HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 6 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
March 6, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENT 2001 A) (AB2001 -041)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that the proposal is to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to strengthening policies regarding endangered and threatened
species in the Land Use, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Transportation, Economic,
Resource Land, and Environment chapters. The proposal would set a stronger
policy.
Another component is that it sets action items to update county codes,
including the shoreline program, to provide for threatened and endangered species.
He displayed a map of chinook streams. He also displayed a map showing the
shoreline designations. The shoreline program applies to streams with a mean
annual flow of over 20 cubic feet per second, lakes over 20 acres, and marine water
bodies. The chinook map overlays the shorelines under the shoreline jurisdiction.
The shoreline designations are similar to zoning designations.
McShane stated there are different rules for the different designations.
Aamot stated the shoreline program update would be an important part of
the County's threatened and endangered species response. There are two paths to
choose from, Path A (Part III) or Path B (part IV). Path A, which is part III of the
new guidelines, would comply with state shoreline rules, the Department of Ecology
(DOE) rules. Path B would also comply with state shoreline rules, but the federal
government says that Path B may be instrumental in preventing further listing of a
species. They also say that local governments complying with Path B would comply
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and that shoreline development occurring
under Path B would also comply with ESA in the areas on the map.
The County Prosecuting Attorney discussed liability issues. If the Council
went with Path B, the County government and developers who get a permit under
Path B would be protected from liability.
Nelson asked the recommendation from the staff on the two paths. Aamot
stated the staff proposal proposes an action item to look at Path B. They should
initiate the process and look at that possibility. At the end of the review, in
November, it may be found that Path B is too onerous. The staff position is to at
least go down that road to see if Path B is possible.
Nelson asked if Path A would not have fish protection or would increase
County liability. Aamot stated the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) letter
says that both paths are an improvement over existing rules. Path B would provide
greater protection for fish. Path A would not provide liability protection. Another
option for the County is to submit its entire land use package to the federal
government and try to get an exception under their 4(d) rule. He wondered the
practicality of that if the County did less than path B.
Dawson asked if property owners are really liable for a take. She asked how
that would be proved.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is no single - family
residential exemption from the take prohibition. As a practical matter, it is not
likely that a residence will be the first thing on the radar screen. A person may
build in a flood plan and fail to have adequate erosion control or sedimentation
control, for example. However, it is not likely they will see a high level of
residential development in those areas anyway.
Dawson asked if a person could not build in a flood plain because it would
make the person liable for a take. Gibson stated the zoning in the areas adjacent
to rivers and major tributaries are areas where it is not likely to have a high degree
of development. Most areas are agricultural zones. Farmers try to avoid areas of
the flood way and flood plain.
Dawson asked if erosion control is the main concern for homeowners
regarding a take. Gibson stated that was one example. For the shoreline, in
relationship to the residential activities that occur in the shoreline, erosion control is
a significant issue. In some instances, they are looking at allowing erosion to
occur. In the case of feeder bluffs, the process of construction and its protection is
designed to interfere with erosion.
Hoag asked if either Path A or B makes it easier for someone to pursue flood
projects. Gibson stated Path B pertaining to flood projects is generally more
stringent.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
Hoag stated it is more stringent. She questioned whether Path B would allow
projects to proceed more quickly even though it is more stringent. Gibson stated
he envisions that if the County pursues Path B, there is the question of how it
would look for particular portions of the river system. If the County has Path B as
the basic template, then it would allow the County to concentrate its efforts on
those areas where deviation is necessary for economic reasons or where there is a
difference between the local view and the state and federal view. Therefore,
following Path B would allow more concentration on the on- the - ground efforts,
which would enable permitting to proceed more expeditiously in the long run.
With Path A, to the extent that the County needs Army Corps of Engineer
permits, they are constantly going to go through the section 7 consultation and will
bang against the fact that the federal government believes the County does not
have an adequate program in place. The idea is to generally follow Path B. In
areas of particular problems, concentrate on demonstrating why Path B is not the
best choice, and then persuade the federal government that permits should be
granted.
