HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 7 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 November 7, 2007
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Barbara Brenner
16 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
17 L. Ward Nelson
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
21
22 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
23 REQUEST #TR2007-02 (AB2007 -380A)
24
25 Weimer stated the County geologist found no minerals, and moved to recommend
26 approval to the full Council.
27
28 McShane stated the report finds that the material isn't very good.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 2. PRESENTATION ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED
33 CHARACTERIZATION PILOT PLAN (AB2007 -432)
34
35 Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated many State and
36 national agencies cooperated on this plan. He presented and read from a Power Point
37 presentation (on file) on the project approach and objectives, project findings, the process
38 to date, components of the study, and resource inventory. This is a watershed -based plan,
39 not based on subarea or urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. The Birch Bay watershed,
40 including Terrell Creek, are divided into 32 sub - basins. This is the most comprehensive
41 resource inventory of any area in the county.
42
43 Steven Stanley, State Department of Ecology, continued to read from the
44 presentation on the ecological characterization study. They put the watershed areas into
45 three categories: protection, restoration, or development. It was based on a modeling
46 process that assumes certain areas of the landscape have better conditions for water flow.
47 That supports how the aquatic systems perform. If they protect or restore those processes,
48 they should be able to also see the same type of improvement in the streams, wetlands,
49 and bay. Science is endorsing this new landscape approach to planning.
50
51 He indicated the location on a map where they want to focus protection, restoration,
52 and development. Central basins are areas where they may want to focus restoration
53 activities. Areas more suitable for development are to the north. The area of Birch Point is
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/20127, Page 1
I suitable for protection. Point Whitehorn is more suitable for development. To develop this
2 map, they looked at areas that support water flow processes and how they've been altered.
3 That determines the best areas for protection and restoration. They also looked at nutrients
4 and pathogens from septic systems and livestock.
5
6 They've done a landscape -based wildlife analysis, which has not been done before.
7 If they can incorporate those things into designations and policies, they would be several
8 steps ahead of things, which are usually dealt with at the permit level. Birch Bay is a rich
9 and diverse area for wildlife. There is a significant number of species and an important
10 marine habitat. As they increase the density, there is a significant drop in the number of
11 species. At a density of five units per acre, the number of species drops to five or ten.
12
13 John Carlton, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), continued
14 the presentation on wildlife analysis. They found that at a density of one dwelling unit per
15 five acres, they lose a significant number of species if there aren't lower densities in the
16 neighborhood. They could lose up to 60 percent of the species at that density. With
17 significant conservation programs, they could keep up to 80 percent of the species.
18
19 McShane asked the role that tree retention would play. He asked if the amount of
20 tree retention was analyzed. Carlton stated they are working on a summary of the percent
21 of habitat retention that is important. In Birch Bay, it's not just the forested patches that
22 are important. The old farm areas no longer used as farmland support the highest diversity
23 of bird life.
24
25 McShane stated there is a heron population. He is concerned about disappearing
26 heronries. He asked if areas can be used for herons in the future. Carlton stated the
27 project looked for areas that may be available as alternate nesting habitat for the heron.
28 This county heron population is regionally significant.
29
30 Brenner asked if there are ways to allow more housing in one area and leave other
31 areas open through a cluster. Carlton stated he doesn't want to get into programs or
32 techniques. Bringing humans in diminishes the value of the land for wildlife. The essence
33 of his recommendation is to accommodate the development, but block those areas of
34 unused habitat. For example, institute a preference for developing new houses near the
35 existing roads, and leave the back part of properties undeveloped. The idea is to hold
36 significantly large patches of habitat relatively undisturbed to maintain more species.
37
38 Caskey - Schreiber stated the report addresses clustering. It seems like there is value
39 in clustering because they can gain open space. She asked if they considered the marine
40 species regarding Point Whitehorn. She asked if there is value in protecting the feeder bluff
41 and why the bluff was recommended for development. Stanley stated that for now, they
42 are talking about water flow processes, There are important marine areas at Point
43 Whitehorn.
44
45 Caskey- Schreiber stated they must look at the big picture. Stanley stated they will
46 work with the community on these maps and results to come up with the best
47 recommendations.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber stated that would be extremely helpful. They need to transition
50 from the data and details to zoning.
