HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 7 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
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
October 7, 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:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
ADDENDUM:
1. BARRY WENGER, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, UPDATED THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE GSX PROJECT (AB2003 -354)
Barry Wenger, Department of Ecology (DOE), submitted a letter from the
Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) Project to his regional director dated September 30,
2003 (on file). There are two processes. One is the legal process and the other is
the formal environmental process that the State is conducting on this federal
energy regulatory commission pipeline proposal. It's an 85 -mile pipeline that goes
from Sumas to Cherry Point, under the Strait of Georgia, to Vancouver Island. It
provides natural gas to power an electrical power generation plant. Vancouver
Island feels it will need more power by the heating season of 2007. This is the
proposal brought forward by B.C. Hydro, in cooperation with the Williams Pipeline
Company.
They went through the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process and did an environmental impact statement (EIS). They found the EIS to
be inadequate in a number of areas. One area was a look at alternatives. There's
an existing pipeline that feeds natural gas to Vancouver Island that is completely in
British Columbia. That existing pipeline could be upgraded to provide the same
amount of gas. There are other alternatives. One impact was a potential open cut
through the bluff at Cherry Point in case they couldn't drill underneath, but it was
not adequately addressed. The supplemental EIS was compiled and went out for
comment recently. Two public hearings will be held. A final supplemental EIS will
be produced. Then they'll have to make decisions on two issues.
Under the Clean Water Act, their 401 water quality certification that works in
conjunction with the core permit is one issue. The other issue is federal
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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.
consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act. It works in
conjunction with shoreline permits issued by San Juan County and Whatcom
County.
Roy asked if the Department of Ecology makes the final determination about
shoreline consistency. Wenger stated it does. The Department of Ecology wants
the County's shoreline permit decision before it's consistency determination. All
they may have to do is file for a shoreline permit, but it's not clear yet.
Nelson asked a call for tender (CFT) is like a request for proposals. Wenger
stated it is.
Nelson stated the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) denied the
applicant after it held hearings, although it acknowledged the need for more power
by 2007. The BCUC requested a CFT. Wenger stated a CFT is like a call for
proposals. Two other alternatives were brought forward during the process, but
they haven't gone through the hearing process.
Nelson asked if the BCUC will consider the application on an expedited bases,
and is hopeful the application is complete enough to allow a decision without
holding another hearing, in Canada. The other two alternatives would still have to
go through the process. Wenger stated that's okay. This proposal through the
United States is, in a sense, ahead of the other proposals. Another proposal is to
upgrade existing lines, for $180 million less than the GSX project.
Nelson asked if that would go through the County's or State's hearing
process. Wenger stated it wouldn't. The Department of Ecology is only looking at
the environmental impacts.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she was under the impression that the receiving
power plant was denied a permit. She asked who would be the recipient. Wenger
stated the GSX project still wants to provide natural gas to whatever plant it can go
to.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about the viability of the entire project. She thought
the prices of natural gas were increasing, and it was inefficient to run a power plant
off of natural gas at this time. Wenger stated he couldn't address the economics.
Roy thanked Mr. Wenger for his update.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION AND FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN WRIA 3 WATERSHED PLAN IN THE
UPPER SAMISH RIVER BASIN (AB2003 -327)
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
Bruce Roll, Water Resource Division Manager, stated sections three and
seven of the watershed management plan include proposals for the County to do
certain actions as the plan is being developed. He hopes to address some of the
issues that the County Council would like to address, in terms of including or not
including certain things in the plan.
The draft plan of the steering committee is analogous to the WRIA staff team
that is working on writing language. The steering committee is working on this
draft with a goal of taking it to their planning units for consideration. Their
planning unit will make a recommendation. The recommendation will go to each of
the councils or commission for approval. Ultimately, Whatcom County Council can
either reject or support the recommendation. If rejected, the recommendation
goes back to the plan originators for modifications. He's trying to look at the issues
that the steering committee is considering, and have dialogue before the Council
votes on it.
Fleetwood stated a number of the issues relate to the fact that Whatcom
County can't guarantee adoption of the plan. He asked what the Watershed
Management Act says about resolving disagreements between jurisdictions. Roll
stated he doesn't know that the Act says anything about protocols for resolving
differences. The Act specifies the approval process for the plan. Many of the
WRIA's have a multi- county jurisdiction.
