HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 25 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
September 25, 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 Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE
MINING IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY, AND
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2000 -301)
Nelson stated that if they begin to amend this ordinance, they may create
more problems than is necessary. Stay with the ordinance that currently exists
unless it would create a huge problem. Address the terraces through the
Comprehensive Plan process. He doesn't want to work on these issues piecemeal.
McShane questioned whether Councilmember Nelson would be interested in
dropping the acreage limit for mining knolls and ridges.
Nelson stated it is an option. Look at the major issues. One major issue is
the acreage limitation. Second is the idea of restoration, which they still haven't
formalized how that would be funded and reviewed.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that the Conservation District
recommended a science -based method, but staff hasn't received direction to pursue
that method. There was discussion of creating a study site.
Nelson stated that if the Council adopts the ordinance, the County would still
not have a restoration program. Aamot stated there are some standards for
reclamation. As far as studying the impacts of mining on productivity of the soil,
they have not done that.
Nelson stated other issues are about the terrace language and limiting
mining restrictions.
McShane stated the term "terraces' was not in the original language at all.
The Planning Commission added it.
Nelson stated they are dealing with an acreage limitation that did not exist
other than under the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitting
process. He asked if restoration was required in the agricultural zone in the
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
previous ordinance. Aamot stated there are reclamation requirements currently in
the agricultural zone.
Nelson stated reclamation is an issue in forestry and non - agricultural zones.
Aamot stated the issue is the effectiveness of reclaimed land in agricultural zones.
Nelson stated they need more information on the effectiveness.
McShane stated the effectiveness is a valid issue. He doesn't know the
answer. There has been mining on knolls and ridges already, and there has been
reclamation already. The Council has heard mixed opinions on the success of
reclamation. That makes no difference on the knoll and ridge issue. If the
committee focuses on the agricultural zone, the only change is suggested language
that the surface mine shall not exceed three acres at one time and must be for
enhancement. The purpose is to show that the miner /farmer is actually following
the reclamation plan. No changes are suggested to that section. The only section
to change is the acreage allowed for mining at any given time.
Nelson stated the farms he looked at had knolls and ridges larger than three
acres. The purpose is for irrigation and addressing equipment danger. The knolls
and ridges he looked at would be more than three acres. They need to have some
flexibility so a farmer can repair his fields to make them safer and more productive.
McShane stated he agreed with increasing the size limitation. Aamot stated
that if mining is over three acres, a DNR permit kicks in.
Nelson stated he wouldn't change that. Address the specific concern. If the
concern is that restoration isn't occurring, then address that issue. If the concern is
that an owner is using his or her lands for mineral extraction, then address that
issue.
McShane questioned whether the rules under farm enhancement, which is
what this issue is about, would be applicable to farm enhancement practices if the
rules had a limitation on mining in the rural zone. Aamot stated it would not be
applicable. They are two separate issues. It would not be applicable to farm
enhancement practices. There is no limitation that farm enhancement in the
agricultural zone cannot do three acres, and then three acres more.
Nelson stated the farmers he talked to did not have a concern on the
limitation. They understand the DNR process and the permitting. The farmers also
agree that there are people who don't do a good job with reclamation. They need
to have assistance with reclamation. If they intend to have teeth in the reclamation
process, they need to go through that process.
Dawson questioned whether a farmer avoids having to get a DNR permit if he
or she only mines three acres at a time.
McShane stated that is correct.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
Dawson questioned whether there is a proposal to limit mining to six acres.
Nelson stated that was one proposal from the Agricultural Advisory
Committee.
McShane stated that isn't something he is going to suggest for farm
enhancement. The Council can't determine how much of a knoll or ridge needs to
be removed.
Nelson asked if they could administer section twelve. Aamot stated they do
consult with the Conservation District on the reclamation plans. There are
standards in the code.
Nelson asked the original problem. Aamot stated the Land Use Division
initiated this issue. There was concern about land use conflicts in areas that were
not designated for mineral resource extraction. The agricultural soil issue is a
concern.
Nelson asked if leaving it as it is would still allow the farmer to use his or her
acreage and protect against overzealous mining in other areas while going around
the MRL process.