51
52 Stanley continued reading the presentation on the local habitat assessment, results
53 of Fish and Wildlife analysis.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 2
1
2 Ken Yocom, ESA Adolfson, continued to read from the presentation regarding build
3 out analysis, synthesis of recommendations, and synthesizing study components, next
4 steps. They connected development research with watershed process research through
5 impervious surfaces and the relationship of impervious surfaces and quality of hydrologic
6 processes. He indicated on a map the residential density potential. They combined the
7 potential at the sub -basin scale to compare it with the hydrological processes and the
8 wildlife survey.
9
10 McShane asked if there is an indication of maintaining existing density in the
11 watershed. Yocum stated that is correct, but it's up for negotiation. It is not putting
12 watershed processes or wildlife habitat above the idea of development. They are working
13 together to shift things around, but maintaining overall density in the watershed.
14
15 McShane stated they significantly downzoned Birch Point. This Council is willing to
16 change zoning at times. That's okay to talk about.
17
18 Margaret Clancy, ESA Adolfson, stated they used the current zone for the build out
19 scenario. They could have easily run it with different densities. They can run the same
20 analysis looking at different density and zoning patterns to further refine the
21 recommendations.
22
23 McShane stated he thanks the other agencies for their assistance. This has the
24 potential to be a tremendously useful document for planning in this area. He asked if there
25 will be more support from the State agencies in helping the County through this process.
26 Stanley stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is coming out shortly with
27 watershed challenge grants. Money is available to local governments to do this type of
28 work. The EPA wants to see on- the - ground, implemented plans. There are several million
29 dollars in this program. Staff proposes applying jointly for this grant, available in the next
30 few weeks.
31
32 Weimer stated they are perfectly positioned for these grants. This is cutting edge for
33 the entire state. He hopes they move forward with the EPA grant in the next few weeks.
34 Stanley stated that's why the DOE engaged Whatcom County. It has a record of taking this
35 sort of action. The intent of the multi- agency group is to use this also as a model for the
36 rest of the state.
37
38 Fleetwood asked if it's a concern that the new zoning changes go into effect sooner
39 rather than later. There will be a lot of development soon, as fast as Birch Bay is growing.
40 He asked if time is of the essence. Yocom stated it is. The community is growing and
41 changing quickly. The sooner the actions are put into place, the better off the wildlife and
42 watershed will be.
43
44 Fleetwood asked when draft ordinances will be ready for implementation and
45 introduction. Gill stated the timing is hard to tell, The pilot study is part of the consolidated
46 water resource integration project (CWRIP). It will be evaluated with the hundreds of other
47 water resource projects. That should be done by the end of the year. They'll have a good
48 idea of the priority this item will have. It will also depend on the grant and funding. The
49 purpose is not to change zoning, but to see how to work with existing zoning to preserve
50 the watershed and bay.
51
52 Weimer stated the State has money to help counties draft low- impact development
53 ordinances. The State told him Whatcom County can't apply, because it received money
Natural Resources Committee, 111712007, Page 3
1 last year. Gill stated the County has a grant through the Puget Sound Action Team and a
2 draft ordinance. The County has gone through a process to start that. However, they have
3 been swamped with the shoreline management program update and critical areas update.
4 All their resources have gone to those programs. As those things finish, the Planning staff
5 may be able to devote time to that.
6
7 Crawford stated the map on page 55 reflects existing development patterns. The
8 Birch Bay community has an adopted plan. The significant issue is the yellow area of the
9 map. The Birch Bay community plan doesn't show a tremendous amount of development in
10 the green area anyway. The difference between this map and the community plan map is
11 that it considers the red and yellow areas as one area. Any changes need to be done
12 closely with the Birch Bay group, which put years into developing the community plan. Be
13 careful about assuming they need to jump on something when the community plan took
14 years. Make sure that plan works in concert with this, rather than making sweeping
15 changes to the assumptions.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated no one intends to quickly change zoning. There are options
18 for avoiding that. Thankfully, the critical areas ordinance includes a wetland area. She likes
19 the map on page 71 about enhancing and restoring wetlands. She hopes to develop a good
20 program.
