HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 15 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 15, 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. PROGRESS REPORT FROM THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH
PROTECTION DISTRICT (AB2001 -034)
Chris Woodward, Shellfish Protection District Coordinator, stated she would
also update the committee on the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District. She
thanked the state Department of Ecology (DOE), state Department of Health
(DOH), Northwest Indian College (NWIC), and Port of Bellingham, for their help in
doing water quality monitoring for the past two years. She will work with the new
coordinator that will be hired in the next month or two. There are improvements in
coordinated efforts by the implementing agencies and in with the water quality in
watersheds.
Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District
Woodward stated that Julie Hirsch, Hirsch Consulting Services, developed a
monitoring plan for Drayton Harbor. They've also established improved
coordination for monitoring with the Port of Bellingham and the state Department of
Health in Drayton Harbor. The sampling programs provided a better picture of the
water quality in Drayton Harbor. They still need to consider the issues in the Blaine
marina area. The Port of Bellingham will continue monitoring in those areas. The
data summery report was put together by Julie Hirsch.
The issue they always deal with is long -term funding. Most of this sampling
has been funded grant -by -grant on a year -by -year basis. They would like to see a
more dedicated, secure funding source. Without water quality monitoring, they
have no idea of how the health is improving in the watershed.
Julie Hirsch, Hirsch Consulting Services, discussed the data milestones in
Drayton Harbor. The milestones are duplicated for both Drayton Harbor and
Portage Bay. The first product was the coordinated water quality monitoring
program for each district. Some of the objectives were to develop general
standards for the data. The second product was a water quality summery using
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
data from all of the implementing agencies, which is available on the website. They
also put together a water quality database using all the data from all of the
implementing agencies and other agencies. That database is available on the
website. It is now in the process of being finalized and polished. The Port of
Bellingham, which has contracted with Landau and Associates to do a modeling
effort using existing data, is already using it.
The water quality report cards are interim updates of the state Department
of Health data. Also, the geographic information system (GIS) map was done and
will be able to link the data with the GIS mapping and the water quality stations.
Those are the primary products resulting from the data management group.
She distributed the Drayton Harbor report card to councilmembers (on file).
There is one for ambient monitoring and one for the restoration stations inside the
Blaine marina.
The ambient monitoring station report card is a report of the state
Department of Health stations, which are done six times per year. The update was
done in December. The stations that were part of the last closure area have been
teetering between the early warning zone and actually violating the standards for
the last couple of years. Those stations actually violate the standards during this
update. This report does not show much change. The increases are minimal in
magnitude. The water quality is the same.
The state Department of Health is not doing the special restoration
monitoring as often as they used to. There are five stations in the Blaine marina.
There is a decrease in most of the stations, but the numbers are very high, and the
decreases are very small in magnitude. Water quality in the marina has not
changed.
Woodward stated that the annual growing area review data is from the state
Department of Health, taken from September 1995 to December 2000. It provides
an idea of the results of all the samples taken during that time. They are not
meeting the standard for stations three, four, six, eight, and fifteen. Stations five
and twelve barely meet the standard. The estimated 901h percentile dividing line is
43.
In 1995, there were restricted and prohibited areas. By 1999, the entire
harbor was prohibited. The January 1999 spike was due to a 250,000 - gallon
overflow into Drayton Harbor from the Blaine sewage system, which happened the
day before the scheduled sampling. The City of Blaine has done a remarkable job
of keeping those overflows contained since that time. They have done repairs on
inflow and infiltration, so not so much extra water goes into the system.
Preliminary work was put together with all of the data from the state Department of
Health. If they remove all the overflow samples, a high percentage of the readings
would have put Drayton Harbor within approved classification. It is on the
borderline, but the counts are there.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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 that station four spikes. However, stations eight and fifteen
have the high numbers over time. Woodward stated it depends on the flows and
circulation within Drayton Harbor and the time the sample was taken. There is not
an ideal circulation study of Drayton Harbor. Hopefully that will happen.
Hoag asked where the sewage overflowed. Woodward stated the overflow
occurred through the manhole covers in Marine Park and into Semiahmoo Bay.
