HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 1 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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 1, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 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
1. PRESENTATION BY AL HANNERS ON SHORELINE CONDITIONS AT
CAPE WHITEHORN (AB2001 -146)
Al Hanners, resident, stated he supported a change in the shoreline plan
from conservancy to natural. The purpose is to protect Point Whitehorn. Point
Whitehorn tidelands are protected because former Commissioner of Public Lands
Jennifer Belcher established an aquatic reserve there. That doesn't have a lot of
teeth. It doesn't do anything for the bluff, which is in the County's jurisdiction.
Second, Ms. Belcher's focus was mostly on construction regarding the fish and
shellfish that are under restriction. The Health Department has the final say.
Regarding the value of a small, protected marine area, adult land animals migrate.
When it comes to invertebrates, it is the young that migrate. The adults are
settled. This winter in Birch Bay, there was no sign of any young invertebrate
migration. It has been wiped out by human population in Birch Bay. If there is
going to be re- population, it will have to come from Point Whitehorn.
Regarding the outfall from the sewage treatment plant in Birch Bay from the
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, the plant is at the south end of Birch Bay State
Park. A 27 -inch line goes to Point Whitehorn. That line has a capacity of 1.5
million gallons per day. The output now in that line runs 600,000 to 800,000
gallons per day. There would be adequate capacity in that line to handle
development at Point Whitehorn. The treatment takes out the solids and trucks
them to a hay farm. Until a month ago, the liquids are treated by chlorine. They
switched to ultraviolet light about six weeks ago. For years, Point Whitehorn was
off limits to shellfish gathering because of concerns on the sewage. The plants
grow well because of all the nitrogen. The plants are the basis for a lot of life. The
reason this is important both in planning and to have concern about what will
happen at Point Whitehorn, is what will happen to the sewage liquids from Blaine.
The Blaine sewage treatment plant got into problems. Now, there are other plans
being considered. One plan is to locate the outfall in Drayton Harbor. The other
plan is to put the outfall at Point Whitehorn. The amount of sewage for Blaine must
be in the millions. That would be enough fresh water to affect the salinity in
Drayton Harbor. They need to be certain about that.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 1
1
2 In his slide presentation, he would show a lot of organisms. There is a
3 multitude of species that cover everything. There are many species he listed, but
4 there are many more that could be listed if they spent more time. There is a lot of
5 wildlife at Point Whitehorn, and no wildlife in downtown Birch Bay. Drayton Harbor
6 is an enclosed bay in which millions of gallons of fresh water would affect the
7 salinity. That would be a negative effect on marine plants. Point Whitehorn,
8 because it is open sea, will get a lot more dilution. Those things should be looked
9 at.
10
11 Dawson stated she'd heard that there was a preference to divert the Drayton
12 Harbor sewer to Point Whitehorn. Hanners stated some people do say that. It
13 needs to be studied. People will destroy the marine life in Point Whitehorn as they
14 did in Birch Bay by gathering clams.
15
16 McShane stated there are fewer people at Point Whitehorn gathering shellfish
17 because it is more difficult to get to. Hanners stated it has been protected in the
18 past, and there has been poachers there. He's never failed to see crabbers or
19 clammers out there. It is not an immense number of people. On the other hand,
20 Trillium has a large block of land at Point Whitehorn, just south of Grandview Road.
21 It is zoned Urban Residential, four homes per acre (UR -4). There is talk that
22 Trillium plans to build access to the beach there. If there is a horde of people going
23 down to the beach, Point Whitehorn will be destroyed. The bluff is unstable. As
24 long as people have to walk in from Birch Bay, it would not be a terrible threat. He
25 did not want to allow access on that bluff.