Roy stated this is the chance for the County to provide input in this process.
They are not going to resolve anything today. They are just starting the discussion.
Joanne Greenberg, Hydrologic Services Company and Samish Steering
Committee technical consultant, introduced the members of the Samish Steering
Committee. They represent the majority of the initiating governments and have
been active on the steering committee:
Greg Peterka, Skagit County PUD
Gary Sorensen, Skagit County Public Works
Gary Stoyka, Skagit County Public Works
Larry Wasserman, Swinomish Tribe
David Hawkins, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Doreen Maloney, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
John Bremer, Lake Samish Association
Terry Klimpel, Samish Water District
Roll started he wanted to first discuss instream flow. There are different
opinions about the instream flows.
Nelson asked if they are talking about natural flow rather than instream flow.
Larry Wasserman, Swinomish Tribe, stated he would discuss how the
instream flows were recommended and the implications to Whatcom County. Some
folks are concerned that the flows are too high. Understand what it means to have
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
those flows set, with regard to additional growth and development in the area. Not
only have the flows they've arrived at, but explain why they are necessary for
fisheries protection.
Nelson asked for information between the delineated instream flow quantity
and the natural flow patterns. Wasserman stated he can do it generally. He could
provide more specifics later.
The process in Skagit County was established about five years ago. In this
process, there was a memorandum of understanding among the parties to say that
they would first adopt instream flows, and then deal with the out -of- stream issues.
The initiating governments were the Swinomish Tribe, Skagit PUD, Skagit County,
the City of Anacortes, Whatcom County, Snohomish County, and a few others. The
first work done was to have a contractor do standard instream flow studies. Those
studies don't look at how much water is in the river. They look at what flows
produce the most amount of habitat for fish, based on the size of the river channel.
Different species require different optimum flows. Part of the instream analysis was
to determine the overall optimum flow. The recommendations in the process were
the result of discussion among the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department
of Ecology, the consultant, and the Swinomish Tribe.
In the summertime, these flows are very rarely met. On wet water years
they want to get the benefits of those water years. On dry water years, there's
nothing they can do about it. There is no requirement that those set instream flows
are met. Setting instream flows is how the Department of Ecology will determine
whether or not it will issue water rights. There is a big disparity between the water
flow actually there and the instream flow recommendations. Even if they reduce
the flow significantly from what is recommended, the Department of Ecology would
still not issue the water right permits.
The whole basis for the Skagit County planning process was to protect the
flows and also meet the needs of the people and out -of- stream uses. The result is
the mitigation plan that talks about things like importing water, digging deep wells,
and raising the level of Lake Samish. The plan before them is to meet the water
needs in a different way. The mitigation plan is the mechanism for meeting the
flows in a different way.
Brenner asked if the natural flow, not having to do with development, is a
certain level that changes. The instream flow being recommended is higher than
the natural flow in many months. Wasserman stated it is higher in the natural flow
in September, for example, 99 percent of the time.
Nelson stated it provides a consistent flow.
Brenner asked what happens if the place had never been developed, and
there was only the natural fish. She asked if it would support the fish. Wasserman
stated it would only support the number of fish that the habitat is capable of
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
supporting. On a dry year, less fish would be produced than on a wet year when
more habitat would be available. The number of fish produced isn't static. The
flows aren't static.
Brenner asked why they don't go with the natural flow. Wasserman stated
the natural flow is expressed in the likelihood of it occurring. The natural flow this
year is low. A few years ago, the natural flow was higher. When they talk about
the natural flow, it is just what the percentages are. It's not always one flow.
Brenner stated she doesn't understand how increasing the natural flow does
anything for the fish. Wasserman stated they aren't increasing the natural flow.
This recommendation does not increase the natural flows at all. They always had
the development, so the natural flows have been reduced. They've taken that into
consideration. They're not saying they have to bring the flows back up as if there
was no development. They're saying they can't make it any worse than it already
is. That's what this plan says. They need to find additional sources of water.