One of the items in the sanitary survey for Drayton Harbor was the onsite
sewage systems. Many sewage systems were not functioning properly. In 1995,
with a shellfish grant, the onsite sewage systems were fixed. Over 50 systems
were repaired. The County has yet to dedicate Drayton Harbor as an area of
special concern, which would put them in a better funding status.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Services Supervisor, stated the grant
was a special onsite shellfish grant that assisted the repair of 54 septic failures.
The no interest loan program is a state revolving fund program. The Health
Department will propose changes to the onsite rules later this year, which would
designate portions of the district as an area of special concern. The designation is
not tied to funding. The designation just adds additional assurances that systems
in that area are properly maintained.
Woodward stated the Health Department also developed and implemented an
operation and maintenance program. Many years ago, the Blaine force main was
replaced. Collection system upgrades have happened with lift station number one.
Overflow mitigation is in the form of the bladders used to contain overflows. They
are eliminating illicit stormwater connections. Inflow and infiltration investigation
has been done to cut down the amount of water entering into the sewer system.
Regarding the Marine Drive sewer inspection, funding has been approved to begin
the fix needed repairs, as shown by the video recording of the sewer line.
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee member, stated there were meetings last week. They've been waiting
to see the results of the feasibility study to look at a regional sewage treatment
system solution with Birch Bay. They would eventually eliminate the underwater
crossing and outfall of the existing sewer treatment plant. The study was
completed. It is one of four options. Other options are taking the sewer north to
the Greater Vancouver Regional District, looking at a wetlands treatment system
that would outfall into Dakota creek, and a treatment plant on the uplands. After
discussion, everyone agreed on a concept plan to have Birch Bay treat Blaine's
sewage. The City of Blaine and Birch Bay Water and Sewer District have agreed to
go back to Washington D.C. to pursue federal appropriation for this project that
would cost $30 million. The most aggressive date of completion is spring of 2004.
Hopefully there will be Lummi contributions involved in that request as well.
Dawson asked if the treatment outfall is in the Birch Bay area. Menzies
stated the outfall would be the existing Birch Bay outfall. The shellfish beds have
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
recently been upgraded near that outfall. There will be many public meetings and
much environmental review.
Nelson asked the cost estimate. Menzies stated the cost estimate is $30
million. Two - thirds of the cost is Blaine's burden, and the rest is Birch Bay's
burden. The contracts would have to be worked out. Blaine would be responsible
for a collection system within the city boundaries. Birch Bay would be responsible
for treatment.
Dawson questioned the kind of grants they are looking at. Menzies stated
they are looking at a direct federal appropriation, phased over three years. The
appropriation would subsidize 75 percent of the cost. The consultants feel that they
would require a 75 percent appropriation to make this economically feasible.
Hoag asked if there is another way to eliminate the force main, and still tie
into a treatment system and use the existing outfall in Blaine. Menzies stated
Blaine considered nine alternatives originally, and narrowed it down to three. The
alternatives that the folks settled on are the four options discussed. The only
options that eliminated the underwater main were the Birch Bay project and the
Dakota Creek wetland project. One option that didn't make the final cut was a
treatment plant on Marine Drive in Blaine, which would treat the sewage on that
side and transport it through an underwater force main to the outfall in
Semiahmoo. There still would have been sewage in west Blaine, in Semiahmoo,
that would have had to be transferred elsewhere for treatment. The Achilles heel
for that project was that the site on Marine Drive was not acceptable.
Dawson asked about the bladders. Woodward stated they are self- contained
bladders that roll up when not in use. An attachment is hooked into them.
Dawson asked why they haven't used these in Lake Whatcom.
Nelson stated they are different issues. The events in Sudden Valley are
generally just storm events.
Woodward stated the actual sewer main goes into lift station one, so there is
direct access before it goes underneath the bay. They are able to stop the sewage
at that point, and direct anything that would have been an overflow into the
bladders, which hold around 250,000 gallons total.
The Blaine marina upgrade included additional portable sanitary units and
pump out facilities. They are working on interpretive signage with the Port of
Bellingham. There is also signage that directs boats to the pump out facilities. The
Port of Bellingham is doing water quality monitoring. They would like to see some
pet waste stations along the harbor area.
Fish processors are doing voluntary wastewater monitoring. They repaired
the outfall pipe. They are still waiting for the National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. They are still concerned about a fecal source.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
There are still high counts in the wastewater stream going to the outfall. They are
hoping that the information put into the NPDES permit will reduce that fecal load in
Semiahmoo Bay.
