HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 25 20031
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 25, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon
Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MINERAL RESOURCE LAND DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MINING
PERMITS (AB2003 -364)
Fleetwood asked if this change imposes additional labor on staff.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it does some, but staff
can look addresses up in the geographic information system (GIS), so it's more a
matter of additional postage to mail notices. It's not a significant amount of
additional work.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that burden is placed on the person doing the
conditional use permit (CUP). Goodwin stated it is in theory. In reality, a person
doesn't have that ability. It's easier for staff to just look it up on the GIS. The
Assessor isn't set up to provide that information, and most people don't know how
to use the Assessor's system.
Roy asked how many applications they will deal with. Goodwin stated they
will not deal with a lot. Staff just finished the five year aggregate study, and it
looks like the County will have to have additional mineral resource lands (MRL's)
designated in the county.
Nelson asked if the MRL's require a CUP. Goodwin stated a CUP is required
to open the mine. Designating an area as an MRL requires a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. A new mine already in the MRL requires a CUP, but not if the mine is
already open.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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.
Fleetwood asked if they will do Comprehensive Plan amendments to
designate additional MRL's. Goodwin stated they will probably in 2005. In order to
maintain a 50 -year supply of aggregate, MRL's need to be designated. She hopes
the property owners will come forward rather than the County initiating the
amendments.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are going to have a discussion on the
aggregate that's available. Goodwin stated she hopes to.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't know how they can maintain a 50 -year
supply when a lot of the aggregate is being exported. Goodwin stated federal laws
allow exportation of gravel.
McShane stated Whatcom County can also import gravel. There's a huge
deposit just south of the Whatcom- Skagit county line that's in the process of being
permitted. There's talk of a proposed MRL for the next year. Goodwin stated the
deadline for 2004 applications is December 30. If applications don't come in, then
throughout 2004, the Surface Mining Advisory Committee will work on a strategy
for the County to encourage and notify people that they have gravel, and ask the
people if they would like their property to be designated as an MRL.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(CHAPTER 11) (AB2003 -075D)
Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, submitted a revised version (on file).
Roy stated the committee will work from the revised version.
McShane referenced page 11 -3 of the revised version. He has alternate
language for the first four paragraphs of the Environmental Setting section. There
is erroneous information in that section.
Roy stated this item would be held in committee for one more meeting.
Councilmember McShane may present his alternate language at the next Natural
Resources Committee meeting, after they've had a chance to review it.
She referenced policy 11E -11, and asked if they encourage cities and public
water purveyors to meter water use now.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they do in Blaine.
Roy asked for a rationale, and if it's consistent and appropriate to encourage
cities to do certain things. Chalfant stated it is appropriate. It lends additional
support to what the City of Bellingham is trying to do. They're using Lake Whatcom
as a source of water.
Roy stated it helps that they're associating it with Lake Whatcom.
Fleetwood referenced policy 11E -7. He asked how they define "sustainable"
supplies. As they permit more and more entities to use water, they deplete
available water, not sustain it. Chalfant stated that's from the original text of the
Comprehensive Plan. He's not sure the context refers only to out -of- stream uses.
McShane referenced policy 11G -1. The State Department of Community,
Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), fish habitat suggested they use the
term "aquatic habitat" instead of "fish habitat."
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 11G -1, "...property owners, and
f+s# aquatic habitat."
Nelson asked how "aquatic habitat" is defined.
McShane stated the idea was that they want to protect fish habitat
specifically, but they may also want to protect against aquatic impacts. There
might be impacts on an aquatic area that don't have direct impacts on fish, but
would have an impact on fish downstream. It's about the overall health of the
habitat.
Nelson stated the concern about "aquatic" habitat is that it's broader in
scope.
Roy stated the person at the salmon summit talked about a way to measure
the health of a stream by looking at the invertebrates in the stream.
Nelson stated they don't have a workable definition of what "aquatic" means
and where it is applied.
