush. The land isn't going anywhere. The land won't be
7 bought and developed. The rate of harvest is minimal
8
9 Weimer asked if the motion is to put the memorandum of agreement (MOA) into the
10 budget, or table the MOA until after the budget process.
11
12 Brenner stated they haven't agreed to the budget yet. They must look at the
13 details of what this reconveyance means to other parts of the budget. She restated her
14 motion to put the concept of the reconveyance, not the MOA, into the budget process.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. The Council can approve this
17 MOA and continue to work on the costs through the budget process. This is much less than
18 many other measures they've used to protect water quality, including the $6 million vault
19 upgrade and $10 million in property acquisition. Go with preventative action that could lock
20 up 25 percent of the watershed and not already add to the burdensome task of meeting
21 TMDL requirements.
22
23 Nelson stated they need on- the - ground fixes that impact people. This reconveyance
24 won't have an impact on water quality. If they are going to open the area up to more
25 people in the watershed, there will be more impact. Adopting the MOA and spending
26 $300,000 shouldn't come before the decision to go forward with the reconveyance and
27 associated issues. Fix things that affect water quality. Look at the budget first to see
28 where the County is at. Reassure taxpayers they are not doubling the size of park lands in
29 the county.
30
31 Fleetwood stated an official from Ecology who said the water quality benefits are a
32 wash. Those officials amended their views and said reconveyance will probably be net gain.
33 People who said that the land has to be forestry use or has to be a park were overstating
34 their cases.
35
36 He is inclined to support this area as a park. For process purposes, they must have
37 all their questions answered. There is no great harm in waiting to take this up after the
38 budget. He's heard that key partners will get cold feet, but he doesn't believe it. Also, he
39 won't approve a motion to table this early in the meeting.
40
41 Brenner withdrew her motion,
42
43 Caskey- Schreiber stated the context of the letters between DOE and Sutherland is
44 the TMDL, and how forestry will contribute to that fix. They still say that phosphorus is
45 stripped from rainfall if stormwater is allowed to filter through forest soils. Overall,
46 forestland is expected to produce the lowest loads of phosphorus per acre. The
47 reconveyance will keep the area forested, with some maintenance logging, but that is even
48 more restrictive than the Landscape Plan. DOE didn't factor the reconveyance into the
49 TMDL because they need to do something with the urbanization around the lake. The TMDL
50 is about what they need to do to reduce current pollution levels.
51
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, 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
Weimer asked if the Council must do this sooner rather than later. It is in the
proposed budget for 2009. Parks employees that were supposed to be a part of the
reconveyance were cut. The conservation futures fund has been cut.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated this can wait until
after the budget. There are not operating funds for the lands in this budget cycle because it
will take 18 to 24 months for the reconveyance to occur. The soonest the County will have
an expenditure will be 2011.
Brenner stated the memo referenced said they think they should concentrate on
existing development, but it didn't say it was more important. They said that keeping the
land in forestland uses is an appropriate measure to protect against increasing phosphorus
load to the lake. It says causes of increased phosphorus pollution of the lake are most
likely the result of decreased permeability and increased runoff as the watershed around the
lake is developed. That is the most likely cause of increased phosphorus. She continued to
read from that DOE memo. Good forestry practices likely reduce the pollution, and
increased pollution is likely to come from development.
She didn't support the $6 million vault. She's been asking for a low- impact
development ordinance from staff for six years. They could have spent the money for the
vault on those standards, and they would have been done and in effect now.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County already has low impact development standards
for Lake Whatcom. The problem is how to address existing development before those
standards were adopted. This memo was written in 2001, before the Landscape Plan was
adopted.
Brenner stated there should be some nexus with the budget if they do the
reconveyance. There is no rush. Neither the County Executive nor the DNR will change
their mind about doing the, reconveyance.
Nelson stated now there are only 1,800 acres that can fall under any forestry
practices in the reconveyance area. The Park Plan doesn't even include a budget for this.
McFarland stated they only have a conceptual plan for park use.
Nelson stated they don't know how the planned use of this area as a park will affect
the TMDL study and water quality. They haven't run anything through Ecology. McFarland
stated they typically don't do a park plan until they own the property.
Nelson stated there is no reason to do this in the taxpayer's interest. Save the
money.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Councilmember Nelson believes that a low use trail system
will be more harmful than logging 1,800 acres. No expert has said that. This is the best
thing they can do for the watershed. She doesn't understand the fear tactics around this
proposal. The biggest threat to the lake is phosphorus - loading. Don't keep engaging in
scare tactics. The most common goal is watershed protection. They're not doing this to get
a big park.
Fleetwood stated he supports the reconveyance for water quality benefits. Even if
the environmental benefits are equal, it's in the long -term best interest of the public to have
that land as a public park instead of commercial forestry. In the long haul, this area will be
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, Page 3
1 more highly prized and valuable as a place to enjoy the Pacific Northwest as opposed to a
2 resource extraction -based industry.