21
22 There are low impact development recommendations on page 81, similar to what the
23 Council adopted for the Lake protection overlays.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber continued to ask if they can adopt those right away to limit
28 impervious surface and have a tree retention policy. Gill stated they can take that up with
29 the Birch Bay community. They can see how well those existing overlays will work for the
30 community.
31
32 Caskey- Schreiber stated she wishes the Council had already adopted these overlays
33 for Birch Bay. Everything she learns is that there should be impervious surface limits in a
34 watershed and marine environment.
35
36 Nelson asked about information on the benefits of education to the public and a
37 coordinated plan for density development that enhances habitat. He asked if they
38 considered that. Gill stated wildlife recommendations call for a habitat conservation overlay
39 in the area to create those most favorable habitat mosaics. It's not about setting aside
40 land. It's about tree retention and maintaining connections between habitat areas and
41 maintaining the fringe areas where the forest meets the prairie and wetlands. There are
42 specific recommendations about important areas in Birch Bay. Part of the challenge is how
43 to figure out it applies to a five- or ten -acre lot.
44
45 Fleetwood stated he has great respect for the Birch Bay group that has been working
46 on this, but he hopes to move forward quickly with their blessing. They have a water body
47 of statewide significance in a place where there should never have been a city ideally.
48 However, they've blessed an urban growth area and a city will be there. It's urgent.
49 They're trying to protect this water body in the context of intense urbanization. They've
50 been told for years that urbanization isn't what they should have if they want to protect
51 water quality. The best, state -of- the -art protection measures don't fully protect water
52 quality. They're trying to do the best they can in this reality. However, the rapid growth
53 suggests urgency.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 4
Brenner asked about the draft low- impact development ordinance. Gill stated they
have early versions of what it could look like based on what's been done in other areas.
Brenner asked if those early versions can go to the Planning Commission. This is
urgent. The Council can do an interim ordinance that doesn't have to be perfect. If there is
anything in the drafts that are questionable, they can take them out. They can adopt the
items on which everyone agrees. It must get through the process. Gill stated they can look
at what's been done.
Brenner stated she would like to have a copy of what's been done. Also, the report
should not pit two groups against each other. Be inclusive. This report still refocuses back
to Birch Bay. However, it must include the entire watershed.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee took a recess at 9:57 a.m.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
3. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON THE PRiELIMINARY HYDROPOWER PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR THE CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT
IN PETERSBURG, ALASKA (AB2007 -429)
Tom Fisher, Toll House Energy President, stated they've spent a lot of time
researching the future of energy on the West Coast and in the world. China has entered the
market. It is four times bigger than the United States and Canada combined. It is rapidly
developing new coal -fired generation. It is buying oil and gas everywhere around the world,
which is driving up the price. The prediction is that the world demand for power is twice
what the world can provide.
In this region, there are areas with shortages. He described the areas where Puget
Sound Energy gets its power. By 2017, the demand will be twice what it has in production.
The utilities in the west generally have this same profile. In 1989, the cost was $18 per
barrel. Now, the cost is over $90 per barrel and they are substantially over the projected
cost. As the cost of oil goes up, so does other energy costs.
The marginal cost of energy today is based on natural gas. Even though massive
hydropower resources have been built on the Columbia River in the last 80 years, the price
of energy has risen. They are using more hydropower and less coal and other types of
power in the region than in the past. The bulk of the renewable energy resources on the
West Coast are in the Pacific Northwest, especially Southeast Alaska and British Columbia.
He indicated on a map the location of existing projects in Alaska and British
Columbia. Southeast Alaska now has a chance to be hooked up to the North American grid.
It is not hooked up now. That area has a huge potential for wind, hydro, and tidal power,
which are all renewable energy resources. There are very few people and little demand in
that area. They're trying to bring renewable energy from British Columbia and Southeast
Alaska to the western grid.