McShane stated that's not critical in this policy. The policy is about
stormwater runoff, surface water flow, and downstream impacts. The policy
doesn't apply to wetlands or standalone water bodies. The policy applies only to
stream flow and surface water flow.
Nelson stated he disagreed that it would have an impact.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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.
Chalfant stated the policy is to protect water resources and natural drainage
systems.
Nelson asked how staff defines 'aquatic." Chalfant stated that in the context
of this goal, it relates to the water resources in natural drainage systems.
Nelson stated fish habitat is everything that relates to protecting fish. The
word "aquatic" relates to a broader scope, which could mean any number of things
that doesn't have anything to do with fish.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they addressed this issue at the salmon summit.
All streams flow into fish streams, therefore they have to encompass the entire
picture. She would define "aquatic habitat" as an overall watershed system.
life.
Roy stated aquatic habitat is the water environment that supports overall
Fleetwood stated there's a partial definition on page 11 -22.
Caskey- Schreiber read a portion of the memo from CTED, which stated that
fish are not the only aquatic species negatively affected by stormwater runoff.
Nelson stated an isolated pond that has no fish and is not related to a fish
stream, would have to have stormwater protection from impacts.
McShane stated it's a context issue here. Goal 11G is to protect water
resources and natural drainage systems. An isolated pond on someone's property
is not part of a drainage system. This policy would only apply to that goal.
Nelson asked about ponds that drain into other properties. Ponds have
intakes and outtakes.
McShane stated not all ponds have outflows. There are isolated wetlands
where the only flow of water is sub - surface. The policy should not apply just to fish
habitat, but to aquatic habitat in general.
Roy stated that even though there aren't fish in wetlands, the wetlands at
the heron colony have ponds. If they mess up the ponds, they will get invasive
species of frogs, the ponds will get too deep, and then the herons lose their
capacity to feed in the ponds. This has nothing to do with fish, but it has to do with
the aquatic habitat for herons and the impact on other wildlife.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood referenced policy 11G -7. He asked about cases where the design
capacity is antiquated. He asked if this policy only refers to newer systems.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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.
Goodwin stated that if a current system isn't adequate, it is covered under policy
11G -6.
McShane stated policy 11G -9 partially addresses it as well. It requires some
upgrading of stormwater facilities in certain areas.
McShane stated CTED suggested an additional policy of no net loss in areas
that function as habitat. He suggested adding a new policy for goal 11G, "Develop
and administer regulations and incentives such that there is no net loss of areas
that functions as wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats." Chalfant stated that is
similar to language in the critical areas ordinance and shoreline guidelines. This
language is consistent with what they're doing anyway.
Roy stated she agrees with the no net loss policy. They shouldn't put
something in there that the Planning Department isn't going to be able to do. She
asked if staff is already doing it.
McShane stated they are to a degree. They will update the critical areas
ordinance. It would be good to have this policy in place as they make changes to
the critical areas ordinance.
Fleetwood asked if it would interfere with wetland mitigation.
McShane stated the purpose of wetland mitigation is to have no net loss.
Roy stated they need to start with a goal of no net loss.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that according to the presentation by the State
Department of Ecology (DOE) on the new shoreline rules, the no net loss policy is
the foundation of the shoreline rules revision.
Fleetwood asked if it would be better placed under the wetland provisions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that when they deal with stormwater issues, it's
important to focus on not losing what's already there. The wetlands are nature's
way of handling stormwater.
Roy stated it wouldn't be a problem to have a similar statement elsewhere.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add a new policy 11G -10, "Develop and
administer regulations and incentives such that there is no net loss of areas that
functions as wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats."