The tribes have a senior water right for a lot of this water. The tribes haven't
said they come first in this process, so people have to give the water back. For the
purpose of this plan, they're saying they can't make it any worse.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if augmenting flows as needed if Lake Management
District 1 were to develop a storage mechanism would be as viable as extending the
PUD service into the area. Wasserman stated there hasn't been the analysis yet to
know what raising the level of the lake would be. He didn't know if that would have
an impact on the landowners' homes. He understands it's an existing element in
the operating requirements for Lake Samish. They're trying to say there is a
variety of options.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that the Whatcom County Council has eliminated
over potential 800 home sites in that area. The plan doesn't show that effort as a
positive mitigation measure. Roll stated that information is in a section of the plan.
Wasserman stated the steering committee has not had much discussion
about any kind of credit that would or would not be associated with the downzone.
The purpose of today is to talk about a plan that works for everyone. He doesn't
know if there is a position on whether or not the downzone is adequate mitigation.
The plan hasn't been finalized yet. If they are at the point where people say they
can't live with the instream flow levels, then the plan needs to be altered. The
mitigation plan was based on the instream flows being adopted.
Fleetwood asked how the mitigation plan would be administered and
enforced. Wasserman stated the mitigation plan won't allow them to meet the
instream flows. The mitigation plan purpose is to eliminate any additional impact.
Parts of the administration would be done by Skagit County and the Skagit PUD.
They don't have to implement the mitigation plan until one -third of the projected
amount of water is going to be used. Without the mitigation plan, there would be
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
no new water withdrawals. The Department of Ecology says that absent a
mitigation plan, no one can withdraw any more water. The jurisdictional
responsibilities are split between the local and State governments.
Nelson asked about eliminating additional impacts. Wasserman stated that
the impacts refers to impacts to the instream flows and available water supply for
fish.
Nelson asked what role the hatchery plays. Wasserman stated everyone with
existing water rights would not have to give up any of their rights.
Nelson asked the role the hatchery plays in the quantity of fish. Wasserman
stated the steering committee hasn't discussed this. The plan didn't consider the
role of the hatchery regarding the management of the flows in the basin.
Brenner asked if the instream flow being recommended equals the natural
flow that existed before development. Wasserman stated the instream flow is
different every month or even every two weeks. The tables of information includes
levels based on natural flows. They add to that information all the diversions they
know about.
Brenner asked if there is any historical data on pre - development flows.
Wasserman stated that if they know the current flow, and how much is being
diverted, they can calculate the total.
Roy stated that if their instream flows are related to the instream flows set in
Whatcom County. Roll stated there has been a negotiation process for the main
stem of the Skagit River. The tributaries don't have a rule inflow set.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roll continued to state that the instream flow that Mr. Wasserman is talking
about hasn't gone through the rule- making process. That process would establish
the legal context by which the Department of Ecology would evaluate additional
water being withdrawn. They aren't there yet.
Roy stated Whatcom County has done a lot of work on instream flow. She
asked if they've done work on instream flow in this area. Roll stated they have not.
Roy asked if Whatcom County staff has been involved in these discussions.
Roll stated they have not.
Greenberg stated there are some water rights that were issued that have an
instream flow requirement. If they don't meet that instream flow, the holder can't
withdraw water.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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.
Roy stated it seems this is a critical piece for all the management options.
Almost everything they're doing is predicated on the instream flows. She asked if
there is another opinion on how they've been calculated. The flows sound high.
Doreen Maloney, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, stated she has a letter to submit
to the steering committee. Her tribe has treaty fishing rights and large land
holdings in the area. The tribe didn't sign on early. There may be questions about
whether the tribe is effectively governed. When the tribe received an invitation to
join, the invitation didn't include a close date. The tribe has been watching the
process and is concerned. The tribe is concerned about the proposed flow levels.
She can understand the plan if they are looking for a no- increase impact and use
the mitigation to determine the withdrawal. Mitigation would be used if there were
a withdrawal so there is no net impact. It's been hard for her to track. She is
concerned if the flow levels are set at a certain level that they can only be achieved
once every hundred years. The tribe is concerned about fisheries resources. They
have to ask if the standard is hydrologically achievable. She can't find that it is.
She doesn't understand the flow standard. She doesn't know the goal for
augmentation. If the goal is unrealistic, there won't be buyoff from the
participants.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it seems like the crux of the recommendation is for
the Whatcom County Council to accept the Skagit PUD moving into the Lake Samish
water basin to provide services. The Council just downzoned that area because it is
rural. They don't want more infrastructure in the area that would stimulate more
development. She asked how they are supposed to reconcile that.