26
27 He showed a slide presentation, including a map of Point Whitehorn, Drayton
28 Harbor and Birch Bay. Most of the tidelands are under control of the state
29 Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The shoreline designation of "natural"
30 means that one must protect the things that are unique or very important. Right
31 now, it is all designated "conservancy." When the tide is out, there are many great
32 blue herons and gulls. The rocks are covered with algae and other wildlife. There
33 are tide pools. The bluff is composed of glacial material with large boulders, clay,
34 sand, and rocks of all sizes. It is very unstable. Changing the shoreline
35 designation from conservancy to natural would affect a strip 400 feet from the high
36 tide line, which would be beyond the edge of the bluff. It would prevent people
37 from building too close. He's walked the shore from Semiahmoo south after houses
38 were built there. He's walked the south shore of Drayton Harbor after houses were
39 built. Houses always disturb the bluff. That shouldn't happen.
40
41 The wildlife includes sea anemone, eelgrass, kelp, dungeness crab, a variety
42 of barnacles, edible blue mussels, mollusks, starfish, sea cucumber, and algae.
43
44 The area zoned UR -4, owned by Trillium, is the biggest threat to Point
45 Whitehorn if access to the beach is established.
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
48
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
Hoag questioned the differences between the conservancy designation and
the natural designation.
Dawson stated the protection zone is 200 feet.
Hanners stated that shoreline from Birch Bay to Point Whitehorn is
designated as a shoreline of statewide significance. He read a portion of the
Shoreline Management Act regarding policies for shorelines of statewide
significance. It should be protected. Erosion and sedimentation from development
sites should be controlled to minimize adverse impacts on process. Erosion should
be severely limited. Public access should be restricted and prohibited. Recreation
should be designed to protect resource spaces.
Marie Hitchman, 601 -16th Street, Bellingham, stated that under the
conservancy shoreline area, a shoreline is an area containing natural resources
which can be used or managed on a multiple use - basis, without extensive alteration
of topography or banks, including forest, agricultural, and mineral lands, outdoor
recreations sites, fish and wildlife habitat, watersheds for public supplies, and areas
of outstanding scenic quality. That is the conservancy designation. A secondary
criteria for the conservancy designation would indicate an area that contains
renewable natural resources or process that should be managed so the resource
base is maintained, such as on a sustainable basis.
A natural shoreline designation is defined as an area having high value in a
natural condition, which has little or no development, and includes estuaries,
marshes, swamps, gorges, and other areas publicly managed in their natural
condition. The purpose of the natural designation is to ensure long -term
preservation of those resources that yield optimum benefit to the community or
region. Those are the differences in the designations. This particular area is vital
because of the herring run, which supports the salmon. Enhance the preservation
of the herring run. There has been a precipitous decline in the herring run in recent
years. The only viable area left is Point Whitehorn.
Hoag questioned whether the herring are still spawning at Point Whitehorn.
Hitchman stated they are, although it has been considerably diminished. The state
Health Department opened Point Whitehorn for the first time in 35 years shortly
after she and Mr. Hanners gave this presentation to the Audubon Society.
However, Jennifer Belcher declared that area an aquatic preserve before she left
office. An aquatic reserve means that an area is to be protected for its natural
resources.
Hanners stated they have a new department head for DNR, Doug
Southerland. All of the aquatic reserves designated by Jennifer Belcher are now
under review. This will take about a year.
Regarding enforcement, there has to be more than just a designation. There
has to be enforcement.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
Hoag questioned what the public benefit would be, other than it is nice to
look at. Hanners stated the Endangered Species Act is flawed. It concentrates on
saving individual species. They have to save ecosystems to maintain bio- diversity.
All the species are dependent on each other for survival. They need to have a
sound ecosystem. That is the benefit. There is no benefit in wiping out the last
clam.
Hoag questioned the consequences of disturbing the bluff. Hanners stated
the bluff slides down.
Nelson asked how this compares to the area of Port Townsend. Hanners
stated he's never walked the bluffs in Port Townsend. The best place for
comparison is on the coast. Point Whitehorn is the best area in Skagit and
Whatcom counties.
McShane stated he's walked the shoreline from Birch Bay to Cape Whitehorn.
