HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 21 20002
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
March 21, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. DISCUSSION AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB2000 -132)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated the items on the agenda will
come before the Planning Unit for decision.
WRIA Watershed Management Project Assessment Phase Implementation
Roll stated the first item is a proposal for an implementation strategy for the
assessment phase of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 project. This
includes the data collection and acquisition pieces for instream flow, water quantity,
and water quality. In addition, it may touch on habitat. During the scope of work
development, there was also a consideration of strategies to implement the scope
of work once it became flushed out. This strategy goes hand in hand with the
development of that scope of work. The initiating governments and the scope of
work technical team brought it forward. Today, he is seeking guidance so he can
go to the Planning Unit and consider this document so that the scope of work
technical team can proceed to work on the budgets and other things that need to
occur should this implementation strategy be acceptable.
McShane stated he doesn't have any concerns at this point.
Nelson stated they are good approaches. The beginning work is to gather
information so the County can make informed decisions. That is what most of this
is. The County needs to do that as soon as possible. He was glad to see assigned
timeframes.
Brenner questioned what they are dealing with. Roll stated they are working
on the assessment phase implementation strategy on packet page nine.
Brenner stated the United States Geological Service (USGS) wouldn't be
allowed to compete in bidding. She didn't have a problem with Utah State
University. She was concerned there was no competitive analysis and the County
instead unilaterally chose Utah State University (USU). She questioned whether
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
there were any other agencies that could do the work. Roll stated this strategy
occurred as the scope was developed. There was, prior to Dr. Hardy coming on
board, a selection process that the initiating governments went through to pick
him. They looked for people who are known in the fields and could provide the best
available credible data. From that, an interest evolved as Dr. Hardy went through
the instream portion. He could bring additional resources. The initiating
governments and the Planning Unit endorsed him as someone who has the
technical interest and the ability to bring stakeholder input into the data acquisition
phase. They've also heard from a number of others at the same time this process
occurred. They heard from P & L Labs and they are talking with the University of
Washington. The proposal isn't for Utah State University to do all the work. There
will be additional pods of work for local contractors and other institutions. They've
looked at other groups that could do this. Dr. Hardy, in the eyes of the scope of
work technical team, was one of the few individuals in the United States that could
bring together the four pods of information, including quantity, quality, instream
flows, and habitat, into a coordinated form.
Brenner stated she didn't have a problem with Dr. Hardy. She was
concerned that staff made a decision with a lack of a competitive process.
Something is missing on the other side of it. They could have pulled that part out,
then done a request for proposals (RFP) or request for qualifications (RFQ). Roll
stated it was tricky to bring everyone together, including USGS and Dr. Hardy.
Brenner questioned what would happen if there were other entities besides
Utah State who could work with USGS. Someone seems to be making these
decisions. Nothing in the information tells her how broad the review was. They
honed in on Dr. Hardy, then made sure it worked with the USGS. Also, she
questioned where this came from. Roll stated it comes from the scope of work
technical team, including Planning Unit members and initiating government staff.
The Planning Unit members include Skip Richards, Marian Beddill, and Pat Jones.
Brenner questioned where the Utah State University choice came from. Roll
stated it came from the scope of work technical team. When Sue Blake brought
forward a timeline for the development of the scope of work, there was a parallel
path occurring. They were actively engaging the implementation parts. There was
a process involving initiating government (IG) and Planning Unit members to
actively consider the various options.
Brenner questioned who recommended Utah State. Roll stated there were IG
staff and PU members who recommended it. It was collaborative.
Hoag stated a thorny issue is instream flow and water quantity. She
questioned whether Utah State University has done this in other areas so that
Whatcom County can review the final product. Roll stated he submitted work
samples. He distributed documents that list the qualifications.
Hoag questioned whether this has to be approved today. Rolls stated the
Planning Unit will look at this tomorrow. He anticipated a motion for approval.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Hoag stated she wanted a chance to review what has occurred in other
places to make certain the stakeholders are properly protected. She didn't want to
see a process go forward in which farmers can't get the water rights they've been
waiting for all these years, where builders have unnecessary restrictions placed on
them, or instream flows that the public cannot support. She wanted to make sure
that whatever assessment was done in others areas matches what they feel would
apply in Whatcom County. She wanted the opportunity to review other samples of
work. Roll stated he would provide the examples to Councilmember Hoag. They
must consider that this is a data acquisition phase, not a decision - making phase.
They are bringing this information forward to the Council so it can make informed
decisions about what the County will do with water rights and instream flows. Dr.
Hardy is a competent scientist, but will not take the science assessment portion.
The County must engage in the policy decisions for WRIA.
Hoag stated science is not a black and white issue. There are many
differences in opinion. She wanted to see where those people land on those issues
before she chooses them for Whatcom County's work.
McShane moved that they direct staff to support the WRIA watershed
management project concept document assessment phase as written. He was
comfortable with Dr. Hardy and the approach used. Utah State University has
developed a tradition. These are long -term projects and it is important to have the
right people for the long -term. They have dealt with water instream flow issues in
one of the most contentious locations one could be in, near Salt Lake City. He is
familiar with the areas where they did other jobs. The difference between using
them and a private consultant is that these people are in it for the long term. The
other issue is that the Council needs to provide guidance to staff.
Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated the Planning
Unit wasn't involved in the choice of Utah State University. The IG staff did that
before the Planning Unit even met. As a member of the Planning Unit, she didn't
want to be hung with that choice.