Aamot stated that now, if there is a project that has federal funding, they
have to get the section 7 consultation. He questioned whether they would have to
have a section 7 consultation for individual projects that comply with Path B if the
County follows Path B, and if there is a programmatic section 7 consultation for the
entire Path B shoreline program.
Gibson stated that was correct. If the County has programmatic approval
under section 7, it means that the Army Corps of Engineers would not have to run
each one through.
McShane stated that it fits the broad program, and they are already signed
off on the program. Gibson stated they are already signed off on the guidelines.
There is a big step from the guidelines to the other things that would have to be
done. They have approval of the guidelines. There has to be a secondary approval
that what the County adopts, in relation to the guidelines, fulfills their purpose.
Hoag stated the flood hazard reduction section of the summary says that
shoreline programs must recognize flooding as an essential, natural process. Path
A does not have to agree with that statement, but Path B does have to agree. She
questioned whether the County automatically runs into a problem with trying to
build protective structures if it makes the assumption that it is an essential, natural
process and adopts Path B. The County has been told that projects will more easily
be approved if it adopts strict guidelines that the federal government feels will
adequately protect fish. At the same time, they are setting up an argument against
themselves if what they adopt rules out the kinds of projects they need to do.
Gibson stated the argument would be there, regardless of whether the County
adopts it. The concern is what channel migration zones are in certain reaches of
the river. His point is that the County is in a better place to make its argument if it
works with Plan B as the template, and then fine -tune its arguments to particular
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
stretches, rather than working from a program that is deemed to be inadequate at
the outset.
Hoag asked who deemed it to be inadequate. Gibson stated the federal
government indicated that Path A is not adequate to meet section 7 consultation
requirements. By implication, it is not adequate for 4(d) coverage.
Nelson asked how they came up with just these two pathways. Gibson
stated the County didn't have a choice.
McShane stated the County commented, and asked for the pathways.
Gibson stated there has been terse interchange through this process. Some
people, not excluding Whatcom County, argued for something that resembled Path
A.
Nelson asked if these are the only alternatives, or if they can meld the two
paths. Gibson stated the County could apply Path A in areas and Path B in areas,
or create a hybrid. To the extent it is a hybrid and the County has not convinced
the federal government or DOE that the plan is adequate, the County is going to
face arguments. If the County works with Path B as the starting point, then it
would enable the County to get to its goal faster because the County can
concentrate its energy on those areas that count the most.
Nelson asked the timeframe to do that. Aamot stated it is two years. There
is at least one bill in the legislature to extend it. Right now, it is two years from
November 2000.
Nelson asked where the County's synergistic effort would be after two years
if it adopts Path B. Aamot stated this item is to begin the review. They are at a
fork in the road, and the Council needs to decide which direction to go. The elected
body should set the policy direction on which way to go. This issue came up when
they did the Critical Areas Ordinance. The newspaper wrote an article that said the
elected body should set the policy direction before they get too far down the road.
That is what this would do. There are different tasks for the staff to do regarding
inventory and analysis.
Nelson stated he remembered the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) battles.
They are right back at the same thing. He questioned whether the Council is
reflecting the will of the constituents or the will of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS).
Hoag stated NMFS doesn't say that Plan A is inadequate. It says that Path B
would ensure compliance with ESA. It doesn't extend that comment to Path A. It
does say that Path A would provide better protection of ecological process, and that
NMFS has put all its efforts into supporting Path B. Her question was how this
would affect the constituents. It says that existing agricultural uses do not have to
comply with the new regulations. She questioned how that fits with the parts
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
regarding flooding. She asked if it means that one could do flood projects if it
protects agricultural land, or if it means that agricultural uses don't have to follow
along with certain regulations. Gibson stated that is the right question to ask.
Aamot stated the answer depends on the path they go with. "Existing
agriculture" means what they are doing as of now. Path B prohibits new
revetments except when needed to protect existing or approved development.