Roll stated they've heard two perspectives on the instream flows. He
suggested they discuss the issue of connections to the PUD.
Greenberg stated they've determined the projected out -of- stream diversions
based on future build out. In the Friday Creek basin, the flow is 2.5 cubic feet per
seconds (cfs). The result of the downzone appeal will reduce that number for
mitigation to 1.8 cfs. If the amount that needs to be mitigated is 1.8 cfs, there are
a few options. One option is different management strategies for the lake itself.
Another is treating the wastewater collected around the lake to a high enough
quality to put it back in the stream. Another option is to expand the PUD service
area around the lake. They haven't decided which way to go. Nothing is cast in
stone yet.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Dr. Roll agrees with the mitigation amount of 1.8
cfs. Roll stated he'd have to look into it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked that staff look at it and provide input.
Brenner stated she is concerned that no credit would be given to Whatcom
County for low- impact development regulations. Credit should be given for that.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
She will put the rest of her concerns in writing, due to the lack of time remaining.
She thanked the people for bringing the presentation to Whatcom County.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to hear from Lake Samish Management
District 1 about whether or not they can use the holding system to mitigate for 1.8
cfs.
Terry Klimpel, Lake Samish Water District Manager, stated he is a board
representative on the district. The County Council is the Board of Supervisors for
the Lake Management District. The goal is to allow a flow of 2 cfs out of the lake,
and to also control flooding at the lake. There are easements that were obtained
when the district was formed to allow encroachment on people's beach rights. Lake
level control is an issue that would have to be addressed in the management plan.
The district is a special purpose district that can provide sewer, water, and storm
service. Presently, it provides sewer system for the lake area. They also provide
sewer service for the Cain Lake area, which is also in WRIA 3. They export the
sewage to the City of Burlington. There have been attempts to install water service
at Lake Samish from the water district since its inception. Currently, the position is
that it could be brought in only if there was a petition from the residents around the
lake or a developer pays for an extension. It's proposed that the PUD supply water
through the district. The Board of Commissioners could deem it necessary and
approve a resolution. There would have to be a hearing process, and it can be
protested down.
Brenner stated Lake Samish is already a contaminated development.
Contamination wouldn't go away if they don't allow any more development. She
asked if they are coming up with ideas to mitigate the current problem. Klimpel
stated the current Health Department is that they should be on a public water
system for health concerns.
The Board established the Lake Samish Watershed Management Advisory
Committee last year to make recommendations to the District's Board of
Commissioners. They've developed some educational strategies for people around
the lake. The key issue they are working on now is a lake management plan for the
lake to address water quality and quantity concerns. They are preparing a request
for proposals to select a consultant for a study. Lake residents have paid a flood
fee. Funding is an issue. They'd also recommend that the County Council
participate in funding for the lake.
Roy asked about the Health Department viewpoint on the lake's water
quality. Roll stated the Health Department said it doesn't have the information.
They have not collected any data that demonstrates an immediate health threat.
Roy asked if there could be some clarification on the Health Department's
position.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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.
Roll stated he would schedule this item for another Water Resources work
session. He needs more direction on the instream flow piece. As they look at the
next draft, they will have to discuss the major issues. He would like the County to
give WRIA 3 some good direction as they go along.
Caskey- Schreiber asked for Mr. Roll's technical opinion on some of the
numbers they've heard today.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8 RESOURCE
LANDS - FOREST RESOURCE LANDS SECTION OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2003 -075C)
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated this is another Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The main objectives of the section are to maintain and enhance the
natural resource based timber industry while encourage the conservation of
productive forest lands and discouraging incompatible uses. The changes to this
section of the chapter are minimal and based on recommendations from the State
or changes in State legislation. He explained the changes recommended by staff
and the Planning Commission.
Brenner referenced policy 8F -6. It looks like funds aren't available in the
program, and they don't know if they will be available in the future. She's
uncomfortable putting something in the Comprehensive Plan that may set them up
to fail. It looks and sounds wonderful until they read the fine print. Put something
in there that says it may not happen. Baumgarten stated the last he'd heard, funds
weren't available but people are still encouraged to apply, which would indicate the
need for funding for the program.
Fleetwood moved to amend policy 8F -6, "SUPPer-t Encourage the utilization
of the...."