McShane stated the Planning Unit will be reviewing and coming forward with
their opinion on it. Bovencamp stated the technical teams would review proposals
and qualifications, and then make recommendations. She would like to see
verbiage that Planning Unit gets to review the technical teams' processes and
criteria. That is standard with any job they bid. This is a tremendously important
process because the Planning Unit is going to determine water availability in the
twelve to fourteen sub - basins in Whatcom County. As a Planning Unit
representative, she knows the Planning Unit members feel at a disadvantage not to
have technical support resources. At a minimum, they need a fisheries person, a
biology person, and a hydrology person. The next best thing is to make sure that
the people performing the work have proper credentials and that the selection
process is fair, tight, and controlled.
Hoag spoke against the motion. They need to take a better look at this
before it goes ahead. She would like to look at the type of work done by these
people before the Council moves ahead with approval. There is an unnecessary
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
rush on this. Two weeks will not scuttle the project. They need to make sure this
is in line with how they want to go. The assessment of instream flow is huge.
McShane stated it is critical to move forward. One of the issues the Council
will have to address is how much guidance to give the Planning Unit and Mr. Roll as
the County representative. There could be changes made during the Planning Unit
meeting. The County should be represented there. He went to Dr. Hardy's
presentation and was very impressed.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Technical Team Development
Roll stated that the development of technical teams that oversee the
technical information collection is outlined in the scope of work. Three of those
teams will need assistance from the IG and Planning Unit staff, which are the water
quantity, water quality, and instream flow portions. This is the avenue by which
the Planning Unit interfaces with the people or entities doing the work that is going
on in these areas. The proposals brought forward have been introduced to the
Planning Unit. The Planning Unit will consider whether they truly need them to
accomplish the work. The Planning Unit will vote on whether to establish the
technical teams.
Brenner questioned whom the Planning Unit staff is. Roll stated it includes
County staff and staff from other entities.
Brenner questioned whether staff is available to the caucuses. Roll stated
caucuses get support in the form of money for administrative support. The
Planning Unit members need and desire to have funding available for the technical
teams' support.
Brenner stated language leaves the impression that there is staff. They
should reword it to specify the initiating government staff. Roll stated the language
implies that the caucuses have staff they will bring forward to the technical groups.
IG staff may go into the technical groups also. The technical groups are composed
of representatives of the Planning Unit, caucus members, and IG staff. It refers to
the staff provided for the work, which could come from a number of places. That is
the way it occurred for the scope of work technical team.
Brenner stated it seems the IG is paying the staff to be there. It is difficult
to put a burden on the caucuses to provide their own staff. She was also concerned
that all three technical teams say the same thing, that technical team staffing will
be drawn from IG staff and Planning Unit staff. She was concerned that it is getting
controlled more and more by staff. She wanted mention in the staffing portion that
it will include members of the private and public sectors. She wanted to make sure
the government didn't control the teams.
Nelson stated they do have a process in which the government is involved.
The listing is from the government and the government is responsible. The
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Planning Unit needs to be broad in scope and can develop ideas and criteria, as well
as evaluate task projects, and their completion. They have the scope covered.
Changing it to a public- driven process in relation to federal and state guidelines
may over - encumber the public, who doesn't have the knowledge about the
guidelines. Staff works on this on a day -to -day basis. At some point, the Council
has to trust staff to meet the goals and objectives of the community.
Hoag stated she was concerned about language. Technical team staffing that
is drawn from IG and Planning Unit staffs is not what they were originally presented
with in the watershed planning process. They were told the IG and Planning Unit
would process information from different caucuses, then send it out for technical
review to a technical team consisting of experts in the field, who would give an
unbiased view of the suggestions. This is all in -house and bureaucratic. This does
not truly represent the public or look out for the interest of the people involved.
This project is very crucial to Whatcom County. She cannot support staffing with
staff. This is the technical team to review things. They need experts that are not
already on staff. They have highly qualified people on staff. However, they had to
hire a fisheries biologist because the County had no expertise in that field. The
County has people to deal with day -to -day issues, not specific issues such as
instream flow. The technical teams will be monitoring the technical analysis, review
water quality analysis, and have facilitation of instream flow projects and analysis.
The County needs to make sure it has the appropriate technical review. Roll stated
the technical teams are the interface with the Planning Unit to make sure the needs
are shepherded into the process. For example, when Dr. Hardy did instream flows,
the County made sure there was a peer review process. They had a conference to
determine the process that his instream flows conceptual document went through.
All the data will go through a similar peer review process that will be independent of
any of the technical teams that are doing the work. He is proposing an interface
between the various caucuses and the governments on the various pods of work so
that all the interests are brought into the process in an organized manner and that
there are people with a level of technical understanding who can shepherd those
ideas and thoughts to the players that are accomplishing the work.
Hoag stated it should just be called staff. The peer review should be called
the technical team. That is what they were told it would be.
McShane stated someone has to put together the peer review teams, based
on the product being brought forward. The County Council has provided a
substantial amount of increased staff for these projects. Bruce Roll is here for that
reason. They have staff who are dedicated to doing this. This is their project.
Brenner stated there is dedicated qualified staff. They shouldn't say the
private sector doesn't have expertise. There are people in the community that deal
with this on a daily basis. It is their career. She assumed they are as good as the
County staff people. They need a mix of people to represent the entire community.
If they are going to have a technical team, they should pull from the very best
throughout the county, not just the County government. Being inclusive could not
hurt anything.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Nelson stated that is why they have the water resource groups, to evaluate
what the staff brings forward.
Bovencamp stated there is confusion. The technical teams are not going to
be the ones doing the fieldwork. If they have a good selection process, they will
know who will be in the field performing the tests and gathering the data. The
technical team just watches the people doing the fieldwork.