McShane stated they have to amend the ordinance to protect against
overzealous mining. Councilmember Nelson's concern is with the agricultural issue.
There is no definition of "terraces" in the Comprehensive Plan.
Nelson stated that with no definition in the Comprehensive Plan, they could
injure the process. If "terraces" are a concern, create a definition through the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, then clarify specifically what would and
would not be allowed.
McShane stated the language approved by the Planning Commission was to
create a mining limit of three acres at one time.
Nelson stated that is reflective of the DNR process. He concurred with that
recommendation. His concern is with the total limitation.
McShane agreed.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Crawford arrived.)
McShane stated they should discuss Council packet page 18, item nine. He
recommended that the language be changed, "The s .Ffaee Fnine s"," net exee
three acres at any one tome. Prier to mining additional acreage, reclarnatien shall
A cumulative maximum of three acres may be mined within the outer
boundary of the parcels that existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment.
The intent of this provision is to prevent multiple conditional use permits for three -
acre subsurface mines on a single parcel, and prevent lots that were divided from a
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
parent parcel after adoption of this amendment, from each having a three -acre
surface mine." The language came from the staff recommendation. It was what
drove this whole proposal, not the agricultural concern. This proposal came up
because of the concern of having a lot of the non -DNR reclamation plan pits.
Nelson asked if it would impact rural forestry. Aamot stated rural forestry
and commercial forestry references the rural zone. They can easily get around that
by creating an exception.
Nelson stated they don't want large parcels outside of the MRL process, but
forestry is like agriculture. They may need to allow extraction for road construction
and other safety issues. Aamot stated a different clause relates to forest practices.
If one is mining is accessory, there is an exemption.
Nelson questioned whether road construction in forestry zones needs to allow
more than three acres. Aamot stated it falls into a different category.
Nelson asked if there is a three -acre limitation if the material is for their own
use. Aamot stated there is not a limitation. It is considered a forest practice. This
ordinance is for mining for a commercial use.
Nelson stated he was comfortable with McShane's recommended language.
McShane moved to insert the staff language into section nine, Council packet
page 18. "(9) The surface n9ine shall not exceed thFee acres at any one tome. Prier
tome. to mining additienal acreage, reclamatien shall be accomplished se that the un
A cumulative maximum of
three acres may be mined within the outer boundary of the parcels that existed at
the time of the adoption of this amendment. The intent of this provision is to
prevent multiple conditional use permits for three -acre surface mines on a single
parcel, and prevent lots that were divided from a parent parcel after adoption of
this amendment from each having a three -acre surface mine."
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot asked if the committee is limiting mining to three acres at a time in
commercial forestry and rural forestry zones.
Nelson asked staff if they've had a problem in the past with "pac -man"
mining in rural and commercial forestry areas. Aamot stated only one parcel was
permitted, but it was not mined.
McShane moved to include this language in the rural forestry zone as well.
Nelson questioned whether they need to look at those areas in the MRL
process. Aamot stated they do.
also.
Nelson suggested including the language in the commercial forestry zone
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
49
McShane accepted Councilmember Nelson's suggestion as a friendly
amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated another issue is non - conforming surface mines. The Planning
Commission agreed with the language in the ordinance. The only difference was
with the five -year rate of extraction. The existing code says certain mines are
limited to the average rate of extraction for a five -year period. The Planning
Commission wanted to keep that requirement. Section 20.83.020 on Council
packet page 21 defines what this regulation does not apply to.
McShane stated he sympathizes with staff on the timing issue, but he would
recommend the Planning Commission recommendation to leave the requirement in
the code.
Aamot stated the Land Use Division does not disagree with the concept, but
it is difficult to enforce. Let it be handled through the conditional use permit. The
hearing examiner could specify how much gravel could be extracted.
McShane stated it's the same problem with MRL designation. One of the
controls on nonconforming mines is how quickly they can extract, and the impacts
to neighbors when mining activity drastically increases suddenly. If a
nonconforming mine wants to mine at a higher rate, it can go through the MRL
process.
There are two amendments to the ordinance. He moved approval of the
ordinance as amended.
Aamot stated there are three amendments. There was an amendment to
each of the rural forestry, commercial forestry, and rural zones.
Dawson asked why they would not be consistent with amendments to the
agricultural zone.
