HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 10 20041
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
February 10, 2004
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2004 (AB2004 -082)
Docket #2004 -F: MRL - Northstar /Brown Road
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the subject site is at the corner of Brown
and Northstar roads, two miles northwest of the Ferndale city limits. The southern
20 acres are being deleted from the proposal, which leaves 37 acres to be
designated as a mineral resource land (MRL). He submitted a letter from the
applicant's attorney (on file). The underlying zoning is rural, one unit per five acres
(R5A). They would have an MRL overlay.
There are rural lands, fields, and scattered homes around the site. A
nonconforming mine is on the eastern portion of the site. Lake Terrell is three -
quarters of a mile to the southwest. The subject site and surrounding areas have
no designated agricultural or forestry lands. The site has prime agricultural soils.
Environmental constraints include aquifer recharge areas on the site, and some in
the area are already mined. According to County maps, there are also wetlands on
the site. There are no geo- hazards and major pipelines in the vicinity. The area
was identified in a previous study as an MRA2 area, with a high likelihood of
significant deposits. The 2003 GEOEngineers study found no significant deposits in
this area. That doesn't imply a site - specific study can't be done, which the
applicants propose.
The Lake Terrell Water Association well is south of the subject site. The ten
year time of travel boundary extends into the 20 -acre parcel that was removed
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
from the application, but it is not in the 37 remaining acres. Whatcom County Code
(WCC) 20.10.060(3) highlights issues the County Council is supposed to consider.
First, consider whether the proposal is in or modifies an urban growth area (UGA).
This area does not. Second, consider whether the proposal removes agricultural,
forestry, or mineral lands. This area does not. Third, consider whether the County
has set a future date for studying the issue. The MRL designations are to be
reviewed every seven years. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC),
Planning Commission, and County Council will look at MRL's this year.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated she represents the
proponent. This is a proposal to modify an existing MRL to include a 37 -acre
property. This is worth considering. First, the Council is now to decide whether the
project has merit to move through the process. This item meets the criteria. This
is the year the Council will look at MRL's and the Comprehensive Plan. The County
has the information from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) mineral
study and the GEOEngineers study. The studies show that it is in the County's best
interest to consider other MRL's and add to the 50 -year supply.
This site includes a gravel pit that already exists. It's a nonconforming site
from the County's jurisdiction, and is permitted by the DNR. The DNR reclamation
plan and permit includes a complete mining out of that parcel. By adding the
additional properties to the west, they will be able to capture that mineral supply
that is available while using an area where mineral resource extraction has already
taken place. The proponent has done some initial research to determine that the
site contains a quality construction aggregate resource. The existing pit is in active
operation and is used by a number of road projects. It also provides material to
the Cherry Point area. Test pits were done on this additional 20 -acre parcel.
Contrary to the GEOEngineers report, this site contains construction aggregate that
can be marketed. The site is not a competing interest for agricultural or forestry
land. It is zoned R5A and the parcels are larger than five acres, so the parcels are
worthy of protection for mineral use rather than being divided for rural use.
There is not another area of deposit in this vicinity. This pocket will provide
a resource from the western part of the county without having to truck it in from
the eastern part of the county. The issue of isolated wetland and the issue of
reclamation will be dealt with in future phases. This is the initial decision to see if
the area should be looked at for an MRL. This is something that is worthy of
consideration. Through the process, if allowed to move forward, the applicant will
prepare a report showing there is one million cubic yards of material. That report
will require onsite borings, which is expensive. GeoTest is online to write a report
showing this site has quality material. This site fits the Comprehensive Plan
criteria.
Fleetwood asked if it makes better sense to make a decision on this proposal
next year, after the Council decides whether or not to expand its MRL's.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that if they process this application this year, the
County can use the report this applicant will commission when it will considers
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
MRL's during the overall MRL process, and to decide if this is something the Council
wants to grant. They all know there is not enough land designated for a 50 -year
supply. That supply continues to deplete as they continue to talk. Last year, the
Council added to the MRL's. Supporting information at that time indicated that it is
appropriate to expand MRL's because the County is short on designations. The
same facts and findings apply. By considering it this year, the Council will have
something to decide to approve if it wants to protect the area as an MRL area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated paperwork shows 57 acres on the application.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the applicant is removing 20 acres from the request.
Borings will not be able to be completed on that 20 -acre parcel this spring.
