HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 23 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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
October 23, 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
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. GEORGE BOGGS OF THE WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT WILL
REPORT ON COUNTY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS (AS REQUIRED BY
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS) (AB2001 -332)
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, stated the Conservation
Planning for Ag Lands (CPAL) program provides an alternative to rural land owners
to have a conservation plan prepared by the Conservation District that would relax,
in most instances, the standard buffer that protects critical areas. They adjust the
width of the buffer depending on soil and slope. If the slopes are steeper, the more
impermeable soils require a wider buffer to provide protection. He showed a slide
show and an example of a conservation plan photo map. Vegetated filter strips are
applied to all critical areas and ditches that could convey contaminated water to
streams. The minimum width is 20 feet on well- drained soils and flat topography.
An alternative is to plant a relay crop, which is typically put in during July. After
the harvest, it gets sunlight and grows up. It provides a filter strip across the
entire field and protects water surface and groundwater. The crop is planted in
July, in the shade of the corn. Once the corn is harvested, the grass grows well.
He showed a photo of a new buffer through the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP), which leases land next to eligible streams for a
period of ten to 15 years. It pays 200 percent of the current rental value to offset a
loss of production. It also pays for the cost of the native trees and shrubs and their
maintenance for five years.
Two programs brought resources to the district. One program was the Dairy
Nutrient Management Act, for which they provide conservation plans for dairies.
The other program was the conservation reserve enhancement program. The
district has made progress in providing plans to landowners to help them with their
nutrient management and reestablishing riparian zones. There are currently 223
plans, 2,721 fields, 51,000 acres, and 363 miles of buffers.
The CREP project is an alternative that Skagit County has offered as an
alternative to the large buffers that their critical areas ordinance requires as a
standard alternative. In 2000, there were 2 plans for about 35 acres and 2.4 miles
of stream.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
Nelson asked if the CREP program is voluntary. Boggs stated it is. They
have planted projects, planned projects, and proposed projects.
Nelson asked if they are still recruiting farmers. Boggs stated that as the
farmers find out the value of the buffers, they are coming in to ask to sign up. The
district had a tenfold increase in planted acreage. Forty six contracts are signed,
representing 690 acres, which is 39 miles of buffer. The payments to landowners
now total $214,350 annually, and restoration costs to install those practices are
$1.2 million. The total number of enrollees is 90 landowners. There is a waiting
list of landowners who are interested in participating.
Dawson asked if these are permanent easements. Boggs stated the land is a
lease for ten to fifteen years. He doesn't know what will happen yet after that
period. That is an initial problem the landowners had with the program. However,
the amount of lease payments will almost cover the purchase price of the land.
McShane asked if there are property tax impacts. Boggs stated it remains
taxed as agricultural open space.
Boggs continued to discuss uniform standards. All the standards are being
reviewed. They have a suite of 50 practices they are reviewing that are typically
found in Northwest Washington. The effort has been difficult and contentious. At
the state level, there are agricultural representatives for all of the commodities,
environmental groups, tribes, and federal and state agencies who are trying to
hammer out what the standards are. The latest work plan calls for having the final
iteration resolved by December. They are starting with the riparian forest buffer
and the stream classification system. If this fails, the County will have to deal with
the Growth Management Act (GMA). The County has in place an ordinance with a
five -year life before it has to be revisited.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the ordinance does not
sunset, but the state GMA requirements are for critical areas review every five
years.
Boggs stated the Ag, Fish, and Wildlife (AFW) program may fall on its face on
a state level, but there will be a lot of information available to the Council to
consider for its critical areas ordinance. The State might implement farm practices
legislation. At this point, they are hopeful to have a working product in December.
The benefit to AFW success is to modify the CREP program buffer size. Now, it is a
minimum of 75 percent of a site potential tree height, which is about 75 feet in the
lowlands, up to 180 feet. A 50 -foot treed buffer with 50 -foot grass would receive
the same benefits as the CREP program that they now have. That is a positive
aspect to a much smaller buffer. Given the types of streams and creeks, which are
narrower, the smaller buffers would be more appropriate than the existing CREP
alternative. The downside of CREP is that CREP land consumes the acreage of a
parcel with a small amount of acreage. The good thing about the program is that it
is being applied where appropriate in the county.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
The greatest successes come when programs have been fully funded. Many
dairies have received technical and financial assistance from the Conservation
District. The greatest challenge is that there are many non -dairy commercial
farmers who haven't had the opportunities for that kind of assistance. They have
not been drawing upon about $15,000 because of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) issue. He has talked to small farmers and encouraged them to respect the
existing standard buffers at this time. There is no financial assistance to install the
practices. If it's too small, he doesn't want to ask for more from the farmer. If it is
too large, the landowner will be angry that they've taken away so much acreage.