Nelson stated the word "support" sends a stronger message to the
legislature.
Fleetwood amended his motion to amend policy 8F -6, "Support and
encourage the utilization of the...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy moved to amend policy 8G -7, "Encourage the United States Forest
Service and the Department of Natural Resources to implengent harvest practices
that n9axin9oze the use of forest lands
maximum benefit for the citizens of Whatcom County whole protecting the
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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.
^t." This is an amendment Councilmember McShane suggested in his
memo to the councilmembers dated October 2, 2003.
Fleetwood stated it's an appropriate sentiment that should be reflected in the
provision. His concern from a legal perspective is that the United States and State
of Washington have legal supremacy over Whatcom County. Their charges are to
do things for the benefit of federal or state forestry. The amendment won't hurt
anything, but he doesn't know what it will actually do in reality.
Nelson stated he agreed with Councilmember Fleetwood. These are State
and federal lands.
Crawford stated policy 8G -7 refers specifically to implementing harvest
practices. If they replace it with Councilmember McShane's proposed language, he
broadens it to managing forest lands beyond harvest practices, including recreation.
Goal 8G is to deal with forest products industry. Removing that language would
drop an important component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the amendment. These are public
trust lands. There have been instances when the State and federal governments
weighed their benefit more heavily than the benefit to the citizens. They need to
be reminded that they should consider the best interest of the citizens.
Fleetwood suggested keeping the current language and supplementing it with
Councilmember McShane's suggestion.
Nelson stated this is the same conflict they face in the forestry industry
today. It's similar to the conflict faced by the agricultural industry. When they
have population expansion and growth, sentiment can change agricultural and
forestry protection. This decision will affect the sentiment of protecting these
valuable resources.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, suggested, "Encourage the
United States Forest Service and the Department of Natural Resources to
implement harvest practices that maximize the use of forest lands for the benefit of
Whatcom County citizens while protecting the environment."
Nelson asked how it would affect citizens in the future in terms of policy.
He's concerned about the commercial forestry zone, where the language is to
include housing. He's concerned about the language that would maximize the use
of forestland while recognizing citizen concerns. One future citizen concern may be
to include housing. A future council will end up encouraging housing in commercial
forestlands.
Fleetwood stated Councilmember Nelson makes a good point. While the
current committee and Council may understand the purpose, the language is
actually ambiguous. The language could be interpreted to mean anything, including
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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.
allowing housing in the forestry zone. The present language proposed requires
protection of the environment.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8G -7, "Encourage the United
States Forest Service and the Department of Natural Resources to implement
harvest practices that maximize the use of forestlands for the benefit of Whatcom
County citizens while protecting the environment."
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roy read the comments on policy 8G -8 from Councilmember McShane in his
memo to the councilmembers dated October 2, 2003. She asked if staff has a
comment in Councilmember McShane's rationale. He's saying the State law would
not allow them to do that.
Nelson stated he supported the suggestion. The law was originally
established for the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Counties used to
regulate and maintain state lands a very long time ago. The State became the
manager because the counties weren't managing it. There's no definition of who
would manage it even if they do want to do the analysis. The analysis doesn't
identify who would pay for it. The policy puts the County into a position where the
County wouldn't be able to support doing it. DNR wouldn't be able to support doing
it.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to eliminate policy 8G -8.
Fleetwood asked if this is a reference to Forest Board lands owned by the
County, that the County gave to the State for management, and for which the State
provides a rebate for junior taxing districts as a result of timber harvests.
Baumgarten stated this policy references State DNR lands.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy stated Councilmember McShane's memo dated October 2, 2003
recommends removing policy 8G -9.
Nelson stated Councilmember McShane's saying that DNR has the authority,
and this policy would cost money to the County. He asked who would bear the cost
of mediation. He's not opposed to playing the role of mediation, but he's concerned
about who bears the cost. The forester should not bear that cost. If the public or
citizens who are intruding upon forest areas should bear all the mediation costs.
Roy stated this policy came from the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated
the Planning Commission thought that a body similar to the County's Technical
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
Advisory Committee could be formed with citizens. It wasn't clear if the State
would care, since it has regulation authority. The body could give advice to the
State.
Nelson stated they already do that in the watershed with the Forestry
Advisory Forum.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to eliminate policy 8G -9.