Path A is worded slightly different. It also protects the use of the property, which is
more lenient when talking about agricultural use.
Hoag stated she was concerned about the flood hazard stuff. Path B requires
that gravel removal for flood management be phased out. Path A does not require
that. The attitude toward gravel extraction has to change. It is inappropriate to
prohibit gravel removal. It may be an uphill battle, but they should not prohibit
that. She questioned what it means that information on flood control structure
permitting is needed unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan. Path A says the information is not needed. Path B says the
information is needed unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan. Aamot stated he talked with Paula Cooper about that. She saw
the plan as more of a general vision, rather than being specific to a project.
Gibson stated the point is, in that instance, to get the project done. This
addresses shorelines. Don't be fooled into thinking that it being not required
means that it is not required for the federal regulations. It only means that it is not
required for shorelines. The County would still have to fight its way through the
federal regulatory structure.
Hoag stated that they might set up an additional hurdle for themselves.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the County has a
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, but it has not gone through federal
regulatory review. There is a plan, but it is not blessed at this point to make it
qualify. The County is at a point where it can request that regulatory review.
Hoag asked if they are saying that the requirement would not apply to the
County. Monsen stated it would not apply to anyone. That item refers to a plan
that has been reviewed and approved, which no one has in the context of ESA.
McShane stated that, even now, regardless of shoreline issues, the County is
confronted with the problem of setting meander limits. That question will be asked
of any project that comes forward. Money is tied to it. It is a question they are
already confronted with.
Monsen stated the plan deals with allowing floods to occur in well- defined
overflow channels and to reconnect with other side channels. Those things are
already noted in the plan. A significant part of those matters are required within
ESA so projects can move forward, as long as all those pieces are taken into
account collectively. The plan already suggests that there are places along the
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
river that are too restricting. No one suggested that the levee system must
disappear and the floodway must act natural. This language implies that idea, but
how it is applied on the ground is not that way. Path A is the minimum
requirement in the state. Path B resembles the minimum requirement at the
federal level. Somewhere between the two, or even Path A, might be adequate,
but the County will have to prove it case by case. Path B gives greater assurance
that the County will get permission, but they will still have to ask.
McShane asked if a project would be accepted more readily if the County
adopted Path B. Monsen stated it becomes easier over time to acquire all the
necessary permits. What the County has to demonstrate is more defensible with
Path B. Either path would still require project based permit review. They will have
the challenge of asking if Path B is easier enough than Path A. That is anyone's
guess.
McShane stated that the County would already have answers to the
questions being asked now for projects being brought forward, if the County chose
Path B, rather than re- answering the same questions for each case. Monsen stated
that is a good point. If they did enough flood projects or other land use
applications along the river, the kind of information they generate project -by-
project will eventually provide the data they would gather to implement Path B. If
they gather that kind of data on the front end, it will help everyone along the river
to deal with answering the questions and obtaining the appropriate permits. That is
one of the issues that Path B presents to them. It presents the opportunity to
gather information to make educated decisions. The information they gain will be
helpful.
Nelson asked why they would not do the same under Path A. Monsen stated
part of the suggestion is to start down Path B, even though they may or may not
adopt it as the regulation. If they start to focus on Path A requirements, then they
will not be able to gather a lot of that information except project -by- project.
McShane stated they would know ahead of time how a project fits with the
plan when it comes forward, instead of pushing forward a project that may not
work.
Nelson stated that presumes that if they adopt Path B, all projects will be
geared toward Path B.
Monsen stated there is a difference between starting down a path versus
adopting a path. It is premature to suggest which path to adopt.
Dawson stated that they would get stuck in Path B over time. There is a goal
of getting back to the pre- European stage. She couldn't go along with the idea that
the language of the federal government will protect the County. She would be
more comfortable with a hybrid of Paths A and B. She was uncomfortable buying
lands along the river. They should do trading for mitigation instead. She would like
to leave the options open. Monsen suggested that in the adoption process, the
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
path would probably be a hybrid of Path A and Path B. Path A will not gather the
kind of information to develop that hybrid.