Given what is at stake for the hobby farmers, they have not actively pursued the
conservation planning for those people. The district at this point is anticipating a
need for the conservation plans given the ESA. These vagaries about the standards
will become certain. He will need to provide plans rapidly. He is one of the four
districts in the state with new software from the NRCS that will have canned
narratives to do assessments rapidly.
Dawson asked if the CREP land is mostly grasses or trees. Boggs stated the
program is mixed. There are cornfields and canary grass.
Dawson asked if the plans require trees. Boggs stated the dairy nutrient
management land requires trees. The Conservation District perceives agricultural
resource land as on par with a critical area. They are equal. In developing the
plans, they are going to protect the critical areas from the agricultural activities.
The commercial agricultural land will provide filter strips as a means of protecting
the critical areas. Where there is not a commercial agricultural use, it becomes a
problem with the State Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife
about whether they are affording the appropriate buffers. Given the State's
objection to filter strips everywhere, there has been a standoff. The Conservation
District will refrain from providing conservation plans for the small farms for the
interim until they get better guidance. For the commercial ventures, the
Conservation District is confident in staying on the course regarding filter strips.
The Conservation District looks at the whole nutrient balance. The State CREP
program land has full trees and shrubs. For the dairy nutrient management plans,
the Conservation District protects the critical areas with the establishment of filter
strips to avoid sediment and nutrients from flowing off the land into the stream.
Dawson stated a federal goal is to have wildlife corridors for deer and other
animals. Boggs stated that is articulated in the CREP program. If they are going to
pay that much for the incentive, they want the wider buffer. The major discussion
is that, for ESA fish resources, determine the appropriate buffer while putting aside
other wildlife considerations.
McShane stated the CREP program is for more than endangered species, and
it is voluntary.
Nelson questioned the types of places that are appropriate for the CREP
program. Boggs stated the CREP program is voluntary. It is a matter of whether
the landowner is interested. The Conservation District does outreach, especially
above the confluence, which is a high priority area associated with the spawning.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
There are quite a number of projects in the south fork. Portions of the north fork
are eligible as well as long as the land is described as marginal pasture.
Nelson stated these are the breeding areas for the Chinook. There is quite a
bit of work in the lower reaches. He questioned whether the landowners in the
upper reaches have been contacted. Boggs stated the CREP map was developed
based on sightings of Chinook. They did not distinguish between Spring Chinook
and Fall Chinook.
Nelson questioned whether there is a strategic plan for targeting certain
locations. Boggs stated the maps show where the program can be offered that are
where the fish have been observed. They went through a fish presence mapping
exercise with a biologist. The overall eligibility for the program was established in
that way. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the tribes approved of
the map. They did some advertising and got initial interest. When the interest
began to snowball, they identified four areas to focus on, including Johnson Creek,
Bertrand/ Fish Trap, and above the confluence. When someone offers to volunteer
for the program, the Conservation District provides technical assistance in the order
of the priority location.
Nelson asked if the scope is narrow enough or broad enough. Boggs stated it
is an appropriate prioritization, given the demands of the program. The question is
the future of the program. The CREP buffer may be adjusted. To achieve the
WDFW and ESA goals, they are going to see that all the landowners will be called
upon to install these practices. That is not too far in the distant future. In near
term, they are prioritizing. The CREP program is funded 100 percent from the
Conservation Commission. The Dairy Nutrient Management Program is also funded
from the Conservation Commission. They do not have much funding for small
farms or non -dairy commercial agriculture farms. The request to the Council was
for a half -time person for 2002 to get this program up and running.
Nelson stated this is non - dairy, so it hasn't come under the scope of the
Conservation District. If the County is to fund additional resources for non -dairy
and small farms, he wants to know where the funds will go. Boggs stated that,
related to the small farms, it will go to the County critical areas enforcement
officers who have had complaints or have had to enforce the critical areas
ordinance. That will be the prioritization. They have a dozen of those small farms
and non - commercial referrals now in queue for a plan, when AFW makes it clear
what the standards are.
Nelson stated the critical areas ordinance is not 100 feet for salmonid bearing
streams. Boggs stated the buffer is 100 feet.