Mark Henderson, state Department of Ecology (DOE), stated he was with the
permit writer in the Bellevue Office. He talked to the general manager of Blaine
seafood processors for final comments. The permit is ready to be issued. No one
can figure out where the fecal coliform is coming from. There are all kinds of
suppositions. Until they can find out, they are going to have the fish processors
disinfect. The processors need to have an engineered plan delivered to DOE by the
end of June.
Woodward stated the needs assessment includes continued enforcement by
DOE, and a circulation study of Drayton Harbor and Semiahmoo Bay. This is being
looked at through the Semiahmoo Bay roundtable discussions that they have been
a part of the committee. It is a Canadian based committee with the Georgia Basin
Ecosystem Initiative. There is a push to do a circulation study in Semiahmoo Bay
and Drayton Harbor. They will meet next month to determine the cost and develop
a scope of work. Assessment needs also include increases in education of the
community. They recently held an open house. Many people are now educated.
There is a comprehensive monitoring and source identification program. Michael
Cochrane, Northwest Indian College, has put in for a grant for continued
monitoring. They would also like to see a source identification program, much like
the one in Portage Bay. They are headed toward finalizing the seafood processors
permit. Designate Drayton Harbor as an area of special concern. They are having
an implementing agency meeting at the end of this month to discuss needs for the
next two years.
All the dairies have been inspected and will be re- inspected. The
Conservation District set aside money to help with storage and pollution control
facilities. A revision is going on for the farm plans. She was not sure when that
would be done. The Conservation District is not engaging in small farm planning at
this point because the program is being revised.
Nelson questioned whether the County is working on stormwater
management plans that would affect Drayton Harbor.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they are not, but the
County adopted the stormwater special district that applies to the Drayton Harbor
area. There is interest in revising the district regulations. There are no standards
for the required engineered stormwater systems. That is a problem for the owners.
The districts are just for Drayton Harbor and Lake Whatcom. There is talk about
removing the restriction on the R5A, R10A, and Agricultural zones because the
watershed goes halfway to Lynden, which is a huge area. Many if the bigger lots
have enough pervious surfaces that stormwater is not an issue. On the smaller
lots, they are requiring an engineered system, which is quite expensive for people.
They continue to put pressure on the Technical Advisory Committee to finish the
stormwater standards.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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 stated the County developed regulation regarding proof of purchase
on water. He asked if there is anything like that for septics. Chesson stated not
yet. They will look at the onsite code later this year, and will see if it is still an
option.
Nelson stated there is a DOE grant for larger dairies. He questioned what the
small farms have. Woodward stated the small farm planning regulation is being
revised. Until the statewide revision comes up, they are holding off on what they
are doing with the small farm plans.
Nelson questioned whether the result is for a particular time or an average
when they look at the concentrations on these areas. Woodward stated the
determining factor is the result of the sample.
Nelson asked whether the closure is determined by the average sample
results.
Hirsch stated there are two standards. One is the geometric mean. Only
station eight exceeds the geometric mean. The other standard is the estimated
90th percentile, which is variable. That is where the spikes normally have an effect.
Usually, 30 samples are used to calculate the estimated 90th percentile. If the
water quality is bad, and they are sampling 12 times per year, then they are
loading the data.
Nelson asked if actions taken have had an impact on the water quality.
Hirsch stated they would have to wait six months to a year to see the old numbers
fall off the database. There is not a lot of change because there are still some bad
numbers in the database. However, there are bad numbers coming in more
recently also.
out.
Nelson questioned why the Northwest Indian College numbers were thrown
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hirsch stated the Northwest Indian College looked at stations that have no
bearing on the shellfish closure.
Dawson questioned the residual effects of fecal coliform. Hirsch stated that
is debatable. They haven't done a study in Drayton Harbor where they followed an
overflow on a daily basis over a period of a week. It would be a guess based on
environmental conditions, such as current weather. They normally think of salt
water as causing fecal coliform to die off quickly.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated Ms. Hirsch is correct.
Sunlight is a bigger factor that is responsible for the decline of fecal coliforms.