The amount of life on the tideland there is dramatic. There are some great areas in
Jefferson County as well.
Dawson questioned how many lots would be deleted if they went from the
75 -foot setback to the 200 -foot setback. Hanners stated he did not know. He's
heard that Trillium's plan was to put the houses closer to the bluffs, but with
greater density further from the bluff. His approach is to first get public support
that there is something of value there. He needs grassroots support.
McShane stated he would be interested in getting more information in future
committee meeting about the details between natural and conservancy
designations.
Nelson stated he sees damages to the bluffs in Port Townsend where the
people are. Sometimes they would be better off providing the trail. While they
want to protect the environment, it is a public treasure to be shared by all. How
they deal with it is difficult.
McShane stated they would look at shorelines down the road. He wanted to
look at the designations to have an idea of what they each mean.
Hoag stated she would be interested in that discussion. The Marine Resource
Committee talks about what is happening in different areas. San Juan County
works with people to protect certain areas for regeneration. Having a spot like that
that can regenerate the area is important. When balancing public access and
enjoyment, they need a spot to act as a nursery. Otherwise, they end up wiping
out what they enjoy.
Deiter Schuck, 5560 Bayvue Road, stated he supported Al Hanners. He
spent a year and a half in Guam. He walked around the island twice. There was a
lot of wildlife. This area in Point Whitehorn is a very unique area, from his
experience. He's also lived in California. On Thursday night, Blaine will discuss the
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
alternatives for their sewer. There are about a million gallons per day out of Blaine.
When he was on the Blaine Planning Commission, it seemed that the master plan
did not allow building within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark.
Dawson stated that is the line the DOE uses for the vegetation line.
Schuck asked that the Council protect the designation.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO NON - CONFORMING
SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE MINING IN THE RURAL,
AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
ZONES (AB2000 -301)
David Davidson, Sumas City Administrator, stated they wind up with
competing natural resources in one area; agriculture, aquifer, and mineral
extraction. These come together in the Abbottsford /Sumas aquifer. The city of
Sumas has asked the Council to have policies and zoning that preclude mineral
extraction in the area immediately to the west of Sumas. When those three
resources exist together, allowing mineral extraction puts the other two resources
in danger. That is a bad policy direction to go.
There is a berry field in an area west of Sumas that was purchased a decade
ago for gravel mining. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning code have not allowed
that gravel mining over the years. Comprehensive Plan policy 8D -4 recognizes the
importance of surfacing mining as an agricultural practice when it enhances
subsequent agricultural use. Policy 8L -1 allows mining in the agricultural zone that
would enhance farming by leveling knobs and ridges, when appropriate. Policy 8L-
2 avoids the use of designated agricultural land for mineral or soil mining purposes,
unless the soil can be restored to productive capabilities as soon as possible.
There might be an area in a farm field that cannot be gotten to because of
topography, but is surrounded by other areas that are successfully farmed. If one
levels that knoll, all he or she is doing is improving the situation. The part that is
un- farmable becomes farmable. The parts being farmed before aren't disturbed.
He was worried about the Planning Commission's recommendation because it uses
the word 'terrace' for the first time. A terrace is not mentioned in the
Comprehensive Plan policies he quoted. The area west of Sumas is a terrace.
When eating into a terrace, mining would disturb all of the flat land at the top of the
terrace. That isn't enhancement.
Nelson stated that one could change the slope to a terrace without disturbing
the top of the terrace. Davidson stated the language in the ordinance would allow
large commercial gravel extraction under the guise of enhancement to create a six
percent slope.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
Nelson asked what Mr. Davidson recommends to allow a tractor to get up a
hill. Davidson stated his recommendation would be to leave it the way it is,
because it is a good farm field. No one is having trouble farming the top of the
terrace. Do not attempt to alter every piece of topography so farm equipment can
drive up and down it.
Nelson asked where the terrace language came from.
McShane stated it came from the Planning Commission.