McShane stated mining is to make the land more farmable. The primary
purpose is not mining. It is farm enhancement.
Nelson stated forestry does not do mineral extraction to enhance forestry
practices.
Dawson stated she preferred to be fair and allow the six -acre limit in rural
and commercial forestry zones.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated they would schedule a public hearing at the next meeting.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
49
Nelson asked if they could docket the terrace issue for the Planning
Committee. Aamot stated the Council could docket the issue by the end of the
year.
Nelson stated they should bring that to the Council.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(AB2001 -310A)
Crawford asked why this item is not going through Planning and
Development Committee.
McShane stated it is both a Natural Resource and Planning issue. As chair of
the Planning Committee, and recognizing the full schedule, he scheduled some
issues in this committee.
Crawford stated anything to do with Comprehensive Plan changes ought to
go to the Planning and Development Committee.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that last year staff was asked to explain
some things in other committees so they don't get bogged down.
Nelson stated this committee used to be called the Water Resource
Committee, but it was changed to the Natural Resources Committee to take on
tasks like this. Every committee comes out with recommendations to the full
Council for review. Committees were designed to relieve the workload and provide
a continuation and continuity of process to the full Council. It is not a reflection of
whether a committee should or shouldn't see an item. This is certainly a natural
resource issue. It is not an attempt to circumvent the Planning and Development
Committee.
Crawford stated he didn't mean to imply that. He suggested developing a
schedule to allow the Planning and Development and Natural Resources committees
to work more closely together.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot stated the federal government listed both Puget Sound chinook
salmon and bull trout as threatened in 1999. The native North Fork chinook stock
averages 133 adults returning to spawn. The native South Fork chinook declined to
about 107 adults returning to spawn, from 1995 to 2000.
The proposed amendments would recognize the long -term declines and
strengthen the policies in the Comprehensive Plan on threatened and endangered
species.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
Dawson asked how many returning hatchery fish there are. Aamot stated he
would provide that information when he finds it in his file.
Dawson stated a judge in Oregon ruled that they have to include hatchery
fish on endangered species.
McShane stated this judge has a record of being overturned in federal district
court. He read the court decision. The judge's decision may not hold up.
Crawford asked if there are regulations regarding the tribes taking salmon
out of the river. Someone told him that they purchased 26 native chinook salmon
on the reservation. He questioned whether the tribe knows they are not supposed
to take those fish.
John Thompson, Endangered Species Act Resources Planner, stated that with
the chinook, both Lummi and Nooksack tribes have fishing regulations so they do
not exploit the native stocks for commercial fisheries. There may be some
ceremonial, subsistence take. They have worked out with federal agencies when
the tribes would take those fish. Those fish have been in a conservation status
from a tribal fishery perspective for almost 20 years. There are fall chinook that
are returning quite well now. The fish purchased were probably fall chinook. The
fishing is open on them. They are of Green River hatchery origin, which were not
marked until a few years ago. Those fish purchased may be older than those that
were marked. They used to barcode and tag the fish. Not all have the coded wire
tag.
The North Fork hatchery is a supplementation program for the native
chinook. The Kendall hatchery no longer raises fall chinook. They take the
returning native North Fork chinook and do a supplementation program to keep the
numbers up. The numbers quoted are those native stock returning those to spawn
from the wild. They can discriminate which fish are spawned in the wild from one
that was raised in the hatchery. The numbers in the North Fork have increased in
total numbers, but the native spawning fish are still at a critically low level.
Nelson questioned whether hatchery fish levels that are increasing and native
species levels that are holding steady has an impact on the ability for the native
species to reproduce, and on the available habitat for the native species. An
increasing number of non - native species are competing. Thompson stated the
increasing number he referred to is the native species with a hatchery component.
They are taking in the North Fork native spring Chinook and spawning a portion of
the returning adults to raise eggs in the hatchery because there is better
survivability. They are genetically native.
Nelson asked if the bottom line is that native species are increasing.
Thompson stated they are if they look at total numbers. If they look at the ability
of the freshwater habitat to reproduce itself, they are not getting sufficient
freshwater survival to replace itself with just the natural habitat.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, Page 7
1 Nelson stated that could be true because the fish raised in a hatchery are
2 larger than the native, and they will compete with the smaller natives. Thompson
3 stated data shows egg -to- emergence survival rate rather than post- emergence
4 growth. The number of smolts swimming out to sea is not the problem.