They need to balance the information against the known decline time, which is a
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
few hours to a few days, maximum. From the perspectives of health and shellfish,
it is not the fecal, but the pathogens associated with fecal that they are worried
about. Pathogens last longer than fecal coliforms. Viruses and illnesses have a
longer survival time. Humans have a bigger effect than other sources.
Dawson questioned the life of pathogens. Roll stated the length of life
varies. One can last for years. They have to balance the sources. They are
hammering the big culprits of the sewer line and overflows.
Nelson asked why the Northwest Indian College samples from the past were
not representative of the full tributary stormwater basin. Woodward stated they
need to make sure the sampling is being conducted at the location of the storm
outfall and in the creek. There was disparity between sampling further out into an
area that could have been influenced by other factors, such as birds.
Nelson asked if the problem was an incorrect method. Woodward stated the
problem was just the sample locations.
Hoag stated the estimated 90th percentile is the fecal coliform level per 100
milliliters. She asked what the improvements are that they are seeing. Woodward
stated the improvements are the cooperative efforts in the harbor and with the
Canadian contingency. They are working together to better identify the issues.
The City of Blaine is working to develop a better way to deal with their sewage.
They have not seen any overflows for quite some time. The Port of Bellingham is
doing work on monitoring and doing improvements to the Blaine Marina area.
There is a cooperative effort of the Semiahmoo Bay contingencies, which eliminates
the border issue.
Hoag asked if the water sampling has shown improvements. Woodward
stated that according to the data, they are not seeing a huge improvement in water
quality. They will see improvements when they start working more on the ground,
such as eliminating potential point sources. Right now, there has been more
labeling and investigative work to determine what to do to curtail sources. They
are very curious about fixing the Marine Drive sewer line. They've proceeded with
the funding, and hopefully will have the repairs done this summer.
Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District
Woodward stated the entire Nooksack River watershed drains into Portage
Bay. With the water quality monitoring, the same framework was developed.
There is improved coordination with DOE and NWIC. Source identification was
funded for another year. Through the source identification program, they have
found some impacts. DOE looked at the dairies near the Double Ditch area. The
dairies were fine, but it was the dry season. There were OSS surveys in the Double
Ditch area. Now they are in the Duffner Ditch area, a tributary to Bertrand creek.
They are looking at a holistic approach.
Long term funding is on a grant -by -grant basis from year -to -year.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 7
1
2 Hirsch stated the last was analysis done in November. There have been
3 some decreases. On the whole, water quality hasn't changed. There are several
4 stations in the early warning category. The stations that are prohibited are stations
5 50, 51, 52, and 57.
6
7 Woodward stated the water quality out of the Nooksack River is meeting the
8 fresh water standards. It is a complicated issue because the standards change
9 when the water gets into marine waters. Thus, the water is not the way they want
10 to see it in Portage Bay. The work they've done in the watershed, especially the
11 areas between Lynden and Ferndale, is showing a difference in the water quality
12 data they have. They would like to do more investigative work in Portage Bay.
13 There is a cooperative effort with the Lummi Nation. They are working together to
14 figure out why the stations are still having problems in Portage Bay.
15
16 A dye study was done at the Gooseberry treatment plant because of concern
17 that the wastewater outflow was entering Portage Bay. The dye test was done by
18 the state DOH, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Lummi Nation,
19 and showed that it does not go into the bay.
20
21 Stations 49, 53, 54, and 55 are approved. The restricted areas are at
22 stations 50, 51, and 52. Those areas are restricted, not prohibited. There is no
23 commercial harvesting allowed, only subsistence, ceremonial harvesting.
24
25 There has been great emphasis on controlling agricultural practices through
26 education, technical, and financial assistance to farms and through enforcement of
27 existing environmental regulations. There is emphasis on controlling sewage
28 treatment plant sources through upgrades and permit records. All the permits are
29 in the Bellingham office of the state DOE. Those benefits are now local. There is
30 also emphasis on control of failing onsite septic system sources. They will continue
31 that investigative work. Emphasis is also on control of stormwater runoff by
32 developing and implementing stormwater management plans that target non -
33 agricultural related sources of bacteria. The cities of Everson, Lynden, and Ferndale
34 are working on stormwater plans. A big thing for water quality improvement in the
35 Nooksack watershed is the implementation of the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
36 level. That will cause a reduction of fecal coliform bacteria levels in the main stem
37 and tributaries. Very strict controls will be put into place on the amount of loading
38 that goes into those tributaries. Farm plans will be implemented by December of
39 2003. There are NPDES permits being reissued for the three cities' sewage
40 treatment plants. There are going to be very tight controls for their elimination
41 system. The big one is continued water quality monitoring so they can see what is
42 going on.