Davidson stated it did not come from staff.
Aamot stated he did not recall who first brought up the idea of a terrace.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated the concept first came
up when the Planning Commission went on a tour of various sites in Whatcom
County that had had some agricultural enhancement activity in previous years. The
Planning Commission also went to the Vandehoep farm, which began as a fill -and-
grade permit and developed into a conditional use permit. Doug Goldthorp
indicated that the Vandehoep site was not a knoll or a ridge. The Planning
Commission then tried to define what the Vandehoep site was. The Planning
Commission then had a discussion on what they want to allow for situations like
what they saw.
Nelson asked what the situation was. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that at
the time of the tour, there was a partially completed excavation project. It had
commenced activity under a fill- and -grade permit. At some point in time, the
activity exceeded the limits of what was allowed under a fill- and -grade permit.
Through an order from the County, the owner applied for a conditional use permit
for agricultural enhancement. The County staff recommended denial of that permit.
Part of the reason was that it was not a knoll or ridge. It was more of a terrace.
Hoag stated it was a gently rolling pasture. There was nothing un- farmable
about it. The City of Sumas is concerned that it will open the door for gravel
mining in agricultural land. She would provide a photograph of the site. She
questioned who organized the Planning Commission's tour. Starken burg- Kroontje
stated Mr. Aamot put the tour together.
Aamot stated the tour was done at the request of the Planning
Commissioners.
McShane questioned whether there have been problems with the hearing
examiner's view of what a knoll or a ridge is.
Roger Ellingson, attorney, stated the Vandehoep matter was raised by the
City of Sumas and Doug Goldthorp, that it was not a knoll or ridge, as defined in
the ordinance. The hearing examiner made it clear that it didn't matter to him. As
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
far as he was concerned, it was an irregularity that needed to be taken care of. As
a consequence, the City of Sumas is still concerned that the hearing examiner has
not properly addressed the knoll and ridge issue. It is going to be interpreted too
broadly. They want to resolve the issue in a way that does not set a precedent by
allowing Vandehoep to level it out and do some more mining, smooth it out, and
reclaim it as a test site. The fill- and -grade regulations don't apply to it, according
to Mr. Goldthorp.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Ellingson stated the slope on this site is gentle. Mr. Gillies' justification for
amending the topography was that it is a compound slope. It slopes in two
directions, making it more difficult for machinery. However, he's checked with
machinery manufacturers in the county, who indicated their machinery should
handle the slope anyway. Right now, the site has a big hole. It is obvious they
were not doing this operation to enhance farming.
Nelson asked if it is larger than three acres. Ellingson stated it is about three
acres now. The owner wanted to mine between six and eight acres. The
recommendation is to allow these slopes to be somewhere between six and eight
percent in order to accommodate machinery. Even if they reduce the
recommendation to eight percent, they would still have to disturb a large acreage
to get the slope down to eight percent. The problem with allowing terraces is that
they are everywhere. It is another temptation for farmers to mine their land, with
negative implications for farming.
Nelson stated they had the ability before with knolls and ridges. He asked
how many farmers have taken advantage of farming their land for mineral
resources. Ellingson stated there are two right now.
Nelson stated that this is more extensive than a three -acre project. That is
beyond the scope of what this does. Ellingson stated the Vandehoep project is
under this ordinance. The Planning Commission is making it easier to mine these
lands. Under the existing ordinance they have two applications that are abuses of
the process. The temptations are becoming greater.
McShane stated the Vandehoep mine was initially done on a fill- and -grade
permit, then they were forced to apply for the conditional use permit because it was
a violation.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the hearing examiner has only been asked to
look at the knoll /ridge in the Vandehoep Case. That case is not a good one to look
at for purposes of the ordinance and how they plan to carry it forward. That project
was never intended to be agricultural enhancement and knoll and ridge removal. IT
started as a fill- and - grade, which got out of hand. In order to fix the problem they
created, the owner was told by the County to apply for this provision of the code.