McShane asked if the wetlands are in that 20 acres.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a map of the wetland areas.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated that a portion of the site is already being
mined.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why it is included in the application. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated that had that site been 20 acres, it probably would have been
designated as an MRL in 1997. At that time, a criterion was that an MRL had to be
20 acres in size. It is included in this parcel because of the location of an access
road that makes sense to mine it all as one deposit, keeping the traffic going out
the current access road. All the area being mined will be designated MRL and have
the same designation under Whatcom County code.
Fleetwood asked how the current permit was obtained. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated it is under three ownerships. The Northstar pit has a preexisting
permit from DNR that was granted prior to growth management. It is
nonconforming from the County's current code, but is a permitted site. It was
permitted under previous provisions. Today, one could not get a DNR permit if not
in the MRL.
Fleetwood asked if there is neighborhood opposition. Starken burg- Kroontje
stated the Northstar pit has been operation without opposition, other than an
occasional call regarding an onsite operational issue. There may be one property
owner who will take issue with the application. Discussions with other neighbors
have not resulted in opposition.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it looks like half the area being mined is wetlands.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the geographic information system (GIS) map
indicates there may be wetlands there. The applicant will do an onsite delineation.
If there is, they can incorporate mitigation into the permitting process. The
applicant will have to meet all codes. At this point, the indicated wetlands won't
seem to pose a problem.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated that if it is docketed and comes to the Council, it's okay to
consider the issues beyond what would be dealt with during the permitting process.
The MRL is not the permit. It's okay for the Council to consider the wetland issue.
Having information on the wetlands may play a role on the Council's decision -
making process. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated mitigation and enhancements have
to be dealt with in the permitting process. However, wetlands information is
information the Council will want during the designation process. They've already
been in contact with biologists to study the wetlands. If docketed, the information
on wetlands will be provided to the Council. It's not provided today and won't be
provided until it's docketed.
Fleetwood stated some people suggest there is too much rural land, and
some areas adjacent to prime agricultural soils should be converted back. He
asked if this complicates their ability to do that.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that whenever they mine an area, they
complicate the ability to reclaim it. The question is what the land's greater value is,
agriculture or mineral extraction. They have to look at how viable the site and
surrounding areas are. The land has prime agricultural soils, but the surrounding
uses aren't that great.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the subject property has been used for hay and
grazing. It has not been intensively farmed. Surrounding properties have been
divided into five acre tracts already, within the last few years. This is not an area
where they will see intensive agricultural use taking place. The properties have not
been conducive to previous farming efforts.
Roy stated it's a concern that this land has prime soil, but it will probably
never be converted to agricultural land.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that in this case, the water table is significantly
underneath the surface. The current permit allows for an 80 -foot depth for
extraction. The water table appears to be at 120 feet. There is not a competing
issue of water.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she won't support docketing this item. She would
like to have a master plan on the direction they want to go in terms of expanding
MRL's. This study is great, but they need to come up with more extensive criteria
as to how the County sites these items. She would rather look at the big picture
fi rst.
Roy moved to recommend to the full Council that this item be docketed.
However, she agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. The report from
GEOEngineers says it did not identify any reserves in that area. The Council knows
it is going to spend time looking at the big picture this year. Docketing MRL
applications after they have the master plan and criteria makes more sense.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood stated this is simply a docketing item, and they're not deciding
anything yet. However, once they have the master plan, it will steer the Council in
making these decisions in the future.
McShane stated they might be overly optimistic about coming up with a
master plan. This area was identified to take a closer look, because of the lack of
resource in that area. It is a unique pit. They're not going to get information about
the subsurface in any more study or evaluation. It's not the County's job to
designate reserves. To a degree, the County needs the industry to show the
County where the reserves are. This is a potential reserve, and the applicant is
willing to spend the money on a study. The information will become very valuable
to the County. In addition, the county will experience environmental harm from
long- hauling gravel from the eastern part of this county. This area is a good
example of rural sprawl.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would be in favor of this request, but after they
look at the County's criteria. This request makes sense, but it's premature.
McShane stated they will probably end up lowering the bar for MRL's. It's
been set pretty high right now.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is an immeasurable harm if this comes back
next year.
McShane stated there will not be, other than the applicant will be frustrated.
There may be harm from more people moving into the area that hasn't been
designated as an MRL.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated that by docketing this, the County is showing
the owners that the County will look at the application. The land is under three
ownerships. There are two ten -acre tracts. If either property owner decides not to
wait, they may sell the properties into rural five -acre tracts, and the request won't
come back to the Council. One elderly couple already has reservations. It could be
too late for this deposit.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Kurt Baumgarten sent information about how
difficult it is to mitigate wetlands.