Nelson asked if there are buffer alternatives for the salmonid streams.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the issue is that the farm
has to work with the Conservation District to do a conservation farm plan if a
farmer wants to work within the 100 foot buffer.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
McShane stated it has been easier to do the plan with dairies because there
are federal dollars available. Boggs stated he doesn't have anyone working the
small farm plan. The prioritization is responding to critical areas ordinance
referrals. The Conservation District provides some technical assistance, but it has
not done a lot of small farm plans because of the vagaries of the standards. The
standards are becoming clearer. This next year, they should get the program
involved as the County feels its responsibilities to press for the enforcement of its
critical areas enforcement.
Nelson asked the definition of a small farm. Boggs stated it is a hobby farm
of five to 20 acres that is not in business commercially to make money. Small
farms are small parcels with a stream, creek, or wetland going through it. They
need assistance because they have livestock.
Boggs stated noncommercial farms that raise potatoes or raspberries don't
have a program to assist them. The rest of Whatcom County agriculture is going to
feel the brunt of the pressure to improve riparian zones and protect critical areas.
As yet, there are not many resources to assist them to relax the specified buffers.
Dawson asked when the landowner has to select either a standard buffer for
self- management or the CREP program. Boggs stated CREP program is a 75
percent site potential tree height. The landowner can request to sign up with the
program. With regard to the appropriate riparian zone for Growth Management
Act, Whatcom County needs to update its critical area ordinance by 2003.
Dawson stated the buffers would filter the pollutants. With Endangered
Species Act, they have to have a visible evidence of harm. She couldn't see where
dairy runoff will kill a fish. She asked if there needs to be more of a distinction
between the Clean Water Act and what they are required to do with the ESA.
Boggs stated the AFW process includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Ecology, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. They are all together at the
table. Out of AFW is going to be both ESA and the Clean Water Act. Regarding
runoff from dairies, if there is enough runoff, the ammonia is toxic. Sediment going
into the spawning beds can smother the spawning nests. There are water quality
contaminants that could hurt the fish directly and indirectly by not allowing the
appropriate habitat. That has been considered to be a take. The lack of large
woody debris and other factors is all related.
Dawson asked for information in writing that the lack of habitat is considered
a take.
John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, stated that is in the definition of a
take. Anything that destroys the fish or the habitat upon which they depend is
considered a take. There doesn't have to be a direct kill to be a take.
Dawson stated nothing says that there has to be restoration, but only
protection of what is there. Gibson stated they are not going to be fined for the
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
absence of fish if the habitat is already destroyed. They would not be prosecuted
for the absence of fish if the cause is many years old.
Thompson stated that to achieve the recovery goals that will be set, they
must effect restoration on the damaged habitats or there will be a greater burden
on the functioning habitats.
Dawson stated the CREP program restores habitat and lowers the
temperature. Then, the landowner has to leave the property that way because he
or she will not be able to take the trees out. That would be a take. Boggs stated
that for the period of the contract, the landowner can't go in and remove the trees.
Afterwards, it will be an unknown as to what happens to the trees.
Hoag stated dairy practices have changed in the county, because there are
more concentrated herds on small pieces of land. The county is ending up with
impacts it didn't used to have.
McShane thanked Mr. Boggs and asked him to come back to the Council with
the results of the AFW process in December.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION SETTING CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING HIGH - PRIORITY
AREAS FOR LAND PRESERVATION AREAS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM
WATERSHED (AB2001 -331)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
McShane stated there have been a couple of presentations on this issue
earlier.
Hoag stated there is nothing in the criteria about proximity to current
development. The way this is set up, they are putting a high priority on
mountaintops far from the lake rather than right on the edge of the lake. She
asked if they have made any changes about this from her prior statements. There
are properties along the lake that are a lower priority.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag continued to state that they will end up spending money on
undeveloped forest land far from the lake. That makes sense if a property is very
close to a stream. The further one gets from a stream, the more likely it is that
something right on the lake will have more impact, especially if someone is using
fertilizer on their lawn. There are filtering processes on the way down those
streams. She wants something to give a weight for proximity to current
development.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
Erika Strobel, Planner II, stated the highest criterion is proximity to a water
body. Hoag stated it makes no difference between being a creek or the lake. If a
property is 200 feet away from the creek high in the mountains, it ended up getting
more points than a property that sits right on the lake, which should be a higher
priority if the property is right next to the lake instead of something that feeds into
the lake.
Dawson stated she disagreed. The proximity to the city is a high priority.