The question now is if they qualify for this provision of the code. They probably
should have never been there to begin with.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
McShane questioned if there are any areas of concern that have applied for a
conditional use permit for agricultural enhancement mining of knolls and ridges.
Sta rken burg- Krootje stated there have been two applications. One is Mr.
Vandehoep's which is still before the hearing examiner. The other is Mr. Hardy's,
which is currently being processed by staff.
McShane questioned whether they were both to remove a knoll or ridge.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that they don't know about the Vandehoep's. The
Hardy's are arguing that there is a knoll or ridge. Zero permits have been issued.
Ellingson stated that both of the pending applications are for terraces under
the knoll and ridge statute.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that is the City of Sumas's opinion and
argument of both applications.
Ellingson stated no one could call it anything other than a terrace at Mr.
Hardy's property. It is flat except when it comes to the edge of the terrace.
Hoag stated that if a farmer wants to remove a knoll, just the farmer is
involved, and he or she brings in someone to do the job. If the Council opens it up
to removing terraces, it would bring in mining companies who are interested in the
land. A large number of knolls and ridges have been removed in the county over
time.
Davidson continued to state that the notion of the terrace has arisen in the
past year. Sumas is comfortable with a knoll being removed. If it was accepted
that a terrace was a knoll, it would allow leveling of large fields as a way to get rid
of the terraced edge. If the terrace is accepted as a leveling that is appropriate,
then this ordinance would allow the Columbia Aggregate and Starkenburg &
Wiersma sites. That would damage a great, productive, flat field that exists today.
Ellingson submitted a photograph taken on a tour that Councilmembers Hoag
and Dawson went on. He introduced Mr. Bill Peters. Mr. Peters' job is working with
farmers. These people want to generally do what works for farmers.
Bill Peters, British Columbia, stated he was raised in a farming family. He
attended the University of British Columbia (UBC), and is a professional agrologist.
He worked for the Ministry for 34 years. The last 27 years, he worked in the
Abbottsford area with the berry growers, as the Province's berry specialist. He
became familiar with the situation in Whatcom County because he dealt with the
Whatcom County agents.
Last July, he conducted tours for two county councilmembers. They visited
areas that were knolls and ridges. A grower would have a knoll, ridge, or piece of
undulating ground that he or she wanted to fix. The ground would become not
useable. He would recommend solutions. They tried to develop solutions to some
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
of these problems. Some people have gone into gravel extraction with the idea to
make some money and save the farming operation. Other people did it as a means
of trying to improve their land. Without exception, he has not seen one successful
reclamation of gravel extraction or agricultural enhancement to productive
agricultural use. One doesn't have the cropping options he or she has prior to
disturbing the land. Gutting into terraces is a negative step because it destroys
larger areas, which reduces cropping options.
McShane stated the soils here are young and immature. He questioned
whether that would make a difference. Peters stated that could be the case. Some
places have very deep topsoil. He's been told that, in India, there are places with
40 feet of topsoil, so it doesn't matter if one loses four or six inches of topsoil. It is
not as important where there are heavier soils. Raspberries have low tolerance for
wet feet, poor drainage, and soil compaction. Once the soil has been disturbed,
fields won't produce raspberries.
McShane questioned the typical soil depth of the topsoil in raspberry fields.
Peters stated it is a shallow, sandy topsoil over gravel subsoil and glacial till. The
glacial till underlying the topsoil makes the soil valuable because of the heavy rains
in this climate.
Hoag questioned whether scalping a ridge would result in a shorter portion of
topsoil over bedrock and affect an ability to farm. Peters stated the knoll or ridge in
the middle of a field impedes the use of equipment. Taking the knoll or ridge out
makes the rest of the land more useable and valuable because it does not impede
the mechanization of the farm, even if it doesn't produce as much as it did. He
wouldn't expect the land to become fully productive again.