Roy stated that Councilmember McShane's comments are compelling.
McShane stated the Council will need more information on the wetlands and
doing mitigation before making a decision.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that would be flushed out through the Planning
Commission process. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated there will be a report on the
wetland and mineral quantity and quality if this item is docketed.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's something she wants to see, if docketed.
Fleetwood stated persuasive arguments have been made. He will support it.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket #2004 -G: MRL - Pole Road
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated this MRL is on the north side of Pole
Road. The proposal is to re- designate 50 acres from agricultural to MRL. An MRL
overlay zone is also proposed. To the east are a couple of existing mines. One was
the Hardy mine, which was granted a conditional use permit in 1988. The DNR
indicates this site has been reclaimed. The other operation is Ferndale Ready Mix,
which also received a conditional use permit in the 1980's. It is not yet reclaimed,
but it is not very active.
Brenner stated that when the County designated MRL's, some areas were
designated MRL. She asked why this wasn't. Aamot stated he didn't know.
Aamot stated that in the surrounding areas are agricultural fields, farms,
scattered homes, and wooded areas. The subject site and surrounding areas are
zoned agricultural. A half -mile to the southwest is a variety of other zoning
districts. To the north is a rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) zone. Most of the
land is overlaid with prime agricultural soils. The Comprehensive Plan criteria for
designating MRL's includes that the parcel shall not be located in a prime farmland
soil area unless adjacent to an MRL site and will align the configuration of the MRL.
Environmental constraints includes an aquifer recharge area, which is not unusual
for gravel resource areas. Fountain Lake is to the northeast. There is no major
pipeline in the area. The area was designated in the 1994 study as a MRA2 area
with a high likelihood of sand deposit. The DNR study identified it as a significant
sand and gravel area. GEOEngineers characterized this area as a potential sand
resource. The applicants hired GEOEngineers to do a site - specific study.
The County code outlines issues for the Council to consider. First, the site is
not in a UGA. Second, the site does remove designated agricultural lands.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot continued to state that the third issue to consider is that the County is
studying MRL designations this year.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, provided handouts (on file). There are prime
soils on the site. There has been a steady decline in the amount of agricultural
lands. The Agricultural Advisory Committee concerns are about converting
agricultural land to any other designation. Look at whether it's appropriate and
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
timely. The Advisory Committee believes that this application is premature. There
was some discussion about reclamation, which is always risky.
Fleetwood asked if Agricultural Advisory Committee recommendation was
unanimous. Olason stated it was, of the members present.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is agricultural land with water rights. Olason
stated it is.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated this site has entirely prime soils,
except a portion of steep slopes that go to the lake. The issue of greater value has
been mentioned. Small pieces of prime soil are very valuable and can be
profitable. The proponent had a pit reclaimed. The State says its reclaimed.
However, there is no agriculture going on at that 40 -acre reclaimed parcel. There
is still equipment stored there. Keep this area in agricultural use. The soil has
been farmed in other areas successfully.
James Stanford, 1841 Front Street, Lynden, stated he represents the
applicant. The issue seems to be whether this area is agricultural land or not. He
is proposing a combination. The reason the site wasn't designated an MRL in 1997
was because there is a misnomer. It was a dairy farm in 1997. It is currently a
dairy farm, with the end use being a dairy farm. Before 1998, this project and
property has been mined with a conditional use permit. There is nothing in the
archive that talks about them not abiding by the conditional use permit conditions.
There is one notice by the DNR that the end user of the aggregate was not filing
timely reports. Every other condition has been met.
The proposal for this property is to operate the same as the conditional use
permit. The owner will mine it sequentially and not below the water table, to the
same parameters it has been mined. The applicant is willing to develop a plan
where it can be monitored and checked. Reclamation projects happening all over
the state. An issue is that they seem to be afraid to allow agricultural land to be
mined because they believe it can't be reclaimed. Give the applicant the
opportunity to show that the mine can be reclaimed successfully.
Another issue is that there are many small end users who have contacted the
owner about being an alternative source at a competitive price from the larger
mining companies in the county. The larger mining companies will take large
aggregate orders from projects such as Homestead. Whatever is left over, the
smaller projects may purchase it. If there isn't anything left over, the smaller
projects have to wait until the next big order is processed. The smaller projects
that need aggregate are hoping to find mineral resources and at less than
competitive prices. The applicant wants to condition this permit. In 2003, Judge
Bobbink ruled on a conditional use permit, which he denied, that this site met 12 of
the 14 conditions. It couldn't be mined because it didn't meet the surface mining
act, and it didn't meet the knoll or ridge requirement. The applicant can mine it
successfully. At the Agricultural Preservation Committee, Henry Bierlink is
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
interested in supporting this. The applicant is talking about having the Agricultural
Preservation Committee and Mr. Bierlink being the monitoring agency, and the
applicant would post a bond to pay for that review. This is a unique opportunity
and a viable project.