Property close to the lake also has a high priority, as does property with a slope.
Hoag stated an actual example shows that a low slope property right on the
lake may score less than a high slope property further from the lake and any water
bodies. Many of the properties right on the lake have a very low slope, and many
of the properties in the mountains have a higher slope. The points for slope
outweigh the properties that sit right on the lake. Strobel state the criteria are the
base set of criteria for helping to identify the high priority areas. The criteria show
that the shoreline and riparian areas are very critical areas to protect in terms of
water quality. They also have a second set of criteria, the site specific criteria.
They don't have to go strictly with the numerical value.
Hoag stated the site specific assessments also have a slant toward forestry.
There is nothing that identifies proximity to other development. She raised this
question during the meeting with the Bellingham City Council, and the council
members had the same concerns. She wanted the priority areas to be more along
the lake and less along the riparian areas.
McShane stated the City of Bellingham has approved the criteria.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(AB2001 -310A)
McShane stated that the staff's reply to BIA's comments are dated October 4,
2001. He doesn't need to hear from staff again.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a three - minute break.)
McShane stated he preferred to go into the ordinance and begin proposing
motions. He moved to amend the ordinance title, "...Endangered Species and
Fisheries Resources." They are looking at more than just threatened and
endangered species in this ordinance. There is a benefit to the endangered fish.
There would also be side benefits to other fish that are not endangered.
Hoag stated this was a result of the fact that they ended up with a listing
after the Comprehensive Plan was completed, and they are going back to amend
the Comprehensive Plan because of that. She is opposed to the motion.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
Nelson stated his concern is that the focus now is on endangered species. He
questioned whether they would throw the act out when the species is no longer
endangered.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that if the fish are de- listed, the County
would have to do a comprehensive review.
Nelson questioned whether they would want to do that if it works. He would
rather redo the entire thing and make it comprehensive.
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
McShane moved to amend the second whereas statement, "...special
consideration to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries...." This came out of
the BIA's suggestion to be consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add a third whereas statement, "WHEREAS Chinook
salmon in the waters of Whatcom County were once a significant resource for the
citizens of Whatcom County." and move the remaining whereas statements down.
The Spring Chinook used to be an enormous resource. They have not had a spring
chinook fishery going on since the early 1970's.
John Thompson, ESA Resource Planner, stated there hasn't been a dedicated
fishery for the native spring Chinook in 20 years. The hatchery fall Chinook haven't
been produced for two or three years. There is still a fishery on returning fall
Chinook. The Kendall hatchery has been doing the spring Chinook supplementation
program dating back to 1988 or 1989. The hatchery does not do any fall Chinook
production now.
Hoag questioned whether there would be a commercially viable fishery if
they combine the hatchery and native spring Chinook. Thompson stated they
would not at this point. They have not recovered sufficiently.
Nelson stated he would like to differentiate the native spring Chinook.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment and restated his motion to add a
third whereas statement, "WHEREAS native spring Chinook salmon in the waters of
Whatcom County were once a significant fisheries resource for the citizens of
Whatcom County."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add a whereas statement, "WHEREAS conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries
include measures that protect habitat important for all life stages of anadromous
fish." This links the whereas statements to the amendments being proposed. Make
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
it the whereas statement before the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) whereas
statement.
Nelson stated he would support the motion for now, but wants to think about
it. It doesn't hurt to have it.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add the missing quotation mark at the end of finding of
fact six.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to amend findings of fact 11 and 12, "...present in th-e certain
waters of Whatcom County." The Building Industry Association (BIA) was
concerned that the current language implies all waters of Whatcom County. Aamot
stated a map shows where the Chinook fish exist.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend the second sentence under "Fish and Wildlife" in
chapter two, "...effects of habitat reduction and degradation, fish harvest,
hydropower...."
Nelson asked how would they get reduction without degradation.
Hoag stated reduction just means less. Degradation is if the quality of the
habitat has been destroyed, even if the habitat remains.
Nelson stated this is a problem of "and /or."
Hoag stated she would accept "or."
Nelson restated Councilmember Hoag's motion, to amend the second
sentence under the "Fish and Wildlife" section of chapter two, "...effects of habitat
reduction or degradation, fish harvest, hydropower..."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked if hydropower is something that has been an issue in
Whatcom County. Aamot stated they do shoreline permits with small hydro. It
talks about fish populations, not just threatened fish populations. It is accurate.
McShane stated it might apply to the Baker River.