5
6 McShane stated the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers the
7 enhancement of spring chinook essential for recovery, but not in Oregon. In
8 Oregon, the hatchery fish are not considered essential for recovery. This court case
9 would not apply here. In this case, NMFS did consider the hatchery fish essential
10 for recovery. Thompson stated that is correct. They are looking at recovery at a
11 couple of levels. One level is on the scale of the Puget Sound. They are also
12 looking on the scale of the individual stock. Other stocks, such as fall chinook, are
13 listed, but are not considered essential for recovery.
14
15 Crawford asked the difference between "fish" and "fishery." Thompson
16 stated "fishery" is the act of fishing and taking fish.
17
18 Crawford asked if the Endangered Species Act is to protect fisheries, or the
19 ability of people to go fish, as opposed to protecting the fish. Thompson stated the
20 purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect the fish. The direction that the
21 recovery planning is going for Puget Sound and salmon in general is to not just
22 protect a museum level of fish, but have enough fish for harvesting in the future.
23
24 Crawford asked why the government would not take an approach that a
25 decline in overall numbers would necessitate a cease of fishing. When the fishing
26 take is restored, then regulate the level of fishing like they regulate hunting. The
27 fisherman would buy a license for a certain amount of fish. Thompson stated they
28 already do that for sport fishing. Tribes are licensed and regulated fishermen. The
29 harvest managers look at the run forecasts, and will set the number of fish that can
30 be caught from the different runs. They are already highly - regulated in that area.
31 For the really sensitive spots, to reduce incidental or accidental take, they have
32 severely reduced other fisheries. The key is that harvest impacts is a factor in the
33 decline of the fishery. Also habitat, hydroelectric, and hatchery are impacts.
34 Harvest impacts is one component. Based on data and science, cutting off
35 harvesting entirely won't bring the fish back. Habitat is what the Comprehensive
36 Plan amendments focus on - that segment of the four H's that the County is
37 responsible for regulating.
38
39 Dawson read the RCW from the Building Industry Association (BIA) proposal.
40 She asked how the term "fisheries" would be interpreted. Thompson stated the
41 portion of the population that can be harvested in whatever manner, and still
42 maintain the population in a healthy status. Fisheries could be specific to catching
43 fish. It could also be used in a broader context of the population.
44
45 Nelson stated that chemistry, for example, involves the chemist, the
46 chemicals, the learning process, and the discovery process. It involves the people,
47 the production, and the process. It is the same with fishery.
48
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
Crawford stated his interpretation of the BIA recommendations is that if
something is adopted, the language should not vary from the state regulation. The
BIA pointed out the discrepancy in the regulations, which could have an impact.
Aamot stated that in the land use chapter, there is a proposed policy to
prevent degradation of habitat; to encourage restoration of habitat, which was
deleted by the Planning Commission; and to place a note on permits when a site is
near endangered habitats, which is an education component. Staff also
recommends that subdivision and short plats be clustered if there is a stream that
contains threatened and endangered species. The idea was that the stream be kept
in the reserve tract, and the buffer could be maintained. The Planning Commission
did not agree with that.
In the capital facilities chapter, the staff proposed a policy that says the
County will take a close look at habitat for threatened and endangered species
when developing plans for County buildings and parks.
In the utilities chapter, one policy was proposed that would indicate that
utilities and power - generating facilities should not adversely impact the stream flow
needed for endangered or threatened salmon. The Planning Commission deleted
that policy.
The transportation chapter included policies relating to culvert replacement
to allow fish passage, treating stormwater for roads, addressing wetland impacts,
and retaining and repairing vegetation.
In the economics chapter, there was one change. An existing policy related
to working with other groups to improve fish habitat. Staff suggested modifying
that to give priority to habitat for threatened and endangered species.
The resource chapter deals with agriculture, forestry, and mineral resources.