Nelson asked if there are tools they can use to implement measurement
standards for this policy. Chalfant stated they are required to do a broad
characterization of ecosystem -wide processes. That characterization will create a
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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.
baseline of existing functions and systems. They will be able to measure net loss of
ecosystem processes. That will occur over the next two years.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy moved to add a new bullet point to the list in the background summary
on page 11 -21, " Nearshore, estuary, and inter -tidal habitat." It is language from
the Marine Resources Committee. There are critical habitats in the nearshore and
inter -tidal environments.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested a friendly amendment to amend an
existing bullet point, " Nearshore, inter - tidal, and estuariesan habitat and rin-
hab+tat-s including kelp and eelgrass beds.
Roy accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson referenced the new policy 11G -10 regarding no net loss. He asked
how they rectify the no net policy with the general goals, recognizing increased
development due to urban growth areas.
Roy stated they added a policy to develop processes to accomplish that. The
policy isn't saying there will be no more development. It's saying they need to
mitigate when they impact or destroy natural resources. It's about balance.
Nelson stated they should fix the first sentence in the Issues, Goals, and
Policies, General - Natural Systems section. It recognizes they are going to have a
loss. That contradicts the no net loss policy.
Fleetwood suggested making that sentence past tense.
Goodwin stated policy 113 -4 talks about mitigation for lost wetlands. It
acknowledges that some of it can be lost, but impacts have to be mitigated.
Roy stated Councilmember Fleetwood's suggestion to make it past tense
works. "Growth and urbanization of the land base have significantly reduced and
degraded natural wetland systems."
McShane stated it may still happen because they aren't always sure about
what they're doing. Policy makers will hopefully have good science, but that
doesn't make the decision. The decision may have a significant impact still, and
they may decide to let it be impacted. Sometimes over history people have
chosen, even knowingly, to destroy habitat.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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's fine to make a reference to the past, but they may also
have problems in the future. They may decide to have significant impacts anyway.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the first sentence in the General -
Natural Systems section on page 11 -22, "Growth and urbanization of the land base
have and may signifieantly Feduee and degFade continue to impose a risk to the
degradation and reduction of natural systems."
Crawford stated the motion should be in the positive. It should give
direction rather than make statements of past impacts. Make statements about
how those impacts would be mitigated.
goals.
McShane stated this is background information that sets the context for the
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to amend page 11 -23, goal 11H, "...ecological, aesthetic,
and cultural benefit." It's an appropriate word. Many people recognize aesthetics
as the chief reason for living here.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced policy 11H -11. She asked if they can do river
gravel extraction. Chalfant stated they don't have that ability exclusively. They
have the ability to allow river gravel extraction, subject to additional approvals by
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Fish and
Wildlife. That may make it not feasible. They sill have policies that allow it to
occur within the critical areas and shoreline management program.
McShane stated the flood hazard reduction program will include establishing
meander limits for the river. Once that's set, some gravel extraction may be
permissible. It may have positive attributes. They wouldn't have to do hard
armoring of the meander limit if they can manipulate the river on occasion by
taking out a gravel bar occasionally.
Roy stated the language makes it sound like they are aggressively doing this
activity. The important part of this is providing the long term protection of fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality. They need language that shows they are open to
discussion, but not actively looking for and allowing this activity.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 11H -11, °Lem e and allow
Regulate the operation of river gravel extraction...."
Motion carried 2 -I with Fleetwood opposed.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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
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 moved to amend policy 11H -13, the end of the second
sentence, "...habitat or fishery sheaid shall be mitigated." He asked staff for a
reason that it's inappropriate to mitigate. Chalfant stated it's difficult to mitigate
impacts at times. However, they will pursue development of offsite mitigation. It
might be appropriate to say "shall" but there are instances where mitigation is not
feasible onsite, and there is no robust base of offsite mitigation opportunities.
Fleetwood asked if they are balancing the right to protect with the desire to
develop. Chalfant stated they are also acknowledging what they've already allowed
to occur in the past. They all should be mitigated, but there are limited
opportunities at this time for onsite mitigation.
Fleetwood stated the motion is consistent with the no net loss policy.
Chalfant stated it is.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they could add the no net loss policy to policy 11I-
1. Add something about the shoreline upgrade they are going to do.
Roy stated they're talking about natural systems.