Nelson moved to restore Goal 2M, "Protect and restore fish and wildlife...."
They don't have standards to restore to. Aamot stated there are guidelines and a
matrix of indicators and pathways that talk about restoring water temperatures and
the number of pools for salmonids. There are some guidelines.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
Nelson stated the proposed language is to restore fish, not habitat.
Hoag stated that as a goal, they should be seeking restoration. This is a
goal. At the same time, she recognized it could be misconstrued to set false
thresholds they are not prepared to follow up on. She suggested, "protect and
encourage restoration of fish and wildlife...."
McShane stated it is critical that restoration takes place. Without restoration
programs and policies, they are putting development at risk. They are ultimately
trying to restore to viable populations. Thompson stated there is a phrase, "viable
salmonid population." That phrase is not the same as the recovery goals that will
come forward in the next couple of months. The viable salmonid population speaks
to what is necessary to have a genetically viable population.
Nelson asked about the specific goals that are coming. Thompson stated
they will come from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Nelson questioned whether those specific goals could be included in Goal 2M.
Thompson stated goal 2M is not specific to the threatened and endangered species.
There will be recovery goals for the north fork stock and the south fork stock.
There is the need to protect and restore the fish habitat and populations, which is
broader.
McShane stated it might be better to leave the language as it is, and then
refer in the policy to the guidelines that are coming out.
Nelson stated leaving "restore" in the language, and the goal is broad, that
provides carte blanche for the government to make any land use decisions it wants,
even if it isn't in relation to endangered species. They need to protect the public's
rights and freedom to use their land without dictatorship. Thompson stated the
fisheries are public resources.
Nelson stated there is no clear definition in the goals. Thompson stated have
a general goal statement, and then have specific policies.
Nelson stated there is nothing wrong with making a goal to protect and
increase fish and wildlife populations and habitat. They all want to do that. That is
general for everything. Another general statement is to protect and enhance.
However, he has no clear definition of what "restore" means. He is concerned
about applying that to something other than endangered species. Thompson stated
they have the same problem using the word "enhance." His first step is to restore
a habitat, and then enhancement goes beyond restoration. Restoration is bringing
habitat back to functional conditions, according to the matrix of pathways.
Nelson stated he needed a definition of what they restore to before he would
approve the motion. Thompson stated do that in the general goal statement.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
Hoag stated that if they don't work to restore degrading habitat and
populations, they will end up with more listings at a tremendous expense. Include
the terms "protect" and "encourage restoration of." At the end, add the term,
"...especially of threatened and endangered species." That would put the focus on
the threatened and endangered species. Encouraging restoration doesn't refer to a
threshold they don't have standards for. It is important to encourage restoration.
That should be the goal that drives the policies to not degrade habitat and
encourage new land uses to restore degraded habitat. She recommended changing
the language. She agrees with Councilmember Nelson's concern about the word
"restore."
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson questioned why they are afraid to identify what they are using for the
resource and to identify what they are going to restore to.
Hoag stated it is because they don't have it yet.
Thompson stated they could come up for a specific reference for the habitat,
but not the population.
McShane suggested amending goal 2M, "Protect and restore habitat
conditions for fish and wildlife populations and habitat." They want to do
restoration. The concern is about the level of restoration that they want to do.
Nelson stated his concern is about identifying the restoration.
Aamot stated they brought up the issue of properly functioning habitat
conditions. Those indices do reference properly functioning conditions. That is
more of a goal than a standard.
McShane stated his suggestion emphasis habitat, which they have control
over. They don't have control over a lot of other components.
Hoag stated the suggested language takes it too far. The goal would be to
protect and restore the entire habitat out there. Once they have a healthy
population, they don't have to continue to go after every foot of soil that might not
be properly functioning. She supports restoration, but the goal is healthy fisheries.
If they say, "restore habitat," they are laying out every bit of habitat that is out
there. Not every square foot of habitat in the County has to go through the
process.
Nelson amended his motion to amend goal 2M, "Protect and FesteFe
encourage restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife populations and habit -,+ "
McShane stated they are trying to put policy within the goal statement.
Nelson stated a goal is a policy statement.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
49
McShane stated the policies are under the goal statement. He questioned
whether they want to restore, or not. The question is whether they need to define
the word "restore" in the goal statement.
Hoag stated it is necessary. It is the umbrella under which everything else is
operating. The difference is whether they demand restoration or point people
towards restoration. She questioned whether there is anything the County does
that is directed towards protecting the fish, other than protecting their habitat.