Agricultural policies would be modified to encourage adequate riparian buffers,
fencing, integrated pest management to address water quality. The County Council
clarified that those activities would be voluntary instead of mandatory. Forest
practice policies include stream buffers. Most of that is regulated by the State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), although there is a change to the state
law in 1997 that said the county was to take over class IV forest practices for
conversions by the end of this year. Mineral resource land policies include several
changes. One change was to avoid mining in the flood plain. The Planning
Commission did not agree, and deleted the change. Another change was a policy of
avoiding gravel bar scalping where it would adversely affect habitat or spawning
areas.
The environment chapter included action items to translate policy to
regulation. There were action items to update the shoreline program, critical areas
ordinance, stormwater, and land clearing standards. The state law says the county
has to update its shoreline program within two years of the state Department of
Ecology (DOE) adopting their guidelines, which they did in November 2001.
However, those were invalidated by the shorelines hearing board, so that deadline
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
49
has changed. There is also a growth management requirement that the county
review and amend, if necessary, the critical areas ordinance to adhere to changes
in the Growth Management Act, such as considering best available science.
There is a typo on Council packet page 115, policy 11J -2. Only strike out
"chinook salmon and bull trout." The Planning Commission did not strike out the
entire sentence.
Emily Salka, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated her comments are
not opinions of support of the ordinance, but recommendations of things that need
to be clarified or corrected. She read from her handout (on file) dated September
24, 2001.
Nelson questioned whether NMFS has included language for recovery.
Thompson stated NMFS is working on recovery language now. It will come forward
in a few months.
Salka continued to read from her handout. In goal 8I, there are no criteria
to determine whether something has been adversely impacted. The term should be
clarified further.
McShane stated he had a discussion regarding the term "significant." In the
case he was dealing with during this discussion, the term "significant" actually
means something. It is a standard word that is used. He questioned whether staff
sees the term "adversely impacted" while working with the Endangered Species Act.
Aamot stated they are setting a general policy direction, which would be
implemented specifically with regulations such as the critical areas ordinance. They
are trying to convey an idea here that will be fleshed out in the regulations. To say
that "adversely impacted" is a specific level of impact would be difficult to do. They
are just trying to convey an idea. Specific things can be done, and those things will
be developed or confirmed in other ordinances.
Thompson stated that getting consistent wording, as is being suggested, is
important. With ESA, anything negative to species and habitat is considered a
take. If a County road project is going to impact the habitat of an endangered
species, the federal agencies won't allow mitigation. The habitat is simply
supposed to not be impacted. There aren't clear criteria for adverse impacts.
Those would come out in the development of a biological assessment, and the
subsequent biological opinion.
McShane asked if people doing assessments use the word "adverse."
Thompson stated he didn't know.
Salka questioned how adverse impacts would be enforced if they are not
defined. It is subjective.
Thompson stated these are goals, policies, and directions. These aren't the
actual regulations that contain the specific criteria.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
McShane stated they are talking about a policy. When they define what
actually happens, Ms. Salka suggested there is a range of what that means. That
range is okay from a policy standpoint, but is more difficult when it becomes an
enforcement issue. Aamot stated that in an enforcement context, they would be
enforcing regulations.
McShane stated the Council would be allowed some discretion on what it
considers adverse as it creates the County codes and plans.
Nelson questioned why they would choose the negative. If the policies are
going to be about buffers, sedimentation, and riparian stream functions, they could
require that forest practices enhance habitat. Policies are trying to enhance habitat
by providing protection of the riparian buffers or reduction in sedimentation. It is
much easier to develop programs and help foresters.
Thompson stated goal 8I is for not doing any harm. They already have an
existing buffer out there. They are not evaluating whether that buffer is providing
the full functions that the stream needs to be a healthy and fully functional stream.
There is a certain set of functions that the buffer is already providing. They are
going to ensure that those functions will be protected. To enhance goes beyond
that. It means that one would go into a buffer that could lack woody debris
recruitment potential, for example, that has to be enhanced. They are talking
about protecting what they have, and not decreasing the function of those buffers.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Thompson continued to state that restoration is an opportunity to provide
incentive to encourage folks to improve functions on a voluntary basis, instead of
requiring it.
Nelson stated either they are going to enhance habitat and restore fish, or
just say they will not do any worse. Thompson stated that is a key policy issue.
Internal consistency is very important with this.