He described the local area of the project. No anadromous fish can get past a
waterfall. The plan is to drill a tunnel and do a lake tap through the mountain, then put a
pipeline to the shore, and put a powerhouse at the bottom. He showed an example of a
similar project they did.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 5
Weimer asked about the impacts of the project. He asked if there will be roads,
construction, and lake draw -down. Fisher stated they are doing studies on whether they
can draw down the lake and by how much. This lake is frozen. In general, no one goes up
there until the Fourth of 7uly. By that time, the lake would be close to full level. There
won't be lots of roads. He doesn't foresee a lot of impact for this particular project. They
only thing they'd see would be a powerhouse.
Chris Spens, Toll House Energy Project Manager, stated no resource is more
regulated than water. This company has produced three projects in Southeast Alaska. The
Power Creek project had 22 different agencies and primary permits. No project with a
significant adverse environmental impact will be permitted. When the licenses and
approvals come out, they are heavily conditioned. They take into consideration the opinions
of communities, resource agencies, and the project proponent. The project will not be
permitted in any adverse form.
Fisher stated some agencies have mandatory conditioning.
Fleetwood asked if the water in the creek would dry up because of the pipe. Spens
stated they will have to maintain instream flow. They have several decades of stream flow
gauging and monitoring. They know the normal hydrology. The permitting process will
include limits on instream flow, when they can withdraw, and how fast they can withdraw.
Fleetwood asked if this project sets a precedent for other hydroelectric projects.
Spens stated it doesn't. These lands were set aside by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in 1920 for power withdraw. The Cascade Creek project lies within that land
designation within the national forest. There are several small hydroelectric power projects
throughout the Southeast and the rest of Alaska, to serve those existing communities.
Current projects are typically for local service only, and of similar type as this. The smaller
existing systems run from five to 20 megawatts.
McShane stated the grid isn't available. There's no motivation to build a larger
project.
Fisher stated a private developer tried to build Cascade Creek in the 1980's.
Petersburg trumped them with municipal preference. The project did not go through.
There was no demand for the excess power. The Thomas Bay project is big enough to
afford to build transmission lines in a foreign country, to hook up Alaska. Once hooked up,
Petersburg, Wrangell, and other local communities will be able to make money from that
excess power.
Spens stated this is not the only project under consideration. There are both hydro
and wind power projects. There is a substantial resource in both of those forms. This is
one of several dozen projects in process. It's a collaborative effort to create a grid.
McShane asked if the Tyee project is built. Spens stated it is.
Fisher stated the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg created Thomas Bay
Power Authority to build Cascade Creek, but built Tyee instead. Tyee has two 12- megawatt
turbines. There is room for a third turbine in the future.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 5
McShane asked if Tyee has potential to go beyond 36 megawatts. Fisher stated they
could build more capacity, but won't produce more energy. They wouldn't build the third
turbine unless there was a connection to the grid to sell the excess energy.
Local area communities have economic resources, but can't use them without
energy. There is high unemployment. They need to build those power lines and be able to
maintain them.
McShane asked how much power should be generated out of that area in total to
make the capital costs of building that grid worthwhile. Fisher stated the three projects at
Thomas Bay will include the transmission link between Alaska and Canada. Cascade Creek
is one of the three projects. It will generate about half the energy. Together, all three
projects will generate 100 megawatts.
Fisher stated they will generate approximately 400,000 megawatt hours.
Weimer asked the County's relationship to this project. He asked if the County
would build and operate this, or form partnerships to come up with the money to build this
project. He asked when that would begin to happen. Spens stated how and when the
County participates is for the Council to consider. They are in the preliminary permit stage
right now. It is a process that protects an interested party's future licensing opportunity.
The decision on where that preliminary permit for Cascade Creek isn't likely to happen until
March 2008 or after.
The project can serve the County's interest in a variety of ways. It could raise public
awareness of the renewable energy issue. It could exchange value if the permit is in
Whatcom County's hands for renewable energy contracts. The County could back out with
no obligation whatsoever. For the next several years, the project will be about collecting
the scientific and environmental information to understand the potential impacts of the
project and have the project shaped and formed by those results into a final proposed form,
when it goes into licensing in about three years.