McShane stated the technical team should have a strict selection process to
go through when they pick who will do the fieldwork. Bovencamp stated those in
the field doing the work will hopefully not be the staff from the Public Utility District,
City of Bellingham, or Lummi Nation. The technical teams are supposed to be the
body that gives direction to those people working in the field. The technical teams
should be careful about who they select so everyone feels comfortable about who is
doing the work.
Hoag stated what was described at the beginning of the project was that the
technical team would review the work and provide technical assistance to the
Planning Unit. They were told experts in the field would be the technical team, not
staff. The staff's expertise is in facilitation, coordination, supervision, and
management, not technical expertise.
Bovencamp questioned whether Hoag wanted the technical expertise in the
field performing the work, and also some expertise on the technical teams to review
those peoples' work.
Hoag stated that was correct. Bovencamp stated the County Council has the
ability to make that happen.
McShane stated the technical teams may add other people to the team. Roll
stated that is correct, as needed. In this case, the technical teams are not solely
County staff. They are a combination of people with credentials. The pool of
people they are drawing from are from the caucuses and the IG group. They are
coming together and bringing forward their best operatives to contribute to the
technical portion of it. It is not solely an IG thing. To bring in expertise, the
County is going to have to fund the expertise. The caucuses are also doing this as
a volunteer thing. Caucuses want more support for their effort.
Hoag stated she was concerned they would only end up with IG staff by
default. She questioned how they are going to hire experts without funding. They
will, by default, only hire IG staff. Language on packet page 26 says that the need
to hire dedicated technical team staff is not anticipated. Also, the budget section
says that participation in the technical team is voluntary or is being funded through
the organizations that provide staff to the technical team. She questioned how
they are going to hire the experts when there is no funding for them. By default,
they will end up only with IG staff.
Brenner stated she wanted to know why they wouldn't include very qualified
people from around the community on the technical teams. In the end, there
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
should be broad support from the public. People get suspicious when things are
totally controlled only by government. If there are qualified people in the
community, they should be included.
Nelson stated they are not that far off. The technical teams will initially be
staffed through the IG. If the projects require certain criteria or demands from the
Planning Units, then there is the ability to contract out to get the technical people
on board to provide the information. However, they may not be needed all the
time. It doesn't make good sense to hire staff all the time when they are not
needed. They need the flexibility to work back and forth between the expertise on
the IG and the Planning Unit, so they can meet the demands for each project. That
is the objective.
Hoag moved to delete the second sentence under the staffing section and to
amend language in the budget section, 11 ... provide staff to the tech team. Funds for
technical expertise for review can be requested at the time they are needed." They
can hire technical experts to assist the Planning Unit as they need them and to
review the different projects.
Monsen questioned whether the intent of the motion is to cover all three
technical teams.
Hoag stated it does. The sections for each team are on packet pages 20, 23,
and 26.
Nelson asked how the Planning Unit renders its decisions. Roll stated by
consensus. If there was a motion to come forward with funding, it would come
from the Planning Unit and then go to the Council. It would be considered jointly at
the Planning Unit.
Nelson asked if the Planning Unit would put together a proposal if they need
technical assistance for a particular project, and if the IG would agree on the
funding for that. Roll stated the technical team would make a need for technical
support known to the Planning Unit for its consideration. During that process, he
would inform the Council that it is moving forward. When the Planning Unit moves
forward with funding for a technical position, he would have guidance from the
Council. From there, they would go down the IG path and the interlocal path.
Nelson questioned whether the Planning Unit could submit their requests for
additional technical support. Roll stated they could.
Brenner asked if all decisions are made by consensus. Roll stated there are
gray areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roll continued to state that they look at the type of decision that is being
asked of the Planning Unit at any given time. He wouldn't say there is carte
blanche.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
49
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Brenner stated she wanted to know if the Planning Unit makes
recommendations and requests from consensus or majority. Roll stated they are
generally made by consensus. The process and procedural document allows for a
majority in the event a consensus can't be reached. The issue will be held over to
the next meeting so a majority can be reached.
Motion to approve Hoag's amendment carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated this was brought forward during the Water Resources work
session. As a matter of procedure, any issue from Water Resources work sessions
that comes up will be discussed at the Natural Resources Committee meeting that
follows the work session.
Structure and Function Diagram Revision.
Roll stated there is one other item on the docket regarding the structure
function on page 27. This was created at a time the Planning Unit was not actively
engaged or developed. As they go through the planning process, the IG and
Planning Unit were concerned that the original document didn't embody the players
or show the relationship of the governments. He hoped the newer version shows
the relationships better and also shows the relationship between the Planning Unit
and government -to- government relationship that is creating the joint management
plan. This is the second iteration in the process. The Planning Unit looked at it.
They are looking for conceptual approval of a document that represents the
structure and function of the WRIA process.
Hoag moved to hold this item in committee. She wanted a side -by -side
comparison of how they were told this would be and how it actually is. She also
wanted an explanation by the Public Utility District (PUD) of their statements about
the document being obsolete. They had a draft they agreed on. Until someone can
convince the Council to change it, they should stay with it. Roll stated the BIA
requested that the IG staff rework the document. Planning Unit members didn't
feel that it embodied their interest. The proposed changes are requested by the
Planning Unit members to have a rework of it and throw it back to the Planning Unit
for consideration in the future. That is where this came from. They need a full
discussion from everyone.
McShane questioned whether time is an issue. Roll stated there would be a
motion at the Planning Unit meeting to conceptually approve the document.
McShane questioned whether it is okay that the County doesn't have a
position. Roll stated he would abstain from the vote, and it would not move
forward because of a lack of consensus.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Nelson questioned whether this went through the Planning Unit. Roll stated
it did. It was introduced at the last meeting. It was in the last packet that he
handed out to the Councilmembers.