Nelson stated he has not seen a lot of consistency in the process.
Salka stated "adversely impacted" is not defined clearly. The term
"significant" is used and has a factual basis. She continued to read her handout.
McShane stated the NMFS takes a different view of the hatchery stock in the
Nooksack River than it did in the Oregon case.
Salka stated the GMA requires that economic impacts be taken into
consideration. No economic impact analysis has been done. It is important for the
public to know what the cost of this will be so they can make their own decisions.
Crawford stated that if an analysis could be done, then the County could
partner with the BIA and the Agricultural Preservation Committee. This is going to
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
have an impact on the BIA like no other group. The Council could partner with
some of the community economic associations to look into that issue.
Nelson stated he would appreciate any type of partnering, but the study will
be suspect.
Dawson stated she was impressed with the thoroughness of the handout.
She hoped the committee would consider the recommended changes.
Crawford stated he was confused about what the Council's directive is and
timeframe for doing this change. This is one of eight Comprehensive Plan
amendments that will be considered concurrently on November 30. The staff
brought this up to the Council, and the Council docketed it. He asked the staff's
thinking in terms of the timing of this. Aamot stated the staff's original thinking
when the endangered species listing came up, two to three years ago, was that
salmon are important to the area. That is why staff brought this forward. Senior
Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson addressed the Planning Commission about
protecting the County from liability due to permits it issues that result in a take.
Staff's goal was to bring it to the Council's attention, and request this for the sake
of protecting fish and protecting the County.
Crawford stated he knows of two attorneys who he would like to present to
the Water Resources work session about how necessary this is, and the timing. The
Council majority chose not to do that because special attorneys would politicize the
process. He wants to have a different perspective. He also understands that this is
just a Comprehensive Plan change, which don't have an effect of law other than it
be a guideline under which ordinances shall be shaped. Nonetheless, once
something is in the Comprehensive Plan, they become the checkpoint against which
future ordinances are proposed. Every one of the planning issues references the
Comprehensive Plan. These are important things. He still feels it would be
appropriate for the County Council to hear from certain attorneys about other
points of view. This is politics and this is a legal issue. They need to have an
absolute open mind before they jump in and do this.
Nelson stated he's gone through the Growth Management Act process. Many
attorneys have different opinions, which they will hear as they go through this
process. Attorneys have an opportunity to come to the Council to present their
information, but they have not come.
Crawford stated the Council doesn't have an agreement with its attorney's
office on medical waste, so it went out and got a different attorney.
McShane stated he would be open to Mr. Zender speaking to his committee
on the policy and goal changes. He is familiar with Mr. Zender's report. There is no
lack of consistency from Dan Gibson on the stormwater issue. He would be
interested to see what Mr. Zender thinks of this, and anyone else. If Mr. Zender
chooses to comment on the amendments, it would be wonderful. This is a
significant issue. Getting input in the public process is beneficial.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, Page 12
1 Nelson stated Mr. Crawford could invite Mr. Zender, but it is not appropriate
2 for the Council, as a Council, to invite certain attorneys. They will all want to come
3 in. If he wanted to invite someone, he would.
4
5 McShane stated he found that Mr. Zender's views were consistent with what
6 they are trying to do now. The committee will try to do something with ordinances
7 that try to bring back fish. It is a significant industry that has shrunk from the
8 county. Regardless of endangered species, it would be nice to have the streams full
9 of fish. They need to have language in the Comprehensive Plan to go forward with
10 some of the changes that they might need to do. They will have more time now
11 that the shoreline guideline has been postponed.
12
13 Crawford stated he needed to educate himself by getting a clearer picture of
14 where they've been with the Nooksack River, where they are today, and where they
15 want to go quantified in numbers of fish. He wants to hear a historical perspective,
16 understand the numbers, and understand where they are today. He doesn't
17 question that the activities happening now are great. He wants to know where they
18 were, where they are today based on good, best - available science, and where they
19 need to go. He wants to know what the historical levels of returning fish are.