Crawford asked if Mr. Bierlink supports the application. Stanford stated Mr.
Bierlink won't give approval because he hasn't seen the proposal. Mr. Bierlink
believes that the site can be reclaimed. Mr. Bierlink also believes that it is very
hard to make a living in the dairy industry without a second income.
Craig Erdman, GEOEngineers Geologist, stated he's worked on this project to
evaluate the materials and other issues. There are prime agricultural lands. This
isn't something that will be converted to another use at the end of the project. The
applicant wants to reclaim the site as prime agricultural land. They do have a
company that specializes in wetland creation and mitigation of wetlands. The
company has had a lot of experience with reclamation of surface mines. One of the
individuals in this company spends a lot of time in Whatcom County and
recommends evaluating the conditions of the soil before mining. The applicant
proposes to collect soil samples to evaluate their agricultural properties before the
mining starts. During the reclamation process, there would be amendments made
to the soil. Various types of fertilizers can be added to enhance growth capabilities
of the soil. The soil can be made more fertile than what they are today. This
could be a test program.
Roy moved to docket for the purpose of voting.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the proponent's enthusiasm about
reclamation. She would feel more comfortable if they practice on already mined
out areas rather than pose a risk to land that is already successful as prime
agricultural land. It is prime agricultural land because of the sand and gravel
underneath the topsoil. Supposed reclaimed lands are so wet they can only grow
corn. Don't begin a trend of chipping away at good raspberry agricultural land.
She agrees with the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
Nelson stated they're in global competition to stay in business, which
depends on the price of the products. These people have no way to subdivide their
land and use the earnings for production. They need the land for cattle or
raspberry growing. In the past, they've talked about conversion. He asked if they
have a plan to look at a process for converting mineral resource areas back to an
agricultural use. That is a big question that is hanging out there.
Roy stated the reason there is good agricultural soil is because it drains well.
There are a number of pits in the county that would be prime candidates for seeing
if reclamation is possible. The question is whether there is a good reclamation
practice they can use in this county. The Agricultural Advisory Committee is
against the application. They are losing a lot of agricultural land for lots of reasons.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Agriculture is a huge economic industry in this community. She won't support it.
However, the reclamation to quality farmland is an intriguing idea.
Olason stated the first item has prime agricultural soils. It's in an
agricultural protection overlay zone. A site like that, with other areas that have
other resource potential, could be a candidate for that type of study program rather
than going into the middle of the county's agricultural land. If reclamation gets too
onerous, the question is whether there is enough money in the product to justify
the mining effort. The advisory committee talked about whether it's timely. The
DNR reclamation plans are all about making sure there's not a cliff. The
reclamation they've seen in the past and what is being proposed is a huge
difference. Find another site to be a test site.
McShane asked if the Council can condition an MRL on reclaiming to a certain
standard. Aamot stated they could normally condition a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. There is a concern about designation criteria 11, which says MRL
designations shall not be located in prime farmland soil unless adjacent to an
existing MRL. The question is whether this criterion is a block to approving the site
in the first place.
Motion failed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LAKE WHATCOM LANDSCAPE PLAN
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE LAKE WHATCOM LANDSCAPE PLANNING
COMMITTEE (AB2004 -087)
Roy stated the resolution is to support the Landscape Plan, and part of the
plan is to set up an inter - jurisdictional committee (IJC) that will look at water and
safety issues.
McShane stated appendix F of the final environmental impact statement is
attached to the resolution. This plan has been introduced to the Board of Natural
Resources, the trustees of State trust lands. There is a representative for counties
in the state on that board. He described the board member representations. The
Board will decide whether or not to adopt this plan. In all likelihood, it will adopt
this or something similar. A State law passed four years ago drives this plan. The
resolution should come forward to make sure the Board of Natural Resources
recognizes that Whatcom County supports this plan. Also, there has been a power
struggle with the State Lands Commissioner about not getting to use the State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) management in a lake setting. The
commissioner has been pushing back a bit with some legislators and board
members. This will help to support the plan. The advisory committee reached
consensus with DNR on almost all points.