Dawson suggested not calling it Path A or Path B. Aamot stated there is a
set of DOE regulations in two sections, either Path A or Path B. If the Council wants
to go with Path A and create a hybrid, they probably could do that. Any hybrid
would be considered a Path A, as far as the DOE and federal government is
concerned.
McShane stated they are not making a choice on the path at this time. They
are only giving direction to staff and the Planning Commission to look at the
approaches. He suggested looking at Path B, but allowing those portions that
cannot be tolerated for a specific area to go with Path A. At that time, the
councilmembers can speak about specific concerns and get down to where they
specifically have problems.
Dawson stated she has issues with seawalls.
Hoag stated this is just a summary that they have. As she read through it,
there are a number of items in Path B that she could not live with. However, there
are items in Path B that are desirable and appropriate. She would recommend
choosing Path A, but to review Path B and see what items from there they can use
and are appropriate in order to make Path A more enticing. There are things that
could help to better protect fish, but she had problems with others. She referenced
page one, under vegetation conservation, question four. This Council expressed a
concern with the concept of site potential tree height. She asked the definition of a
channel migration zone. Gibson stated that is in the process of definition locally. It
is the historical meander of the river over a hundred years, but to say that would
be meaningless for this situation.
Hoag stated she presumed that the DOE has a particular item in mind there.
Aamot stated there is a definition on page four of the chart.
Hoag asked if it means that there has to be the distance of a potential tree
height from any place the river meandered in the past 100 years.
McShane asked where that is a problem in Whatcom County.
Hoag stated the problem is with the meandering.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag continued to state that the reason farmers have nice soil is because the
river used to meander in the agricultural areas. If the Council chooses this
language, whole farms would be gone.
McShane stated agricultural areas are exempt.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
Hoag asked for the specific language regarding agricultural exemptions.
Aamot stated it is on the DOE website, and it is Washington Administrative Code
(WAC)173- 262 -403A.
Hoag asked if it means that agricultural areas would not have to put in
vegetation conservation areas, that they could remove gravel from the river, and
that they could replace protective measures. That means something very different
than what is being applied. She wanted to see the exact language.
Gibson stated gravel removal is not perceived as an agricultural use per se.
It is a separate issue. That does not mean they have to back off the distance of
one potential tree height. It will not require the area to be re- vegetated. There is
existing agricultural use there, and it will continue to be an agricultural use.
Hoag asked if Mr. Gibson was saying that the vegetation conservation would
not apply because of the agricultural exemption. Gibson stated that was correct.
Aamot stated protecting land is a different story.
Hoag stated it is a different story if one wants to remove a gravel bar.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manger, encouraged the councilmembers
to read the full regulations. On the issue of site potential tree height, there is a
section that says that if they have a vegetation conservation plan that looks at the
function of vegetation with best available science, then they don't have to have a
full potential tree height buffer. They can include a vegetation conservation
provision that looks at the ecological function of the provision. In some instances,
they can have smaller buffers. The flood sections provide an exception if there is a
geologic assessment and decide there is not other way to protect structures. They
can put in structural measures for flood hazard reduction if it is the only resort, and
there is no other feasible alternative.
Aamot stated the difference between Paths A and B is that Path B only
protects structures, and Path A protects structures and use of land.
Hoag asked about the gravel removal, and if there is any flexibility. Goodwin
read the regulation, which says that they should work to phase it out.
Dawson asked if there is a difference between extraction and movement.
Goodwin stated they would have to determine that.
Hoag stated it makes more sense to extract it.