Hoag stated it is not from the Planning Unit. It is from the PUD.
Brenner stated she wanted to hear from Kathy Bovencamp. Bovencamp
stated this came out of a sense of frustration by Planning Unit about how they fit
into the IG process. The PUD did rework the original diagram. The only difference
is that they moved the Port of Bellingham and the water districts under the
government section. The only problem that people had with the diagram was with
the arrows that indicated that an item can go government to government, right up
to the initiating government group. They amended it to indicate that no plan can
go forward unless it goes through the Planning Unit as a whole. This is not of
timely importance.
Motion to hold in committee carried 2 -1 with Nelson opposed.
Nelson stated he was frustrated because incomplete information comes from
the IG asking for the Council's opinion. He would vote in favor of this and let the IG
hammer out their issues. This way, it will just go back and forth between the
Council and the Planning Unit.
Hoag requested that Bruce Roll express to the Planning Unit that the Council
wants a full explanation of the diagram. She agreed with Bovencamp's comments.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE FORMATION OF A SURFACE
MINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SMAC) (SCOPE OF WORK AND
MEMBERSHIP) (AB2000 -069A)
McShane stated he created a proposal for the scope and membership of the
committee.
Nelson suggested that the two citizens not associated with direct users or the
mining industry should be forestry members. Members of the community living
nearby are already represented. Specifying forestry folks would ensure a greater
involvement of others who will be represented.
McShane stated his intent was to bring forward neutral people, but he really
liked the idea of adding the forestry and agriculture sectors. He suggested
expanding the membership.
Hoag stated the makeup of the committee doesn't reflect the public interest
enough. It includes five people representing the industry or people hired by the
industry. Of the remaining members, two positions are impacted by mining and
two are supposed to be neutral. That is not what they were asked to put together.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
They were asked to put together a committee that would reflect the public, and also
have industry represented at the table. Of this, the majority of members is people
who are impacted by mining. They are looking at regulations that will protect these
people and have predictability for the industry.
McShane stated the civil and geo- technical engineers are aware of the
materials needed by the community and would represent the community, including
the material user. They could get more specific about the geologist. They could
find a geologist that would not represent the mining industry.
Hoag stated the point is there needs to be more citizen representation.
McShane stated he wanted the expertise represented, and was concerned
about size.
Hoag suggested increasing nearby citizen positions to at least four, one of
who would be located next to a quarry.
McShane questioned whether Nelson was comfortable with the membership
number.
Nelson stated anyone living next to a quarry would not want a quarry. The
idea of the committee in the Comprehensive Plan was to review the mineral
resource lands (MRL) criteria. Neighboring citizens couldn't provide the expertise.
They should look at capacities, subarea plans, inefficient use of high - quality
deposits, long range availability, and location of quality mineral resources. That
needs to be completed in five years. The committee Hoag proposes is something
meant to curtail or stop any type of mineral resource extraction, which goes against
the Growth Management Act (GMA).
McShane stated the scope would be addressed later in the meeting.
Brenner stated it would be helpful if councilmembers and committee
members did not editorialize others' intents. None of the technical people should
be eliminated. It is important that the industry and impacted people get together
and work things out. She has lived next to two major gravel pits. They've been
wonderful neighbors. The few problems were corrected immediately. She wanted
to make sure there are a lot of technical people. She liked what Councilmember
McShane proposed.
Hoag stated she didn't appreciate having intentions assigned to her. She
was not interested in shutting down the gravel industry. The Comprehensive Plan
calls for implementing a surface mining regulatory program consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan that addresses those areas where there is conflict between the
land uses. There are people living next to gravel pits who are not having a
problem. Others are having horrific problems. They need to adopt regulations that
are fair to the community and the operators. In order to do that, the advisory
committee should consist of an adequate amount of each. Her suggestion of
increasing citizen involvement to four is less than she would really prefer. The two
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
citizens that are not associated with direct users could be favorable towards the
industry. If that were the case, there would be seven members supporting the
industry and four citizens living next to the pits. All of the recommendations
coming from the committee would be one - sided. She didn't think that would
benefit the process. They need to have adequate representation on the committee
so that peoples' interests are looked after. A person's home is the single largest
investment they will make. A person should be able to live in his or her home in
relative peace. If that person has a use that comes in next to a home, it threatens
that peace. Those people should have representation and protection. The Council
should make certain that the regulations it adopts are adequate to protect people.
This shouldn't be about allowing an industry to run over neighbors. She didn't
understand why there would be a concern about citizens being on the committee.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated she appreciated
McShane's suggestions. The committee isn't a committee that is going to make the
regulations for the industry. It will address the action items of the Comprehensive
Plan and move them forward. Anything the committee brings forward needs to be
based in the reality of what is happening from the industry, technical, and
neighboring perspectives. The committee cannot take the Council's job. The
committee should not be too big in size and be the only means of input for the
public. The action items are not only based on what is happening to the neighbors.
They are also about the technical aspects of the industry. The committee should be
advisory to the Council and not do the Council's job of holding public hearings.
There has been a concern that the committee should not be numbered by those for
and against. It sounds as if the discussion is going back to that. She hoped this
isn't a committee in which every vote matters. She hoped that this is a committee
that discusses things that can be brought forward to the Planning Commission and
the County Council for additional input. As far as the number of citizens is
concerned, the citizens must represent interests, but should not balance out the
vote.
David Davidson, Sumas City Administrator, stated Sumas was heavily
involved on this issue during the Comprehensive Plan process. Some of the land
use conflict was for areas that had good gravel, agricultural soil, and aquifers.