Roy asked if, by supporting the plan, the Council is also supporting the
issues that did not have consensus agreement.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated it is. The advisory committee could not reach consensus on
the green tree issue. There is no recommendation on that issue. The second issue
without consensus is drilling for oil and gas in the watershed. He is concerned
about their capabilities to do drilling. The DNR disagrees. The primary concern is
about saltwater under pressure under bedrock. Third, there was disagreement on
the inter - jurisdictional committee as an advisory committee to the DNR or that it
must have consensus with the DNR. The advisory committee felt that the IJC
should have consensus with DNR.
Roy moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Nelson stated he doesn't disagree with the resolution as proposed. The
Forestry Advisory Forum has been performing the same functions as are outlined
for the IJC, but without the technical assistance. The Forestry Advisory Forum is
concerned about the roles and responsibilities it will play in the future. The IJC is
to deal with just DNR lands, but there are impacts on private lands. He is
concerned about the original landscape planning committee because it didn't have
the support of the forestry industry, which they need to maintain forestry and
prevent conversion. The purpose of the Forestry Advisory Forum was to maintain
forestry to protect the watershed. The Forestry Advisory Forum can handle the
duties of the IJC. If the Council recognizes the position of the Lake Whatcom
Management Committee, the Council must be aware that the Lake Whatcom
Management Committee has made a recommendation to not use the Forestry
Advisory Forum in that role.
Crawford asked if the Nelson resolution is compatible with this resolution.
Nelson stated this resolution identifies the IJC as something other than the
Forestry Advisory Forum.
McShane stated it is not a contradiction to vote for both resolutions. The
steering committee can't tell the DNR, County, City, and Water District how to
make up the IJC. How those entities figure out the membership of the IJC will be
decided at a later date. The IJC will be negotiated.
Crawford asked if they should take up the next resolution at a more
appropriate date.
Nelson stated he was going to wait to bring this up. However, he received a
letter from Clare Fogelsong, representing the City of Bellingham, notifying him that
the Lake Whatcom Management Committee wants to reduce the schedule and
scope of the Forestry Advisory Forum.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought the goal of the IJC was to implement
the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. She questions who would be best to do that.
If the members of the Forestry Advisory Forum gets a financial gain from
harvesting, then there is a conflict of interest.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Caskey- Schreiber asked how Forestry Advisory Forum members can be
totally objective.
Nelson stated it's not their property. It's the DNB's property.
Roy stated her concern is that at this very moment, the negotiations are
going on between Doug Southerland, the County Executive, the Mayor of
Bellingham, and Water District 10 about what this committee is going to look like.
It's unilateral of the Council to step out and name who the committee will be.
McShane stated it's important to think about the role of the IJC and the
Forestry Advisory Forum. One result of this plan is accessibility to certain lands.
It's about how they get into areas for harvest. In the past, DNR has built roads
over unstable ravines. The State law says they can't do that anymore in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. The DNR has done it in the past and would possibly do it
again without that legislation and this plan. Because of that possibility, the
coordination between private landowners adjacent to DNR and DNR will become
more critical. The Forestry Advisory Forum will play a significant role in that issue.
The DNR has 14 days to determine forest practice applications. A pre- screening is
overly optimistic.
Tom Pratum, submitted a letter (on file). Support Councilmember
McShane's resolution. If the landscape plan doesn't go through, they'll be in bad
shape. Councilmember Nelson's resolution can be considered with Councilmember
McShane's resolution. He has seen what the Forestry Forum has done in the past.
It should be considered as the IJC. It has offered to change its membership and
format to be the IJC. There is reason for the Forestry Advisory Forum to change.