Hoag asked if Mr. Peters was familiar with land value. She questioned
whether land value would be more if any crop could be grown on the land, instead
of only grass and corn. Peters stated the land value would be more. Two things
that impinge on price are the non - agriculture pressure and the range of crops that
could be grown on the land.
Nelson asked how soon the photos were taken after the projects were done.
Peters stated one project was done in the mid- 1970's.
Nelson asked if there was an agricultural plan with it. Peters stated there
was not. There was not an agricultural plan for either project. It was done by
different owners over a period of time. One site was monitored by an agrologist
from the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission, who made regular trips to the
property. However, the agrologist was not effective.
Ellingson stated that Mr. Peters had indicated that he was involved in
supervising one site that won an award.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
Peters stated he did not supervise the site, but he made a number of
recommendations. One farmer was asked whether he would do the mining again,
and the farmer responded that he would not.
Nelson stated that when soil is laid down on a mineral resource, it takes a
while for the soil to adjust. The soil has to be nurtured. Peters stated that
drainage is destroyed when an area is mined, and productivity drops dramatically.
Nelson stated that the soil in the photographs looks as if it is mixed. Peters
stated the topsoil was replaced with earthmoving equipment.
Hoag stated the farmer in one field tried to do all kinds of things to get his
production back to the way it was. She questioned whether Mr. Peters was in
consultation with him during this reclamation process. Peters stated he was.
Hoag stated she didn't know whether there was a formal agricultural plan,
but a process was laid out about how the soils would be removed, what would be
put back, and how the soil would be put back. It was supposed to turn out
wonderfully. That is the same thing they see over and over.
Ellingson stated the central issue in this matter is whether the land can be
reclaimed. He read from page nine of session one of the state Prime Farmland
Program, which has to do with Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
This is a discussion by Charles Sandburg from the USDI Office of Surface Mining in
Illinois. Mr. Sandburg talks about some of the problems they encountered when
they began to implement the program. They created a new regulatory agency to
administer the program. There isn't an agency in Whatcom County to oversee
reclamation. Some of the difficulties experienced during the start up of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act include:
1) the lack of long -term experience with returning reclaimed mine lands
to row crop agriculture;
2) the long time necessary to familiarize the operators, states, and Office
of Surface Mining (OSM) field staff of the new requirements;
3) operators would have to acquire new equipment to salvage topsoil,
minimize compaction, and conduct the grading necessary to restore
cropland;
4) some operators would be required to acquire specialized equipment to
break up compaction following reclamation, and;
5) operators would be required to demonstrate the capability to restore
prime farmland to its original capability before they could begin
mining.
If they are going to open up terraces, and not try to narrow this down a bit,
then one can take out a very large knoll or ridge. Sumas is concerned about the
Columbia Aggregate site in particular. If there is no limitation, who is to say they
won't try to reclaim three acres at a time. This County does not have large open
pit mining that the Surface Mining Reclamation Act was designed to address. The
County does not have the facilities or government agencies in place to oversee that
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
type of reclamation. The farmers and the gravel operators are out to make an
honest living, but they don't have any expertise in reclaiming prime farmland soils.
As a consequence, Whatcom County is headed for the same experience that lower
British Columbia has experienced.
Leave the ordinance to allow knolls and ridges. Don't open it to terraces.
People are coming in to mine terraces under an ordinance that talks about knolls
and ridges. They are only going to exacerbate the problem. His June 8, 2000
letter indicated 15 percent or six acres, whichever is less. Add to that a small
acreage requirement that only allowed the mining every ten years so it does not
become a commercial temptation for another source of income to salvage a
faltering farm. Sometimes, farms falter because they suffer from poor
management. The ground itself is good land, and it could be a good farm, but
every farmer is not a good businessman. As a consequence, they have to save the
best land if they are going to save farming in Whatcom County.