There are issues aside from neighbor issues. There are also water quality and
agriculture issues. Those representatives are not included in the proposed
membership.
Hoag stated she agreed with Davidson. She wanted to see agricultural
representation on the membership.
McShane stated that is why this is before the committee. He would suggest
including an agricultural representative.
Hoag stated they looked at the previous SMAC, which was made up of mostly
citizens. She disagreed with Starkenburg- Kroontje, who represents the industry.
Her claim that the advisory committee does not need sufficient citizens to balance
out a vote is not a political reality. The advisory committees they establish are
structured to ensure there are enough of a particular interest represented to come
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
up with a workable project. They will be proposing regulations. Many times the
Council has taken the advice of its advisory committees. She wanted to see
something that has been thoroughly reviewed and that everyone can be
comfortable with.
Brenner stated she wanted the committee to be formed with enough different
interests so that some of the projects are worked out so that it doesn't even come
to the Council. She questioned whether that was possible. Starkenburg - Kroontje
stated part could be achieved through the regulatory processes that are developed
and through the enforcement levels. The Sand and Gravel Association is baffled by
the perception that surface mining is becoming a problem again. They have not
had a single complaint from neighbors. Those types of things can be worked into a
good neighbor policy. When the operators look around at their site, they are not
seeing the magnitude of problem that this seems to take on in the public's eye.
Brenner stated many sites may be naturally good neighbors. Some may not
be. It is not so much that people don't know they are in a mineral resource land
(MRL), but that some MRLs are treated differently. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated
the association is sensitive to making sure the operators do a better job with their
good neighbor policy.
Tom Brown, 7024 Mt. Baker Highway, stated he was concerned about the
direction of the committee and its membership. It will shape what is going to
happen. They need more resource -based representation, including agriculture,
timber, and mineral resource people. If they keep item six as it is, or add to it, it
will be difficult to get non - biased individuals. He foresees that individuals who have
been involved in lawsuits, who feel they weren't properly heard, will try to fill the
citizen advisory portion and keep trying to revisit the process the Comprehensive
Plan accomplished, which included much public input. In general, he hoped the
committee would include a majority of people knowledgeable of industry. Any
other County committee is comprised of knowledgeable folks. Someone who lives
in the vicinity of a mineral resource operation ought to be involved, but not
constitute the majority. He hoped the Council isn't going to adopt regulations at
this point. They need to take a look at what is on the books and use what is
already there to solve the problems. There is a lot that is already there. Laws
need to be brought together for clarity. They need to look at enforcing what is
there. He questioned whether individual councilmembers should be involved in the
committee's activities and to whom the committee would be responsible. They
need to know if there will be funding and staffing to make these things work.
Hoag stated the SMAC committee consisted of eleven members with
alternates, two members of the gravel mining industry with alternates, and
members of the public. In cases such as substance abuse, they deal with people
who are trying to control the problem and deal with the health industry, people who
suffer from the impacts of the abuse, and the general public. Regarding surface
mining, there is a similar mix that includes the industry, those impacted by the
industry, and those impacted in other ways, such as those who use the product. It
is important that the committee properly represents the public. She didn't see a
hydro - geologist represented. She suggested that they have ex officio members to
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
48
49
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
be called in as needed when dealing with a particular concern. Any technical
expertise could be from an ex officio member. They simply would not be voting
members. She agreed with Brown about having two citizens not associated with
the industry, as in item six. It could be abused. She would be more inclined to
have one member not associated with the industry. There are people out there
who don't live close to gravel pits, including her. There are people who are
educated on the issue. She suggested five citizens living in close proximity
including, but not limited to, one next to a quarry and one who lives outside of
mining or mineral overlay areas. She moved to have five citizens in relatively close
proximity to active mining or mineral overlay areas, including, but not limited to,
one who is next to a quarry.
Brad DeHaan, Ferndale Ready Mix, 1605 Van Dyke Road, stated the purpose
is to give technical advice to County Council.
Hoag stated that is not correct.
McShane stated that would be one role the committee would play. They
would also address the Comprehensive Plan action items.
DeHaan questioned why they would not want as many industry people as
possible if they are looking for advice on the industry. They are including a
material user, who could be someone who is possibly involved, and two members of
the mining industry. They have three people with some type of involvement in the
mining industry. Now Hoag is talking about including five citizens who haven't a
clue about how the industry works. They need to not have left wing and right wing
factions who will paralyze the committee.
Hoag asked to respond to DeHaan's comments.
McShane stated he did not want Hoag to respond because DeHaan brought
forward comments as a citizen that the committee should take in. The committee
doesn't need to respond other than by making its decision.
Hoag stated she wanted to correct something.
McShane stated Hoag's response to DeHaan's comments is inappropriate.
Nelson agreed with McShane.
Hoag asked for clarification on why it is inappropriate to respond to
testimony.
Nelson stated the committee is to make decisions. He questioned why they
would have citizens make comments, otherwise.
Hoag stated the SMAC is not a technical advisory committee. The SMAC
committee is called for in the Comprehensive Plan, to be made up of diverse
interests. The SMAC is being given the task to implement the action items, which
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
include coming up with a regulatory program and developing a coordinated and
consistent approach to regulation. When they talk about people not having a clue
about surface mining, the people who live next to gravel pits and quarries certainly
know much more about the impacts of the industry than even the industry knows.
The neighboring residents can say better than anyone can how loud it is, how much
it interferes with their sleep, and how much dust it produces.
McShane stated Hoag was being inappropriate.
Hoag stated she did not agree with McShane.