Fleetwood referenced goal 11J. They have definitions that distinguish
between important and not important wetlands. Chalfant stated they don't. They
do have provisions in the critical areas ordinance where they don't do regulate
development within certain unassociated wetlands less than one -third of an acre.
One could argue that important wetlands are the regulated, jurisdictional wetlands.
Fleetwood moved to amend goal 11J, "Conserve and enhance impeFtant
wetlands."
Roy stated there may be a scale of wetlands they conserve and enhance
over others. The word "important" is very value - laden.
McShane stated the value of it will vary depending on the community needs.
What a valuable wetland is here will be different than what is valuable in Eastern
Washington. It provides an opportunity to define in the future what is important
and whether wetlands are regulated.
Roy asked how it fits in with the no net loss policy. Chalfant stated it is not
consistent with the no net loss concept. Isolated wetlands are important to certain
functions, including migration of amphibians.
Roy stated she read the term 'important" throughout the chapter. Chalfant
stated there is an inventory of class I wetlands, but it's not in the critical areas
ordinance anymore. It was taken out. They don't have the ability to weight the
wetlands.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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.
Roy asked who would decide if a wetland is important. Chalfant stated that
if the wetland is within the jurisdiction of the ordinance, it has to be mitigated for.
McShane asked if the mitigation in the existing ordinance is clear for a
person developing a property. Chalfant stated it gives a person the idea, but there
is a myriad of solutions and possibilities that staff and property owners have used
over the years. It's not prescriptive.
Roy asked if the word "important" is important and useful to staff. Chalfant
stated they might want to enhance some wetlands that aren't jurisdictional, but
that are important to an ecosystem.
McShane stated there will be wetlands that are more important. Some of
the policies already follow this goal. It's an area of the critical areas ordinance that
could really use some work. That part of the ordinance is brief and not helpful.
There is some ambiguity in Whatcom County's wetlands ordinance that causes
some discomfort. They are really going to want to focus on some wetlands for
extra enhancement and protection.
Roy asked if they really have the expertise to know which habitats are more
important. The foraging areas for the heron and the requirements for a mitigated
wetland were an eye- opener for her.
Caskey- Schreiber stated one of the reasons the Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) plant
was controversial was because they were going to have to mitigate severely for
wetlands. She's comfortable with the current language. There are wetlands that
are more crucial to how they deal with water flows and stormwater issues,
compared to some that are isolated and small in scale.
Fleetwood stated other provisions in the code will define a wetland as
something that is important. They distinguish between the different levels.
However, this policy says that wetlands are important. They can deal with the
concerns by going back to definitions in other places.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed,
Crawford asked if the committee would also remove "important" in policy
11J -4.
McShane stated the purpose of the goal is to identify which wetlands are
really important. It doesn't mean they will lose wetland function. There are places
where they may identify wetlands they just don't want to touch. Those wetlands
will be conserved and even improved. Those policies grow out of that desire.
These policies ensure that certain wetlands will get excess protection because they
are important to the community.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2003, 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.
Roy stated she has problems with the concept of important and unimportant.
She is more comfortable with the concept of priority wetlands. When using the
word "important," it infers that there are unimportant wetlands, which she is not
comfortable saying.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested adding a qualifier to the wetlands in goal 111.
Fleetwood moved to rescind the previous motion, and insert new
language, "Conserve and enhance ingpertan t jurisdictional wetlands." Chalfant
stated there are some jurisdictional wetlands that are less important, and some
non - jurisdictional wetlands that are important.
Goodwin stated they will look at this during the upcoming critical areas
ordinance update. The definition of jurisdictional wetlands will change by the end
of next year.
Fleetwood stated they are going to go back through that process and
identify what's important and what's not. He amended his motion to only rescind
the previous motion.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Roy opposed.
Roy stated this item would be held in committee for two weeks. She would
like to finish this item at that time.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 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, 11/25/2003, Page 10