Nelson stated that many questions still have to be answered. The chosen
path will be a hybrid of the two. The prudent path would be to adopt the direction
of Path A, have Planning Commission review each area, and make a hybrid.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
McShane stated it is more prudent to go with Path B, with the Planning
Commission discussing each requirement in detail. They haven't looked into the
details, only the summary sheet. It seems that the consequences of Path A are not
good for the County in the long run. The County would not be under the protection
of the 4(d) rules, and it opens the County to liability. There will be concerns with
Path B, such as with the meander from Everson to Ferndale. They may want to
look at deviations of Path B for certain areas, such as phasing out gravel mining in
the river. They may see, through geo- morphological studies, that gravel mining is
the best alternative versus expensive levees. Those issues will come up if the
Council gives guidance to look at Path B. Where it looks like Path B will cause
problems for citizens of County, then deviate in those instances and come up with
something that would be better. In doing that, they will come down to protection
for most of the things they are doing. When they deviate from Path B, it puts an
onus on someone who wants to sue the County because of not protecting species,
and shows that the County's chosen path in other areas really is a taking on fish.
People would have a hard time doing that if there is an overall good plan elsewhere.
Going with Path A and looking at Path B will not result in something very good.
Hoag stated she didn't agree with the premise that Path B would put the
County in a better spot.
McShane stated he wanted to hear specifics on why it is a problem, instead
of a general statement. Not being specific leaves people in the dark about why
they would choose a path that puts the County in a difficult legal position.
Hoag stated she didn't have the same conclusion. Politically, if the County
chooses path A, and portions of Path B along with it, then they are presenting a
positive picture. If they go forward with Path B, and do not agree with certain
areas, then it will send up red flags of where the areas of difference lie and where
the County wants to be shot down. In reality, there is no difference between the
two. In terms of perception, there is a big difference. Any review of this needs to
be a thorough review of both paths at the Planning Commission level and Council
level. Certain portions of Path B are not something that Whatcom County can live
with and survive.
Dawson stated there is a customary and legal property rights issue versus
this new goal that congress set up to protect animals. There is now a legal case in
front of the U.S. Supreme Court that will have ramifications on this issue. Wait
until that case is handed down.
Nelson moved to forward Path A, and have the Planning Commission review
each area, specifically the Shoreline Management Plan, and the alternatives listed.
At the same time, staff will work on assessments and projects. He went through
the CAO process. They tried to ram it down people's throats without having a
public process to find out what works best. They need to work with the community
and not necessarily adopt what the agencies want because it will be easy to
administrate. The Council needs to work with the citizens, not the agencies.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
Gibson asked who, from a policy standpoint, is going to identify the items in
Path B worth exploring and shaping up to bring forward for further consideration.
Nelson asked why that would be a policy direction. Gibson stated that is
exactly what this discussion is about.
McShane stated this is up to the County Council to make the decision on
whether it is Path A or Path B. There is no other way out of it. If they go with a
hybrid, the staff will have to go through each item. All councilmembers need to do
their homework on Paths A and B, and say which items they like and don't like. He
is astonished that the Council will go down the same path as it took with the CAO.
Staff needs to know which direction to go for each item.
Nelson restated his motion. Take Path A to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission will review these items to see how to adapt them to the
management plans and projects, which areas that need to be specifically looked at,
and which areas that work. They may create a hybrid. The Planning Commission
would go through each one. Start with Path A, and adopt going forward with
whatever restrictions the public is comfortable with.
Hoag agreed with the motion. She suggested a friendly amendment to give
direction to staff to choose Path A, but have the Planning Commission review both
paths, and incorporate portions of Path B into Path A where appropriate.
Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag stated they would not decide today which portions of which paths they
will chose, but that they would provide general direction to the Planning
Commission, which would review and make recommendations to the Council. At
that time, the Council would choose portions of Path A and Path B. That is the
process she wanted to see happen. It is the will of the Council to protect
endangered species, regardless of whatever court case there is. The Council also
needs to protect the people in the county and look at the long -term impact of any
regulations that the Council adopts, and make sure those regulations accomplish
both fish protection and people protection. She couldn't do that with information
she currently has about Path B. She asked for comments from John Thompson.