Brenner stated it is obvious they need to form this committee. The Council
needs to make sure the committee is balanced. The two sides that are the most
diametrically opposed include the surface mining industry and the citizens living in
close proximity. She suggested eliminating item six and assigning one citizen
representative with the residents living in close proximity to the activity, and assign
one citizen with the members of the surface mining industry. Davidson's comments
are valid. They need agriculture, water quality, and timber representatives. It is
important to have all the people on the committee be very interested in the issue.
She suggested that they eliminate the two citizen positions and have three industry
representatives, three neighbor positions, and add a timber /water
quality /agriculture position.
Hoag stated she did not accept that as a friendly amendment because the
geologist and material users are employed by the industry. They are not balancing
it out.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated the material user and the two surface mining industry
positions are the only ones that are directly involved. The geo- technical engineer
position and the geologist positions are for technical experts. They may be pro -
industry or they may be anti - industry. Councilmember Hoag shouldn't pigeonhole
those two positions as being pro- industry. They are neutral positions.
McShane agreed with the suggestion to add language to the civil engineer
and geologist positions so that they must not have any direct or indirect financial
business ties to the industry. They could find those individuals quite easily.
Hoag moved to have four positions on item five and one position on item six.
Nelson stated he supported diversity, not two sides pitted against each other.
McShane suggested three citizens who live in close proximity, including one
near a quarry, for item five. Item six would be three citizens, one each
representing agriculture, water resources, and forestry.
Hoag stated the reality of McShane's suggestion is that the committee will be
stacked for the mining industry, which will run roughshod over citizens' interests.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
There are many farmers who are interested in being able to mine on their land. If
one of those happens to get on the committee, they will have someone who is
supporting the surface mining industry. They already have two surface mining
industry people. They already agreed that a material user is likely to support
anything that the surface mining industry would like to support because, regardless
of what it does to the neighbors, it will result in a lower cost. She didn't know
where someone in the timber industry would fall on the issue. The point of all this
is not to try to create a committee in which people are pitted against each other,
but that all people are properly represented. If they have enough of the public on
the SMAC, as well as the technical expertise from the others, they will have a lot of
the problems worked out at the committee level. That is the point. Rather than
including three citizens that represent the agriculture, forestry, and water resources
areas, they should include the Conservation District, who was represented in the
original SMAC. She would specify that it be the Conservation Service for the
agriculture representation.
McShane stated his goal was to make a committee that is acceptable to the
Council as a whole. He didn't think Hoag's motion accomplishes that.
Hoag stated the Council, as a whole, is interested in having the problems
worked out at the committee level, rather than having a mess on its hands.
Nelson called for the questioned.
Hoag repeated the motion: four citizen representatives who live in relative
proximity, with one near a quarry; one citizen not associated with direct users (item
six); and add a member of the Conservation District. She also moved to include
the ability to call ex officio members as needed to cover technical expertise.
McShane stated the motion includes the original language to have one civil or
geo- technical engineer with no direct or indirect ties to the industry; a material
user; and a geologist with no direct or indirect ties to the industry.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the term "indirect" is too subjective.
Hoag stated a good geologist who works for the industry and is willing to
serve on the committee is not the point. She didn't want the committee weighted
on behalf of the gravel industry, however if there is a qualified geologist who
happens to do some work for the gravel industry, it should not eliminate his or her
ability to serve on the committee. They should remove the reference to direct or
indirect ties to the community for the geologist.
McShane stated the motion:
1. one civil or geo- technical engineer with no direct or indirect financial
business ties to the industry;
2. material user;
3. geologist;
4. two members of the surface mining industry;
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
48
49
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
5. four citizens who live in relatively close proximity to an active mine or in
the overlay, one of whom is near a quarry;
6. one representative from the Conservation District; and
7. one citizen not associated with direct users or the mineral industry.
Hoag stated this is a similar composition to the original SMAC.
Brenner stated she would be more comfortable with an agricultural
representative not specifically from the Conservation District. They need a farmer
on the committee. The Conservation District may not be a farmer representative.
Hoag stated both were on the original SMAC.
Brenner stated that if there is only one agriculture representative, it should
be as broad as possible.
Hoag stated the Conservation District would make sure the long -term
agricultural picture would be addressed. A farmer could be the citizen not
associated with mining. She wanted farmers included, but didn't know how to fit it
in. The original SMAC did not include a material user, geologist, or civil /geo-
technical engineer. When they include those people, a couple of farmers are
eliminated.
Starkenburg- Kroontje stated the last committee had a representative from
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who looked at geological issues.
There were three representatives from the surface mining industry, one who was
involved in concrete. A City of Ferndale Public Works staff filled a public works
position. Some of the people on the original SMAC were not just citizens. They
filled a position.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Nelson opposed.
Brenner asked that they include someone from the water resources and
forest industries.
McShane so moved.
Davidson stated the water resources person should represent someone with
groundwater as a potable, domestic supply, specifically a public water system or
private well owner.
McShane accepted Davidson's suggestion as an amendment to his motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to hold in committee. That will give the other councilmembers
a chance to comment on the structure of the committee. The committee could then
work on the SMAC scope of work.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 16
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
McShane stated the SMAC should deal with the action items as they see fit.
He would drop the item about further guidance. A priority list would be good. He
also suggested that the SMAC look at how existing regulations are being enforced.
The next Natural Resources Committee will only address the scope of the SMAC.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER
TRANSMISSION LINES CARRYING 115,000 VOLTS (AB200 -127)
McShane stated he needed to excuse himself because he sits on the Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and the Sumas Energy 2 project may come
up in the conversation.
Hoag questioned whether McShane discussed with EFSEC about voting on
this ordinance at the evening meeting.