Weimer asked the cost in the next three years. Spens stated the cost for the whole
project is about $12 million.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the community in Whatcom County is
committed to green renewable energy. More people are exploring the development of
petroleum -based energy sources that would adversely affect their airshed. This community
needs to maintain competition for low -cost continuous power, which is what this project is.
The administration would like to at least look at the opportunity. The County administration
will work closely with public and private partners who want to join.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she's not sure this is green renewable power. She asked if
it's sustainable to draw down the lake 45 feet per year in the long run. She is troubled that
they are looking elsewhere to meet their resource needs. Other jurisdictions have tried to
get their resources from Whatcom County. She asked the Council's role. The
administration has already indicated a willing partnership. She has great reservations about
this project. She is nervous about adding Southeast Alaska to the grid. That would open
up the area much more for exploration, development, and harvesting of their natural
resources. This may not be the model they had in mind when they supported the idea of
going with green power 100 percent. There are other opportunities that are more local.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 7
Nelson stated that if they are going to explore green power, they need to keep an
open mind. Concerns about impacts to other communities are important. He asked about
the grid extension. Fisher stated they are trying to get a foreign country to spend money to
hook up Alaska. That's very difficult. Canada has agreed to spend $400 million to build a
certain line. They are operating according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), which requires that no one be left stranded. Alaska is currently stranded. There is
a push for Canada to hook up to Alaska so Canada doesn't lose its ability to sell in the
United States.
Nelson asked the purpose of the extension if Canada doesn't hook up to Alaska.
Fisher stated the purpose is to provide power to mines in British Columbia that have gold
and silver.
Nelson asked how much of the power in Southeast Alaska would be used in the lower
48 states. Fisher stated all of it. The capacity of the proposed line is 340 megawatts. The
power is flowing north.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson asked to see the information on the number of megawatts going north and
going south. It would be nice if this is green power to alleviate power resource shortages in
the lower 48 stated. The question is why Whatcom County should help subsidize additional
mining. Spens stated various generators contribute to the grid. Various load demands are
distributed geographically. There are contracts for buyers and sellers. One electron
supplies energy to the grid as a whole from its source, but doesn't necessarily go to a
specific geographic location. Many different sources contribute to the North American grid.
This project is to provide a renewable energy source to the grid as opposed to any
petroleum or coal sources. The transmission line related to the mines is one type of
demand activity. If there is no interconnection, the mines get their sources from the grid.
Hydropower is about 66 percent of Washington's electrical energy. There is one
coal -fired plan that provides 12 to 15 percent. The coal for that plant is shipped from
Montana. A coal mine has a huge environmental impact.
Fisher stated the industry realized that when someone turns on a green power plant,
a brown power plant can be turned off somewhere in the region because the system is in
balance. The goal is to get off foreign oil and become self - sufficient. The cost of renewable
energy sources stay stable. Thermal energy costs will increase. Today, renewable energy
is cheaper than the thermal rate.
Nelson stated there is a concern about fish habitat and lake draw -down. He asked if
the same volume of water or more water will go down the hill. Spens stated they draw
down the lake. The lake level fluctuates depending on the month. The water discharges in
Thomas Bay. The same amount of water is captured and brought into the lake and let out
of the lake. How much and when is modulated to generate power. There are fish in the
lake. There are no anadromous fish. Whether there are effects to Thomas Bay is an issue
of exploration. However, the water starts in the lake and ends in the bay whether it goes
through generation or down the creek. It's a matter of how much at one time. That will be
regulated. Operating parameters become license conditions.
McShane stated the Council should discuss impacts and the role Whatcom County
government will pay in the local Petersburg area. He is sensitive to the local community.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 8
The Council should discuss the parameters it is willing to give and take as the project goes
forward.
Fleetwood stated the Council has received many emails from Petersburg residents.
He asked what the counciimembers say to those residents in response to their concerns.
Fisher stated these are great concerns. They will study these concerns. They've already
changed a lot of the project because of what they've heard. They are listening to people.
This is a process. A majority of people are in favor of this project because it will benefit
their economy. The Council is hearing from a few people who have legitimate concerns. He
wants to address those concerns through the process.