No testing has been done on any reclaimed sites in Whatcom County to
determine whether crop production levels were consistent with other lands in the
area that have not been reclaimed. The County should go slow, and develop a test
site, to see if the lands can be reclaimed using appropriate guidelines and
equipment. Mr. John Gillies agreed with that suggestion. There is no equipment in
Whatcom County to do this right. It will also be expensive. Also, include in the
Agricultural zone the five -year zone of contribution restriction that is contained in
the MRL zone. That would prevent any spilled oil getting into the five -year zone of
contribution. The most important amendment he wanted was to not include
terraces.
Jerald Hardy, Everson, stated these experts have never been farmers. There
is an assumption that mining destroys property. Farmland that has been mined has
since sold for high prices. There are many places locally that have been
successfully mined. He is on the highest point of the area on this glacier deposit.
No one has ever made a living by farming on it. They always supplemented their
income. Every farm on that rocky ridge used to raise chickens. The best land on
his farm is where it's been mined for gravel and has been reclaimed. He is not
ruining good farmland. There is a proposal to not allow fertilizer on open water
within 100 feet, which would make his peat land completely worthless.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Hardy continued to state that most of the land on that rocky ridge has been
developed.
Hoag questioned what Mr. Hardy grows on his reclaimed land. Hardy stated
he grows grass for his herd.
Hoag asked what the surrounding reclaimed areas grow. Hardy stated they
grow raspberries.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 11
1 Hoag asked how long the raspberries grew on the Maberry Place. Hardy
2 stated for quite a few years.
3
4 Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they are dealing with a few changes to the code
5 section regarding rural, agricultural, and forestry lands and nonconforming uses.
6 The current provision in the code was a text amendment sponsored by the
7 Conservation District. The Conservation District paid for it and brought it through
8 the County Council. The idea that the Council is going to go back and consider
9 whether knolls and ridges should be removed is out of the scope of what the
10 farmers asked for then.
11
12 They've heard testimony about unsuccessful reclamation projects, but
13 they've also heard that these have been larger -scale projects without a plan. The
14 County Code says that, for mining within the Agricultural zone that is not within the
15 MRL, one needs to have a knoll or a ridge and farm enhancement. An entire
16 section deals with how the farm enhancement is set up. One provision is that there
17 must be review and approval by the Whatcom County Conservation District. That is
18 a conditional use, so the County has to approve it through that process. In the
19 event that the County would approve such a permit, which it has not yet, then the
20 enforcement for that permit is to revoke the permit if the conditions are not
21 followed. It isn't fair to talk about projects that didn't have oversight, didn't have
22 planning, and are out of the scope and character of what they are talking about
23 today. They have to look at what they are really talking about, which is something
24 that the farming community sponsored. They may need additional input from
25 farmers. The Farm Advisory Committee hasn't seen any of the rewrites. If the
26 County wants to start monitoring soil productivity, then they are going to have to
27 get involved with more than just surface mining. People are doing things in the
28 Agricultural zone every day.
29
30 The comments she already submitted detail where the surface mining is on
31 these amendments. Their concern is mostly with supply and the non - conforming
32 issues. The true people who need to talk about the agricultural issues are not here.
33
34 Nelson stated he talked to John Gillies about this ordinance. It hasn't gone
35 through the Agricultural Advisory Committee. He wanted to get the committee's
36 input, particularly regarding the concept of terrace. He moved to send the
37 ordinance to the Agricultural Advisory Committee for their recommendation and
38 insight regarding terraces, oversight, an agricultural plan and restoration, and
39 enforcement. He was concerned about the Rural zone section. In addition, send it
40 to the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) for their review to make sure
41 they are looking at it in conjunction with regular MRL's. The Council needs to have
42 the SMAC take a stand other than by consensus on this. The Council needs to have
43 those advisories.
44
45 Hoag suggested getting a majority report and a minority report from SMAC.
46
47 McShane restated the motion to request advice from the Agricultural
48 Advisory Committee and get majority and minority reports from SMAC.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
Hoag suggested a friendly amendment to forward all versions of this
ordinance to the committees.
Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 13