McShane stated he checked with EFSEC. It is a gray area. As a matter of
appearance of fairness and because EFSEC will discuss the Sumas Energy 2 power
lines, he will abstain from voting.
Hoag questioned whether EFSEC told him they would discuss the power lines.
McShane stated the lines are in the draft environmental impact statement. It
is his decision that there is an appearance of fairness issue.
Hoag stated that EFSEC said the lines are not within their jurisdiction, and
but they are required in the draft environmental impact statement. EFSEC also said
they would not look at that part.
McShane stated there are questions about who will be purchasing the power
and that will play a role in decisions to site the plant.
(Clerk's Note: McShane left the room.)
Hoag stated there are two substitute ordinances. Staff recommended
changes to the ordinances in the packet. The substitutes reflect those changes.
Brenner questioned where the changes came from.
Hoag stated they came from Karen Frakes, Roland Middleton, and Sylvia
Goodwin.
Brenner asked Karen Frakes to explain the changes.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the staff's major
concerns were about form. If the Council is going to find that an emergency exists,
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 17
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
it needs to go into detail in the ordinance about the nature of the emergency.
Some of the changes are factual findings. Other changes are to comply with the
County Charter. If the Council adopts an emergency ordinance, it has to have a
section that details the facts upon which an emergency exists. There are two
separate ordinances. One is an emergency. The other ordinance imposes a
moratorium through the normal process. Findings of fact must support the action
in order to subvert the normal Planning Commission process. The findings can be
adopted at the time the ordinance is adopted, or the Council must hold a public
hearing after the ordinance is adopted.
Hoag stated there are two different substitute ordinances. The first one
includes added language making it an emergency ordinance. The second ordinance
was amended to remove some of the "Whereas" statements that Councilmember
Crawford wanted removed. The second ordinance is not written as an emergency
ordinance, so the Council can adopt whichever it prefers. Language about industrial
districts was added to the title because they are concerned about the 115,000 -volt
lines in those areas that would have added amperage without giving the Council a
chance to review that issue. However, higher voltage lines are already allowed in
industrial areas and in existing high -power corridors. They did not want to restrict
those areas by this moratorium. The lines greater than 115,000 volts are already
allowed in those corridors. They won't be restricted.
Also, the Council was advised to add a "Whereas" statement regarding what
science shows as the result of the high amperage loads. One "Whereas" statement
should be corrected, "Whereas, poles of greater height a-Fe may be required to carry
greater amperage loads; and," Depending on the electrical load, there are certain
required distances between lines. That is what makes utilities have to build higher
poles to carry those loads. It is required by code.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated it is not a code requirement, it
is a physical design requirement.
Hoag stated she also added a "Whereas" statement about the declaration of
non - significance.
Brenner questioned whether the declaration of non - significance was passed
on this ordinance. Middleton stated the declaration of non - significance was passed
on a moratorium.
Hoag stated she added language to Section 1(A) about the industrial
districts. There was a State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) report
exemption. She removed that language because they have the determination of
non - significance (DNS). The new section 2 contains the findings of fact that are
required in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and County Charter. Those are
all the changes in the first substitute emergency ordinance.
Brenner suggested changing language in one of the "Whereas" statements,
"Whereas, the language of the ordinance... enough to be tFu-Ey actually restrict
high...."
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 18
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Hoag agreed.
Dawson stated the Council received information from the Public Utility
District (PUD). The ordinance was brought forward due to concerns about
amperage being added to the transmission lines that are carrying 115,000 volts.
Hoag stated she wanted to complete her list of changes. She moved to
change language in one of the "Whereas" statements, "Whereas, the language of
the ordinance... enough to be y actually restrict high...."
Motion carried 2 -0 with McShane absent.
Hoag listed the changes in the second ordinance. In the title, they added the
same language about the industrial districts. The "Whereas" statements are the
same, except they've added a "Whereas" statement about the determination of
non - significance."
Brenner asked about differences between two ordinances.
Hoag stated some of the "Whereas" statements are absent from the second
ordinance, as amended by Councilmember Crawford at a previous meeting. Legal
staff and planning staff were concerned because some of those statements were
important.
Dawson suggested hearing from public.
Middleton stated that if the Council passes an emergency ordinance, it should
get specific about what the concerns are. He was concerned because one or two of
the "Whereas" statements that were removed really addresses the point they are
trying to make."
Hoag stated the second ordinance specifies that the moratorium will expire in
six months, unless terminated prior to that, pursuant to the RCW.
Larry Willman, 214 N. Commercial, Intergroup Development Corp. President,
stated his company does nothing but permit environmentally sensitive projects. He
represented PUD #1. He had some questions. If this is an interim ordinance, it
doesn't go into effect until 13 days after it is adopted.
Frakes stated it has to be introduced 13 days before it is acted upon. Once
the Council acts, it goes to the Executive for signature. It is effective ten days after
the Executive signs the ordinance.
Willman stated the question is whether the action that took place two weeks
ago began the 13 -day timeline. Frakes stated the ordinance in the packet was
introduced. There have been some changes, but she believed they are complying
with that 13 -day period.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 19
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Hoag questioned whether there is any time limit on how long the Executive
has to sign the ordinance. Frakes stated the Executive has a limited amount of
time. If the Executive doesn't sign it, there is a date where it doesn't matter and
the ordinance becomes effective after that period. She would check into the
timeline.
Dawson questioned whether the PUD plans to add any amperage to their
lines. Willman stated there isn't a hearing to explain the PUD's status, as the
affected party. At the meeting two weeks ago, Councilmember McShane was asked
to vote because he was exempt from EFSEC. This did not have anything to do with
the Sumas plan, but rather with transmission lines in general. If that is the case,
the moratorium isn't about the Sumas Plant. He questioned whom it was about.