43
44 Agricultural issues include small farm education. The Conservation Reserve
45 Enhancement Program (CREP) is sponsored by the Conservation District. There are
46 also other programs that the Conservation District provides for small farms. The
47 small farm planning is being revised. Other programs include the Horses for Clean
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Water pledge program and the DOE enforcement program, which has made a
difference in the discharge for dairies and enforcement policies.
Needs assessments include continued enforcement, improvement of a
coordinated effort between the DOE and the Whatcom County Planning and
Development Services Department, continued source identification and monitoring,
and creation of a stable monitoring funding program. Continue public education.
Update the website to make it more user - friendly. That needs to be done for both
of the shellfish protection districts.
Community involvement is important for both districts. She refers people to
the webpage. There are district open houses they hope to continue. The Puget
Sound Restoration Fund is working on a community -based oyster planting project
that is a three -year project. At the end of three years, they hope to harvest a
decent amount of oysters. It is a positive community effort. Continue the Shared
Waters roundtable and involvement with Canada.
The keys to success include funding, political will and leadership, community
education, focusing on on- the - ground efforts, enforcing laws, empowering the
community, endless follow- through, and continued cooperative efforts on cross -
boundary issues.
She thanked the County Council for supporting their work and the Water
Resources Division full time shellfish coordinator position. She is optimistic.
Everyone is working very hard to make progress.
Nelson asked if the permitting for the shellfish project has to go through the
state. Woodward stated it went through the state Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
Nelson asked if they are doing the project in a prohibited area. Woodward
stated there has to be security so no one takes the oysters. The planting is in a
prohibited area. They are hoping it won't be prohibited in three years. The positive
side is that the state DOH also supports the program.
Nelson stated the DOH appreciates the efforts going on.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION REGARDING STUDY OF MINERAL RESOURCES IN
EASTERN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2001 -158)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the state Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) finished a study in January of sand, gravel, and bedrock resources
in the Bellingham quadrangle, which includes Whatcom County west of the national
forest. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) reviewed the study and
recommends further study of the Mount Baker quadrangle, which is east of the
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Bellingham quadrangle. The significant resources in the Bellingham quadrangle
could be depleted in 15 years.
Many of the resources are in the Agriculture zone and in agricultural soils.
He displayed a map showing the mineral resource areas, the agricultural soils, and
the Agricultural zone. There is a lot of overlap. There is one area that is east of
Blaine, but it is a wellhead protection area. The study identified the Columbia
Valley as a potential significant resource area.
Most of the Mount Baker quadrangle is in a national forest or national park.
There are about thirty square miles on the western edge that are not in the national
forest or national park. It is 32 miles from edge of the quadrangle to downtown
Bellingham. He contacted the National Forest Service about allowing mining in the
national forest. There is a possibility of mining. The County would have to show
that there are no private lands available for mining. The Forest Service has six to
eight sites in Whatcom County. In the Mt. Baker Recreation Area, mining is not
allowed. The national park is also off limits. The DNR has done six quadrangle
studies around the state. They have had a consistent methodology that their
scientists use. They consistently study forest service areas and national recreation
areas because these areas change with administrations. They are taking a long-
term view. The County Comprehensive Plan is supposed to plan for a 50 -year
supply. The DNR wanted to maintain a consistent methodology and study for
everything except the national park.
DNR funded the Bellingham quadrangle study, but would not fund the Mount
Baker study without financial assistance from the County. If the County pays for
the consultant in the amount of $15,000, then the DNR can oversee production and
editing services. Their cost may be more than $15,000.
An action item talks about doing a study by May 2002. Staff thinks it would
be good for long range planning of mineral resources in the county. In the
Bellingham quadrangle, which includes parts of Skagit and San Juan counties, there
is a total of 105 million tons. He projected out the population. The Comprehensive
Plan stated each person uses about 13.5 cubic yards per person per year. The
cumulative consumption is 108 million tons by 2024. Not all of that supply will be
used in Whatcom County.