Crawford stated that he doesn't understand how the process works, either.
He is in favor of the motion. If there were a process to look at, it can be
approached. If people want this to happen, it can be done without entering a line
item in the Comprehensive Plan when they don't know if it's appropriate.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they're trying to get an Interjurisdictional committee
established to weigh in on issues like this. DNR won't go to mediation.
Fleetwood stated he supports the motion. In an adversarial setting, there's
the forest practice appeals process established by the Forest Practices Board. The
County can choose to be a petitioner in a rule making process if there's a problem
with regulations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy stated Councilmember McShane's memo recommends eliminating policy
Crawford stated this policy could be read two different ways. It could be
interpreted to allow residential development or to minimize residential
development. He's not sure it's appropriate to drop the topic of residential
development in the forestry zone. However, it needs better wording. It might be
wise for staff to think about language and come back with something clearer.
Goodwin stated that right now they don't allow residential development in
commercial forestry zones.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to eliminate policy 8H -6.
Nelson read Resource Lands Action Plan item 8 and stated he disagreed with
that item. DNR has objections to residences in commercial forestry. The
Comprehensive Plan is supposed to preserve and protect the commercial forestry
around DNR lands and avoid problems similar to the problem they're having in the
watershed of people living next to forest practices.
Crawford asked about the need for caretakers.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
Nelson stated that once they allow housing, they have to have fire district
protection. A lot of these areas are not serviceable.
Baumgarten stated caretaker housing may be an allowed provision. It's
different than a permanent residence.
Brenner stated she's surprised this language got through. The Council made
a distinction between rural and commercial forestry.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson stated he doesn't understand how they would measure adverse
impacts to the habitat of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species and to
marine waters that support shellfish resources, as referenced in Goal 8I.
Baumgarten stated the Planning Commission didn't address specific measures. The
spirit is to encourage regulation that looks at impacts to Endangered Species Act
(ESA) species. The amendment from the Planning Commission was to put a similar
focus on shellfish resources.
Roy stated the motion came from Geoff Menzies. The forestry practices
along California or Dakota creeks may cause sediment to get into those creeks and
be carried down to the shellfish beds. They already know that during rain events,
there are higher fecal counts. There is a relationship.
Nelson asked if shellfish is not covered under fish and wildlife.
Roy stated that people tend not to remember that, so Mr. Menzies wanted a
focus on it.
Baumgarten stated current policies would support shellfish resources. The
additional language from the Planning Commission is a clarification.
Roy stated they also support endangered species. All they are doing is
restating this for emphasis.
Crawford stated goal 8I covers it all. The format is to present the goal and
reinforce it with policies. It seems more appropriate to add a policy 8I -4 to ensure
that marine waters that support shellfish resources receive minimal impact from
forestry practices.
Caskey- Schreiber stated policy 8I -1 would address the issue. There are
commercial forestry projects near marine waters.
Fleetwood stated the statement is a general statement and it should be a
goal. He supports the language as written.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, 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
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.
Baumgarten stated action item eight needs to be deleted and action item
seven needs to be added.
Fleetwood asked if action item seven only makes the Comprehensive Plan
conform with State law. Baumgarten stated it does.
Nelson asked if the County would administer forest practice applications for
class IV's. Baumgarten stated that is the interpretation.
Nelson asked if DNR could still do the administration while the County does
the land use. Baumgarten stated DNR will oversee and provide technical support
for one year. After that, the County is on its own. Hal Hart has been following this
with the State, and it's still changing.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to eliminate action item eight.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated item seven should be renumbered to item eight.
Nelson asked if there is a process capable of handling the action in action
item nine.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it matters if they're going through the open space
tax process.
Nelson asked if they have to review everything in place. Goodwin stated it
means looking at things such as whether there are forested lands zoned rural that
should have been zoned forestry. It would be an annual Comprehensive Plan
process. Staff has a better ability to do that now because they have up -to -date air
photos and a better geographic information system (GIS) than in the past.
Nelson asked if it would be too cost - prohibitive to do that action item.
Goodwin stated she didn't think it would be too cost - prohibitive. They've got good
photos now. They can add those photos to the docket to start looking at.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council as amended and to
schedule a public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/7/2003, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 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, 10/7/2003, Page 15