Aamot stated the items in the summary chart have exceptions and
variations. Regarding initiating this, the Comprehensive Plan amendment was more
than choosing between Path A or path B. It was based on the same premise of the
properly functioning conditions that the federal government says that they need. If
they choose not to initiate this, then present a resolution at the Water Resources
meeting.
Hoag asked for explanation on how Paths A, B, and the Comprehensive Plan
amendment work together. Aamot stated staff drafted amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. There are action items to update county codes to implement
the policies. One update was to the shoreline program. If the Council does not go
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
with Path B, then the entire proposed amendment might not be consistent with
Path A. If they don't initiate the amendment, then staff can come back with a
resolution. The staff proposed Path B as a Comprehensive Plan amendment with
that as an action item for discussion so the Council could make a decision on it.
Staff hasn't determined anything. Staff wants to know whether the Council wants
to initiate this proposal.
Nelson stated the Council would not object to having it in the Water
Resources meeting.
McShane stated the Council could initiate an amendment at any time. Aamot
stated it has to be an emergency, with a 2/3- majority approval, to initiate it at any
time. Another option is to do a resolution that spells out the Council's desire to go
with Path A and look at Path B.
Hoag stated there are no details of this amendment. Aamot stated the
paperwork is on file. If they don't go with Path B, the Comprehensive Plan
amendments don't make much sense.
Hoag suggested taking the Comprehensive Plan amendments that were
proposed and strike the things that they don't agree with, and move forward with
the things they do agree with.
Nelson stated it would still lack consistency.
McShane stated it is difficult to make Comprehensive Plan amendments if
they don't know if they will go with Path A or B.
Nelson asked if it would normally go to the Planning Commission. Docket
this to the Planning Commission and have them make their recommendation based
on the direction from the Council. Staff can speak to each item about whether or
not they make sense.
Goodwin stated other options include not passing the resolution, wait until
after the work session, then decide whether or not to pull this item for the year,
modify it, or go with it as it is. They have to start on the shoreline, but they don't
have to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Hoag stated they would be better off to look at it this year. They are dealing
with the ESA. The more the County can delineate where it is on the issue, the
better off it is.
McShane asked if the question is whether they need to put that in the
Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Nelson stated the Comprehensive Plan will be referenced many times when
they review these projects, as well as what NMFS and the state will look at. If it
isn't there, the County is much weaker.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
Hoag asked that the proposed amendment be a matter of discussion at the
next Water Resources meeting. She wanted the entire amendment to go to the
Water Resources meeting.
Goodwin stated the Council could docket the amendment and provide
direction later, or leave it off altogether and do the amendment as an emergency
later, or hold the entire resolution until the next meeting after the work session and
then modify it.
Nelson questioned whether it would it still go to the Planning Commission
regardless of what they do at the Water Resources meeting. Goodwin stated only if
it is docketed.
Nelson asked if they could amend the amendment before the Planning
Commission. Aamot stated they could amend it, or just provide the intent and
principle.
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated that one challenge for staff is
to help the Council develop options that provide for consistency between
departments and all the regulations. One challenge is whether they mandate not
degrading things or mandate that things are going to be restored. The federal
standard is looking for a high level of certainty. That is part of the package that
staff is working on, consistency and certainty. If they do things voluntarily, there is
less certainty. As they move through this, staff could get clear policy direction on
the policy intent. The direction would affect the amount of assessment work. If
they follow one scenario, there may be a higher burden on the County to defend its
actions. If they follow another scenario, someone else may have done some of the
work. There are tradeoffs. They need to keep discussions going, and give staff
benefit of clear direction.
McShane stated that the most appropriate thing is to postpone the item to
the Water Resources work session.
The committee concurred.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Dawson asked if taking out gravel would make a difference to the fish that
are stranded because of low water levels. Thompson stated not necessarily.
OTHER BUSINESS
Nelson stated he'd just returned from the National Association of Counties
convention in Washington D.C., and learned that these issues are being discussed
nationwide.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 13