When it was set up, 22 percent of the land in the watershed was managed by DNR
and 46 percent was private forestland. Now, 23 percent is private forestland and
46 percent is managed by the DNR. That's a good reason to change the
composition of the Forestry Advisory Forum. The Forestry Advisory Forum won't
be viable if it doesn't play a role in the landscape plan. If they don't use the
Forestry Forum for the IJC, eliminate it and incorporate it's function into whatever
oversight body is created. All forest practices in the watershed need to be
overseen by the same group. One group needs to oversee all forest practices in
the watershed. That is what the Forestry Forum was set up. Now they're talking
about splitting it up into two groups, which is a bad idea. The private forest
practices are being ignored. In the Lake Whatcom watershed during the last year,
there have been 170 acres of clear cutting, 378 acres of thinning, 37 acres of
conversion, 185 acres of aerial spray, and 14,000 feet of road maintenance and
construction. No one is looking at those. The Forestry Forum is looking at them,
but isn't functioning well right now because of a lack of interest. These things
cannot be ignored. On May 14, 1990, the Forestry Forum proposed interim
guidelines for forest practices within the watershed. Some of the things they
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
recommended in 1990 included no harvest on unstable or potentially unstable soils
per the State soil map; a 200 -foot no cut no entry buffer on types III and IV
waters; variable buffers on type V waters; green trees left for snag and existing
snags being left; review of each application and determinations on slope stability,
type V buffer width, proposed wildlife leave areas, and snag retention. The
Forestry Forum can do these things again. Don't throw the Forestry Forum out
without trying to change it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the IJC has to be well respected because it has to
make controversial opinions. There are seven of 12 representatives that have a
vested interest in logging practices. That is unbalanced for the task the IJC will be
charged with. The membership should be more balanced.
Nelson stated his concern is the direction the City of Bellingham has taken.
His greater concern is that the information going to DNR and the public, who feel
left out of the process. Foresters and others have put in a lot of time into the
Forestry Forum. There have been many discussions about the IJC when no one
from the Forestry Forum was invited. There have been several questions about the
IJC that have gone forward. It won't do any good to have two jurisdictional
committees. A type of IJC can play a role as a reformed Forestry Forum. No type
of IJC will have oversight on what the DNR does with their lands. It can make
recommendations only. Councilmember McShane is hoping they will have some
authority, but he doesn't believe it will. He wants the County Council to come up
with a recommendation to DNR that is comprehensive, and better than what
they've seen from the Management Committee, and that the DNR will approve.
Don't go back to the way they were before 1989 when the DNR, citizens, and the
County, were all opposed to each other about forest practice issues in the
watershed. There is a time issue he's concerned about.
Roy stated emphasis from the landscape committee about changing the
composition of it was on technical expertise. She's not sure she can support it the
way it is, but may support it if they changed it some. She asked if the Forestry
Forum will be eliminated if they don't identify its role.
Nelson stated it is, unless Councilmember McShane is willing to include
language in his resolution that acknowledges the Forestry Forum's role and
responsibilities. If they act on Councilmember McShane's resolution, the Council
would acknowledge what the Management Committee has already done. The Lake
Whatcom Management Committee, in its letter from Clare Fogelsong, has said that
it will reduce the role of the Forestry Forum.
McShane stated his resolution says that they would support the Executive
entering into a memorandum of agreement regarding the IJC with the Water
District, City of Bellingham, and DNR. However, the resolution doesn't give them
any direction at all. They probably need to give some thought to direction to give
those entities, but they're not ready to do it at this time. He suggested holding in
committee to consider Mr. Pratum's input.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated voting on Councilmember Nelson's resolution would be
premature. The result may not reflect the direction they'd all like to go.
Nelson stated he would like to work with Councilmember McShane about
adding a phrase about the Forestry Forum in his resolution.
McShane stated they should vote on his resolution.
Roy stated the Council can amend it at the meeting.
McShane stated there is no direction to the Executive about how the IJC will
be formed. They could add some language to his resolution that the Council will
give direction in the future.
Crawford suggested approving Councilmember McShane's resolution; holding
Councilmember Nelson's resolution; councilmembers Nelson and McShane working
with the Executive; the Executive bringing an IJC proposal to the Council, and; the
Council discusses the proposal and listens to Councilmember Nelson's debate at
that time.
Nelson stated the Executive has already made his proposal to Mr. Sutherland
on October 9, 2003 to have an IJC that is distinct and separate from the Forestry
Advisory Forum, and that the IJC would not be involved with the IJC, and there
would not be a duplicative process.
Roy stated all the councilmembers need to have the same information, and
they don't right now.
Crawford stated that even though Mr. Sutherland made those statements to
Executive Kremen a few months ago, they're far from deciding who the IJC will
include. There is still room to incorporate the Forestry Forum. Executive Kremen
has a very good working relationship with Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland would
listen to Executive Kremen if the Forestry Forum is deemed the appropriate body,
albeit changed, to be the IJC.
McShane stated the IJC membership is not up to Mr. Sutherland. Ultimately
it's up to the Board of Natural Resources.
Crawford stated the County will have some say in it.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
FORESTRY ADVISORY FORUM AS THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL
COMMITTEE UNDER THE LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
(AB2004 -086)
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 13
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: See the above item for discussion of this resolution.)
This item was held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 14