Brenner stated the Council is getting the opinion of the proponent. The Mayor of
Petersburg sent the County Council a letter of concerns. Without support from the residents
of that area, Whatcom County has no business doing this. The Council should take a vote
tonight about whether or not they want to pursue this.
Crawford asked about recharging the lake every night when the power rates are low.
Fisher stated this is renewable energy. The lake fills back up. It rains 150 inches per year
there.
McShane stated the parameters of the environmental impacts may dictate how they
operate. Fisher stated that's correct.
McShane stated the Council can have a discussion specifically about the concerns of
the people of Petersburg, Alaska.
2. UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND WHATCOM
COUNTY PERTAINING TO RECONVEYANCE OF LANDS IN THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2007-018)
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, submitted a map (on
file) and stated he's been meeting with State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff
to create a proposal. They propose two large park areas. He indicated the locations on a
map. They can ask for County lands that went to the State for management. They looked
at Forest Board lands that would compliment what the County already owns in terms of
making trail connections. The State is still working on the lands package it can put
together. The State would still manage about 8,OOD acres of land in the watershed for
forestry. The proposed land trade represents about another 8,000 acres.
Reconveyance can only be used for park purposes. There are benefits to the
watershed and recreation, but the property can't be conveyed for anything but park
purposes. The DNR has to be a partner. It's concern is with being fair to the trust and
creating a benefit to the trust. This requires an inter - grant. That's the process for
exchanging properties. Whatcom County doesn't have control over that. Whatcom County
can ask for a reconveyance of Forest Board lands, but the other trust lands are at the
discretion of the DNR. The County initiates the reconveyance process by resolution, once it
identifies individual parcels.
The Park Plan identifies the need for an additional 15,000 park acres in this county
over the next 20 years. This would help meet that need. Also, this meets a lot of other
concerns, including the entire Smith Creek watershed and much of the Austin Creek
watershed. It provides critical trail links.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 9
1
2 The value of the property is between $9 million and $50 million. Whatcom County's
3 cost of reconveyance will be about $350,000. Acreage slated for development will be up for
4 auction by the DNR. They've asked to hold that auction property and allow the County an
5 opportunity to consider it. It would save 13 homes from being built in the watershed.
6
7 Ongoing operating costs will be tied to existing properties they already have. This
8 will not be an intense park. It will be similar to the Chuckanut Mountain areas. They focus
9 on low- impact development and activities compatible with the management goals of the
10 watershed. They have an opportunity to manage the forest to target diversity and old
11 growth to benefit the lake and its resources. This doesn't mean that forestry on some of
12 those transferred lands would stop. There is ongoing reforestation, thinning, and various
13 things that have to occur. This is a complex transaction with many factors that have to be
14 explored further. Benefits include local control of sub - basins, a major recreation area near
15 Bellingham, keeping this area intact, local control of more lake shoreline, and local control
16 of areas near the rifle range. This proposal does not call for any new roads. It makes use
17 of existing roads. Roads proposed in the landscape plan will be completed before any
18 transaction takes place.
19
20 He will have a draft proposal in December or January. He should have more
21 information by then from the State about making this happen.
22
23 Weimer asked about zoning. Parks aren't allowed in commercial forestry zones.
24 McFarland stated the County will need to address those zoning issues. The trail use is
25 permitted in that particular zone. Most of this is trail amenities with some primitive
26 camping. The County already has the core access properties. They have the park items
27 already anchored to serve these lands. They don't need to do a rezone to call it a park.
28
29 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BEING DRAFTED
30 TO ESTABLISH A NEW JOINT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE LAKE
31 WHATCOM RESERVOIR AND WATERSHED (AB2007 -397)
32
33 This item was not discussed.
34
35
36 OTHER BUSINESS
37
38
39 ADJOURN
40
41 The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
42
43
44
45 Jill Nixon, f ,ti?s •r 1tidry
48 ATTEST; 0.� r = WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
49 _ WA COM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
50 A O
51
52 ••�'� �� `�
53 Dana Bro avis, LIC il�El lc Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 10