Hoag stated the discussion during the Comprehensive Plan process
designated where the mineral deposits were. The County took money that the
Growth Management Act made available to do an aggregate study in the county.
Two things bother her about this. First, the Comprehensive Plan says that DNR,
based on per capita rate and growth projections, resulted in a 50 -year demand of
115 million cubic yards. Now, DNR says there is 105 million tons that is available.
The SMAC committee says it will last ten years. Aamot stated the SMAC stated it
would last 15 years. Others say it will last 10 years.
Hoag stated that the Comprehensive Plan says the County will budget,
initiate, and complete a comprehensive aggregate study documenting the resources
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
in the County. The study shall be publicly reviewed and approved by the County
Council. This study has not had public review, other than by the SMAC, which is
made up of industry people. She supports a study of the Mount Baker quadrangle,
but the Council should not posture, based on what the SMAC said about information
that has not had public review or review from the Council.
Nelson stated no one is posturing. They are delivering information.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane stated the committee said it would look at this report and see what
further work should be done. This DNR study was not intended to be the study
called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The question to be answered is whether or
not to have DNR take a look to the east, using the same methodology.
Hoag stated the resolution before the committee says that a Comprehensive
Plan action item is to budget, initiate, and complete a comprehensive construction
aggregate study, and that is why they are going to ask DNR to go into the foothills.
It makes sense to cooperate with other jurisdictions. It says that the study done by
DNR, which has never been reviewed, is what they will do. In addition, the
resolution inserts quotes from the advisory committee, which is something she'd
never seen in a Council resolution before. Generally, a resolution states the
conclusions that the Council has reached, based on its review. She objected to the
fourth "Whereas" statement. It does not belong. It is supposition based on
information that has not been subject to public review. It is not a position that this
Council has taken. The Council has not even looked at the information yet. She
moved to strike the whereas statement beginning, "WHEREAS the Whatcom County
Surface Mining Advisory Committee...." It makes sense to acknowledge that the
study was done, there is a place that wasn't studied and that may have additional
aggregate, and the Council has resources that are being made available to do this
study. Therefore, go ahead and do the study.
Dawson stated that the DNR study is not considered the County's aggregate
study. She questioned when the County will study the aggregate, and if the County
has studied the Foothills area. Aamot stated this study is not based on anyone's
request. It is a scientific study that the DNR commissioned, rather than a public
policy document. The County may have more work to do, but it is a good
foundation.
Hoag stated public review involves comparing documents. She asked how
this study compares with the study done for the Comprehensive Plan. That review
has not taken place. Every time they've done the budget since she's been on this
Council, she's tried to budget for this study. Every time, she was told that staff was
waiting for different things. She questioned when the County is going to budget for
completing the study called for the Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated that last year she brought forward an additional services
request (ASR) to do the study. The Council decided to wait for the DNR study. The
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Council was to review the DNR study when it was completed, and then decide
whether it wanted to do a supplemental study. It has to be something the Council
appropriates the money for. Putting the funding in the next budget would be a
tight timeline, or the Council could do a supplemental budget request.
Nelson stated the study done for the Comprehensive Plan was not really a
study. It was an accumulation of the data the County had from the proposed
mineral resource lands (MRL's). Data on the materials that had been excavated
and the materials that remained were submitted to the County. That data was then
compiled. Goodwin stated that is correct. There was no scientific study. Estimates
and calculations were based on the information DNR provided to the County on
different mining permits, and the County staff did some calculations based on what
might likely be in the ground.
Nelson asked if there was any question about the accuracy of the
Comprehensive Plan study. Goodwin stated it wasn't a study, and it wasn't
probably as accurate as a scientific study. It was only an accumulation of data that
people provided.
Nelson asked Ms. Goodwin's opinion on the methodology of the DNR study.
Goodwin stated she was not informed of that method.
Aamot stated the DNR identified the Columbia Valley as a potential resource.
Further testing would be appropriate in some areas. He was not a scientist or
geologist to determine whether the methodology used was correct.
Nelson asked how they would determine whether the study methodology was
correct. Aamot stated that the geologists with DNR were satisfied with the work.