3
4 Nelson stated they're saying that the worst impact to the watershed is people, and
5 they're proposing a mega -park that will more than double the size of the park system of the
6 entire county. There will be more four -wheel off -road vehicle use. There will be one staff
7 person to patrol 8,000 acres. The park system will have more impacts to the County
8 budget because of upkeep and problems created. The County will assume liability and risk.
9 In addition, they will have to pay to reduce the impacts of inappropriate trail use. With
10 forestry practices, there is protection and access. It is a DNR trust land. The land doesn't
11 go to a private investor. The forest practice industry will take at least a $1 million hit. This
12 loss to the industry may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and the one existing
13 mill that is left may go out of business. If that happens, all the private foresters won't be
14 able to afford to haul their timber to another mill location, and they will be pressured to
15 convert their land. They don't need to do this, and the land is already protected. It's not a
16 scare tactic. It's a legitimate discussion of public concerns. They should be discussing the
17 impact to the citizens who foot the bill.
18
19 Caskey- Schreiber stated this is best as conserved parkland because of impacts to
20 water quality. A little prevention is preferable to the costly expenses they would occur
21 down the road. It will not cripple the logging industry. It's three percent of total
22 commercial forest lands. According to experts, logging practices degrade water quality.
23 The DNR will not willingly admit that because everything would have to be further -
24 scrutinized. It makes good financial sense for the citizens to take proactive action around
25 the watershed rather than react.
26
27 Brenner stated the experts Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber cited say that all
28 logging create negative environmental impacts. No true expert would say such a thing.
29 They are making assumptions on costs without gathering any of the specific answers they
30 need. If the costs aren't as high as she believes they may be, she would be open to hearing
31 that. She's tired of the forestry industry being scapegoats. Stop trashing an important
32 industry and get on with the issue.
33
34 Kelly stated they must not build or log next to a drinking water supply. People who
35 say logging practices are good for water quality are wrong. It's not an attempt to beat up
36 the industry. No mills will shut down due to the reconveyance. For the most part, their
37 minds are made up. He is in favor of moving the MOA forward tonight. The only rush is
38 that water is degrading as they speak. They have an opportunity to do this now. * They
39 have ample time to address financial concerns. They can't address those answers until they
40 move forward on the MOA. Give staff and the DNR a better idea about which pieces of land
41 will be on the table. Then they will know the costs.
42
43 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Kelly left the meeting at 2 :10 p.m.)
44
45 Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Kelly about moving forward because
46 they have all made up their minds. A vote will give staff and administration a good
47 indication of the Council's direction. The Executive is working on a budget framework for
48 the reconveyance. The administration is saying it is prepared to deal with financial
49 implications of this through the budgeting process. Delaying it for the budget discussions
50 will not have much bearing on it one way or another.
51
52 Brenner stated there is also a revenue loss to Whatcom County. She's seen different
53 estimates. The County could end up with a revenue loss of $1 million per year.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, Page 4
1
2 Crawford stated the reconveyance doesn't take place until the end of 2010. There
3 won't be substantial budget impacts during this budget cycle. Infrastructure work won't
4 happen until 2011. McFarland stated that's correct.
5
6 Crawford stated bring it to a vote now. If they aren't going to do this, the
7 administration needs to know it.
8
9 Brenner stated there are long -term implications beyond two years as part of the
10 budget discussions.
11
12 Crawford stated at vote would add certainty to the budget discussion.
13
14 Weimer stated he doesn't have big concerns that a reconveyance will cause water
15 quality problems. He has financial concerns. He would like to work through., the budget.
16 Other things the Council has asked for have been cut from the proposed budget; such as a
17 stormwater service level of four or five, eliminating the national pollutant' "discharge
18 elimination system ( NPDES) permit response. Other things may be' more. ;benef tial to the
19 quality of the lake. He would like time to work on the budget. He- is in� favor of :waiting until
20 after the budget to decide.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber stated that no stormwater fix will remove phosphorus.
23
24 Weimer stated the County must be in compliance with State law. There is not a level
25 of service that brings the County in compliance with its NPDES permit. They would budget
26 $300,000 that doesn't go toward meeting NPDES permit compliance. He would like to work
27 through the budget to determine how the water quality issues around Lake Whatcom are
28 addressed.
29
30 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council so they can take the vote.
31
32 Brenner stated they just got the budget, and she prefers to read through her budget
33 before voting on this.
34
35 Caskey- Schreiber stated they aren't going to know the true costs until they know
36 exactly which land parcels are involved in the reconveyance. She believes in this enough to
37 go forward with the vote.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
40
41 Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that some councilmembers want more answers,
42 but they've tried, and they may not ever get the answers they need to feel comfortable with
43 this if they look only at finances. The Council should do everything it can to protect Lake
44 Whatcom. She hopes this goes forward.
45
46 Brenner stated they will get information through the budget process, and she will
47 have a much better understanding of all the financial implications. That matters to her.
48
49 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Kelly absent.
50
51
52 OTHER BUSINESS
53
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:24 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Tran cription
The Council approved these minutes on February 10 , 2009.
A Y (; D i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
�.` WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
0.•oF W H A rc' °.'L
N
Banc% Qwn- i& ounnI Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2008, Page 6