20 Thompson stated the information presented for the North Fork only goes back five
21 or six years. That is the amount of time they've been gathering the specific
22 samples to distinguish the hatchery- reared native fish from the naturally spawned
23 native fish. They do have spawners survey information on the North Fork and
24 South Fork that is pretty detailed going back to the early 1980's and, in not as
25 much detail, going back to the 1940's. That is information he will check on. When
26 he first started working for Lummi Nation in 1988, there was discussion then about
27 whether the Spring Chinook should be listed under ESA because the populations
28 were so low. The ESA listing was not the result of a precipitous decline the last five
29 years. It has been going on for decades. Part of reconstruction of the historical
30 populations involves what they can pull out of the historic spawner numbers and
31 the historical harvest numbers, what the population looked like, and the habitat
32 that was available historically to support that population. They need to know
33 whether the South Fork, 150 years ago, had the habitat to support 150 fish or
34 15,000 fish. That would determine, in part, what the restoration goals are. Once
35 they know the population targets, they can plan their habitat priorities.
36
37 Nelson stated he wants to know what the elusive goal is. If they don't
38 pinpoint the goal, it becomes a mechanism in which the government uses a
39 perception of concern to manage land uses, forest practices, and agricultural
40 functions. The public never has a clear understanding of why they are doing it.
41 They need to have an understanding of the objective. The objective is not salmon
42 restoration, because there is no way to define that. He questioned the objectives
43 they are trying to achieve. If they can't define an objective, they can't tell the
44 public what they have to do. If the Council has to continually make ordinances and
45 laws that reflect the Comprehensive Plan, the public is going to question to what
46 they are restoring and enhancing. They may not need history to develop the goal
47 and objective.
48
49 Crawford stated they need history for perspective.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
Nelson stated NMFS will be the one to make that decision. Ask NMFS to
make the decision.
Thompson stated NMFS is working on the decision. They project to have
population goals available in the next six to eight months.
Nelson stated they need to put in the Comprehensive Plan that the County
will begin working on those objectives in six to eight months. If the objectives
don't come, the Comprehensive Plan means nothing.
Thompson stated even if there hadn't been an ESA listing for bull trout, some
of the goals they would still have for the local fish stocks and the habitats that
support them. They are looking to provide a riparian buffer from certain activities.
Much of it is to protect the fish, but to also keep the water cool. That is something
that has a biological impact on fish as well as other aquatic organisms. There are
other water quality parameters that could be affected by this. There is an
obligation under the Clean Water Act to meet those standards. Those are
numerical standards they can plan and regulate for.
Dawson asked if removing gravel would lower the water temperature.
Thompson stated he did not agree. They need to restore the physical processes
that form good structure and habitat. By doing so, they will get the pool depth
they need.
Nelson stated Whatcom County's original form was as forestlands. That is
what protected salmon and provided the habitat for chinooks. Thompson stated the
direction they are going to is to identify where holding habitat is limited, where are
the lack of pools that spring chinook are dependent upon, and where is the rearing
habitat lacking that South Fork spring chinook use or coho use for winter or
summer rearing. Use that information based on historical information to determine
what they need to do to achieve the recovery goals. There is a systematic
approach that can be used.
McShane asked if it is appropriate to even reference recovery goals. Aamot
stated they could do it by referencing them in the sense of endorsing something
that is, at this point, not specified.
McShane stated they could reference NMFS, but NMFS may go too far or not
far enough. Being general is a good idea at this level. They may need background
information to make changes to ordinances.
Nelson asked the intent of the committee chair.
McShane stated they are running out of time for this meeting. He questioned
whether there would be a desire for additional information from staff.
Nelson stated this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. There are not
specifics regarding fish. He was not sure they would get a lot of benefit out of this.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
If they are going to work on this, make the assumption they will ultimately have to
have these specifics anyway. If they are going to work on it, make sure it is
reflective of their philosophical approach and not something of specifics. This is
about how terms and words are approached, and how they are tied together with
the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and the existing regulatory requirements. They
may need information on whether this conflicts with any existing regulations. As a
committee, he would be comfortable with having staff available and moving forward
with his suggested changes. He would get many of his questions answered before
the next committee, so they don't waste committee time. That is a direction other
councilmembers could go, as well.
McShane stated that if councilmembers have questions or want something
clarified, they should do that. This item would be held in committee for two weeks
to begin the process of looking at language.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 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, 9/25/2001, Page 15