Hoag stated map 21 of the Comprehensive Plan has the designation of
resource lands and classifications of mineral resource area. She was told that the
County used $25,000 to study where to classify lands as mineral resource areas. It
was not her understanding at that time that it was based upon people applying for
MRL's. Aamot stated that Ms. Goodwin was referring to the 50 -year estimate.
Hoag stated she was referring to the study of the resources in the County
and where they are. The County spent $25,000 of Growth Management Act money.
McShane stated that map is a fantasy.
Hoag stated that statement should be subject to a public review. The
Comprehensive Plan map doesn't match the DNR map.
McShane stated that these issues need to be discussed at length publicly.
The Council needs to hash through what the DNR study means in relation to the
Comprehensive Plan map. The question to be answered now is whether the
committee wants the DNR to do a study of the Mount Baker quadrangle as a
potential source of aggregate.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 12
1
2 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the County
3 paid about $8,000 for a Hart Krauser literature review, which is typical of what
4 counties did across the state for mineral resources. They looked at existing data
5 and developed a probability map that would show the probabilities of resources in
6 certain locations. It is a very simplified approach. Typically, the DNR does studies
7 consistent with the state Washington Administrative Code (WAC) on best available
8 science. One attribute of best available science is that there is a peer review. The
9 study called for in the Comprehensive Plan would be a more in -depth study.
10
11 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated the action item
12 is to give DNR funding to look at the Mount Baker quadrangle, which would
13 complete the aggregate review. From an industry standpoint, if the County doesn't
14 look at the Mount Baker quadrangle, there will always be a question that the DNR
15 study was incomplete. Any information that the County takes from the DNR studies
16 to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan study needs to be reviewed through the
17 political and land use processes. The Comprehensive Plan study needs to also use
18 some technical information that the DNR study provides a good base for. DNR
19 looked at deposits, not MRL's, land use designation, environmental concerns, or
20 sensitive areas. All DNR looked at was what was in the ground. That information
21 should not be politically generated with agendas in mind. The study should be
22 technical in nature. The terminology can get confusing. The DNR study is in tons.
23 The Comprehensive Plan says yards. The DNR study says 105 million tons. The
24 Comprehensive Plan says 118 million yards.
25
26 The Hart Krauser study was an information review from the Easterbrook
27 maps. The DNR used the same information. Hart Krauser looked at what is under
28 the ground. They did not look to see whether what was there was sufficient. It
29 only provided a classification system for mineral resources. She recommended
30 moving forward with the resolution. Begin the budget process for the
31 Comprehensive Plan study.
32
33 Hoag asked for clarification on the conversion from tons to yards.
34 Starkenburg- Kroontje stated it depends on the material and weight. It formula is
35 usually two -to -one. She would provide the specific conversion information.
36
37 Aamot stated the DNR study says there are 1.5 tons to a cubic yard.
38
39 Roger Ellingson, City of Sumas representative, agreed that the study should
40 be continued. The industry participated and influenced the SMAC during the
41 Comprehensive Plan process. The Hart Krauser study was an oversimplification.
42 The DNR study indicates the current limits, and is not a perfect document. The
43 DNR study did not drill many wells. No matter how many areas are designated as
44 MRL's, it doesn't require that the product is sold in the county. He agreed with
45 Councilmember Hoag's concern about the resolution. This County is likely headed
46 for hard rock mining in the future.
47
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
McShane moved to recommend approval after sending this through the
Finance Committee today to discuss the financial implication.
Hoag restated her motion to remove paragraph four on Council packet page
three. The point is just to support what DNR is doing.
Nelson stated the language from the motion says that the aggregate may be
exhausted, gives the information from the report, and provides the justification for
doing the continued study of the eastern quadrant. DNR is proposing that the
County may have significantly lower numbers than what was stated previously.
Hoag stated the Comprehensive Plan aggregate study was supposed to be
comprehensive. All they have is information on a piece of the Bellingham
quadrangle. The language is not necessary to look at the rest of the county. This
language states information that the Council hasn't reviewed or seen. They do not
typically include comments from an advisory committee in a resolution. It is not
appropriate or necessary.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Motion to recommend approval after review by the Finance Committee today
carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
McShane stated they need to take this issue on. He would schedule a
discussion of the DNR study at a meeting in June. He wanted to have a discussion
or presentation of the DNR report, and suggested that the committee members
read through the report prior to the meeting. He may also want more information
on the Hart Krauser report. He wanted more information on why the mineral
designations in the Comprehensive Plan say one thing, and the DNR report says
something else.