Gibson stated there was an enforcement program related to harvest.
Hoag stated they are better off with the fish and wildlife populations listed
first.
Nelson stated they are making a goal that they have no mechanism for
having an impact. The habitat is the County's primary area where it has an impact.
Aamot stated there is a proposed definition of "restore" in the response to
the BIA, and a definition of restoration in the Comprehensive Plan. Legal counsel
says there are several circumstances in which the County can do restoration:
voluntary action by landowner, County projects, and permit conditions. Enhance
the definition of "restoration" in the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated the restoration definition only refers to habitat, not fish and
wildlife populations. She would accept the most recent amendment to the motion.
Nelson questioned whether this language is significant enough to protect
them against the issue of what "restore" means. Gibson stated it is sufficient
language. One thing not addressed is the situation in which they establish a buffer,
not require planting, and then over time natural processes lead to a restoration.
Government cannot insist that a landowner plant trees. Government can insist on
observing a buffer. The definition of restoration may not call that out and recognize
it.
Aamot stated that is more regulatory preservation.
Nelson restated his motion to amend goal 2M, "Protect and i=estere
encourage restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife populations and habitat."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson questioned whether staff would have problems implementing that
type of goal language. Aamot stated they could work with the language.
McShane moved to add the definition of restoration, as suggested by staff, to
the definition appendix.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend policy 2M -1, "Ensure that new and existing land uses
to not degrade habitat of fish and wildlife, especially of threatened and endangered
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
species." They are talking about making sure they don't degrade it. They are not
talking about past degradation from existing land uses. They are talking about
ensuring that they don't degrade it. If they only specify threatened and
endangered species, they are going to end up with more threatened and
endangered species. Degrading something is reducing the quality. This is just to
ensure that it isn't degraded. They want to make sure that they don't lose what
they already have out there. It doesn't matter if it's a new or existing land use.
She would like to see fish and wildlife included because she cares about degrading
all habitat.
McShane suggested leaving policy 2M -1 alone, and adding a new policy that
might address Councilmember Hoag's concerns, "Ensure that existing land uses do
not cause degradation of habitat of threatened and endangered species."
Nelson suggested restoring policy 2M -2, and amend for existing land uses
instead of new land uses.
Nelson stated changes in habitat sometimes enhance habitat. It's an
assumption that new and existing land uses would degrade habitat. There may be
benefits to habitat that they don't know about. He didn't want to broaden it to all
species. They haven't seen a clear and present danger to other fish and wildlife
that new and existing land uses cause degradation. The onus is put on staff to
make decisions about whether or not a project may degrade wildlife.
Hoag changed her amendment to amend policy 2M -1, "Ensure that new and
existing land uses do not degrade habitat of threatened and endangered species."
She would not add the remaining language. This is a very important element of
what they are doing. If the County doesn't ensure the habitat, it is not going to get
approval for any permits.
Nelson asked what tools they would use to ensure that new and existing land
uses do not degrade the habitat. Aamot stated they would use regulatory
programs such as the critical areas ordinance.
Nelson questioned whether the language in the motion says that a land use
that is 30 years old has to be changed to something different. Aamot stated the
language ensures that there is not further degradation. It is not retroactive.
Gibson stated Councilmember Nelson's assumption is incorrect. The absence
of trees leads to a violation of water quality standards, according to the State
Department of Ecology (DOE). However, he's been emphatic in saying that, if the
trees are gone, the County can't be cited for violations of water temperatures. The
County disagrees with DOE on that. The County is clear that is a scenario in which
it would encourage re- vegetation. The absence of trees by itself is not a violation.
If cattle continues to go into a stream and continues to contribute sediment through
bank erosion, it is an existing use.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
Hoag amended her motion to revert to her original motion, "to amend 2M -1,
"Ensure that new and existing land uses... habitat of fish and wildlife, especially of
threatened and...."
Nelson stated he would vote against the motion because it puts a burden on
staff. He can't be assured that this interpretation becomes what the DOE wants.
There are no clear definitions. There is no recognition of historical uses.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
McShane stated the new and existing land uses need to be treated
separately. They all agree on wanting to see restoration and improvements, and
they want to avoid degradation of habitat. They are struggling with the language.
He was okay with policy 2M -1 because it drops the word "existing" out. He moved
to add a new policy 2M -2, "Ensure that existing land uses do not cause further
degradation of threatened and endangered species."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated this would be held in committee for two weeks.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 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, 10/23/2001, Page 14