Nelson stated he would want to discuss process and address concerns about
the study itself, but would not want to discuss quantification.
McShane stated the councilmembers need to understand where the County
is, and scope out how to do a resources study.
Hoag asked to invite Dr. Easterbrook because the Hart Krauser study was
based on his material, and Scott Babcock because he reviewed the material.
Nelson suggested that the committee then invite the man who did the study.
McShane stated people in the community would step forward and provide
good scientific information. However, they are not interested in politics. He
suggested that the committee get a report from those scientists, and then schedule
a discussion at another time.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 14
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
Ellingson stated he didn't know what the committee intended to accomplish
by this review. The first meeting in June is too soon to get everyone together.
McShane stated the committee has never formally discussed the DNR report,
and it has been brought up several times. Committee members need to read it and
understand it. He also wanted to understand where the Hart Krauser report came
from. This DNR report is constantly being referred to.
Nelson stated the Council needs to know how to apply this report to any
future study.
Ellingson stated they might want to wait for the results of the second half of
the study. He was also concerned that members of the committee may become
entrenched in a position as a result of this preview. It would be a good idea to get
information from staff to research what went on previously.
McShane stated he was concerned about how much time would go by before
the second study was completed.
Ellingson stated he was concerned about bringing out the adversarial forces
at a committee meeting. This time may not be the best opportunity, and everyone
should have adequate notice to prepare their experts. It may be best to simply
gather information at this point.
McShane stated that he wanted to look at the DNR report to determine what
it means. All they are going to look at is the DNR report and how the County came
up with the Hart Krauser map. This would just be a discussion for committee
members.
Ellingson stated that opens the door to a lot of lobbying. He can't advise his
client to stay out of the discussion if the committee is going to look at it at this
point in time. The committee is going to hear from him and from the industry. He
was not sure that is what the committee wants to do at this point. It is another
things to just gather information from staff on what the basis was. He sees this as
being part of the study. It is information gathering. Whether or not it is a
complete study is something the Council is going to have to deal with.
Nelson stated this is the time for the Council to work with staff on the
material, and get answers to their questions.
Ellingson stated a committee normally wants an objective. He asked the
objective beyond doing a review. He was okay if all the committee wanted to do is
look at the study and get questions from staff.
Starkenburg- Kroontje stated that if the committee wants to understand he
study, and other people are invited, then it opens the door to accepting information
on the validity of the study. That goes beyond only trying to understand the study.
If the committee simply wants to understand the study, then invite the DNR to
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 15
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
discuss the intent and the methodology. From there, the committee can decide if it
will use the DNR study for technical information.
Ellingson stated he agreed, except the public is entitled to hear the
consultant explain the process used.
McShane questioned what the committee wanted.
Nelson moved to have staff and DNR present the report, and the committee
could ask questions.
Hoag stated the report should be available for review. Unless they
understand whether or not it is valid, they don't have a basis for using it as a
baseline. If the consultant talks about the report, then it would be most fair that
the consultant be present to hear people discuss the report's validity. If the
committee looks at the study in June, then it should look only at what the study is,
or accept critical review. She would approve the motion if it is clear that the
committee is only taking information and not taking action to approve.
study.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane asked if the motion included taking a look at the Hart Krauser
Nelson stated it does.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated she wanted to make a statement regarding gravel. She cares
about people and the effect of activities on people.
(Clerk's Note: Nelson left the meeting at 11:50 a.m.)
Hoag continued to state that she cares about justice and truth in the system.
She has had grown people show up on her doorstep crying because of things that
were done to them by the gravel industry. She also observed statements and
arguments that have been made on the record by industry representatives. Their
actions have been 180 degrees different. She does bring emotion to the table. She
tries to be very diplomatic and professional. However, she has a problem with what
the industry is doing to people in this county. She has a problem with the fact that
the industry seems to have a profound influence over Whatcom County staff, and
that the public is shut out of the process and is not adequately protected.
McShane stated the industry does not have a profound influence on the staff.
He has not seen that, in his experience.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:53 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, 5/15/2001, Page 17