The original ordinance stated 115 kilovolts did not constitute a health problem. If
there was new evidence that came along at any time, it would be reexamined.
According to all the electromagnetic field (EMF) consultants that they've contacted,
there is no new evidence that would show there is any greater danger.
Hoag stated Councilmember McShane abstained from voting because he was
concerned it would appear he would take a position, pro or con, on the Sumas plant
because of the proposed lines that are associated with that plant and that are
covered in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) of that plant.
Willman stated he spoke with Mr. McShane. He also has the transcript and
Mr. McShane's interpretation of the reason for abstaining. He wanted the
opportunity to express the PUD's reservations about the moratorium.
Hoag explained the goal of the moratorium because Willman was talking
about whether or not they plan to run 115 kilovolt lines that have additional
amperage.
Willman stated that was not correct. The PUD line that will run, at the
request of Georgia- Pacific (G -P) and Bellingham Cold Storage, is exclusively in the
City of Bellingham, except it has to come off the Bonneville Power Association
power easements. The portion of the line in the County is 1,100 feet and is two
poles, limited to 115 kilovolts. The discussion about the moratorium is not about
115 kilovolts, but about poles that are designed to hold 230 kilovolts.
Hoag stated the issue is about amperage.
Willman stated the amperage that the PUD is going to put in will not exceed
the 115 kilovolts. They can stipulate that. This does not affect the Sumas plant.
The Sumas plant will not benefit or be harmed by this. They are several years
down the line. Puget Sound Energy will not be harmed because they already have
115 kilovolt lines all over the place. There is evidence that 115 kilovolt lines are
everywhere.
Hoag stated the ordinance addresses 115 kilovolts of higher amperage.
Willman is talking about 115 kilovolt lines.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 20
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Willman stated he is talking about 115 kilovolt lines.
Hoag stated that is not the issue of the ordinance.
Dawson suggested that they amend the ordinance to address lines that
exceed 115 kilovolts.
Willman stated that is reasonable.
Hoag stated they are missing the point entirely. She asked how many
megawatts the PUD will be carrying. Willman stated they don't know yet.
Hoag stated the concern of the committee and the Council is about the
amperage.
Willman stated elected officials are expected to carry out agendas and
promote causes. He suggested some of the decision - makers here have an interest
in the PUD not going forward with the PUD project.
Hoag stated this came up because of the proposed power plant and the
proposed lines that would run across Whatcom County.
Willman asked how Councilmember Hoag knew the PUD intends to submit its
application within the next two weeks. Hoag stated she did not know that.
Willman stated Councilmember Hoag wrote a letter on Council stationary and
introduced the letters when Bellingham Cold Storage and G -P signed their
agreement with the PUD. Councilmember Hoag's letter said there should not be
any PUD allowed to go forward in unfair competition with Puget Sound Energy. It is
a known fact that Councilmember Hoag's husband is a senior person with Puget
Sound Energy.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Willman continued to state that no one plans to put in a permit within 60
days except Public Utility District #1. Georgia- Pacific and Bellingham Cold Storage
will not be able to enter into a competitive arena, but will be the victims of a
monopoly.
Hoag stated she is married to an electrical engineer for Puget Sound Energy.
The Council did send a letter at the request of Puget Sound Energy. She abstained
from the vote to send the letter because her husband works for Puget Sound
Energy. The letter from the Council said it did not feel it was in the public's best
interest to have the PUD pick the big users off the system and leave residential
customers to pick up the cost.
Willman stated he was talking about the letter from Councilmember Hoag to
Puget Sound Energy.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 21
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Nelson stated Councilmember Hoag wrote and signed her own letter.
Brenner stated Councilmember Hoag wrote a private letter making that
statement.
Hoag stated Kathy Larson from Puget Sound Energy requested the letter.
She read from the letter.
Willman questioned whether Councilmember Hoag wrote the letter as a
representative of the Council.
Hoag stated Kathy Larson asked all councilmembers to respond to the
hearing that was going to be held. She was familiar with the issue because of her
role as a telephone company employee and from what she observed when users
were taken from the company. This was not directed at the PUD and she did not
know the PUD was planning to file an application within two weeks. She wanted to
give other people a chance to speak at this meeting. Her letter was not aimed at
the PUD. The PUD said they were not planning to run any additional lines.
Willman stated the Council now understands that the PUD, under contractual
constraints, has to have two lines, totaling 1,100 feet, submitted.
Hoag stated they need to know what the megawatts will be.
Willman stated he would provide that information before the evening
meeting.
Nelson questioned whether the PUD would compete with Puget Sound Energy
if the lines go in. Willman stated that is the essence of what the PUD will do. The
PUD was asked to create a competitive marketplace. Those users went to the PUD.
Nelson asked if the moratorium would affect that. Willman stated it would.
Contractually, the PUD has to perform the permitting. The agreement between
Puget Sound Energy and Bellingham Cold Storage /G -P will run out. At that point,
they will be at the mercy of Puget Sound Energy unless the permitting can get
through. It was not anticipated there would be an emergency moratorium on 115
kilovolt lines that would materially affect the ability to do that.
Nelson stated there is a direct interest there.
Hoag stated the ordinance was not directed at the PUD. It was in response
to testimony from public officials and from the public who was concerned about
proposed lines running across the county. She was not aware that the PUD lines
are 115 kilovolt. She was surprised because Bellingham Cold Storage and G -P are
very large users. If the PUD chose to use the existing lines, there would not be
duplicate lines. The moratorium doesn't stop the process.
Willman stated he would be happy to provide the letters to Puget Sound
Energy in which the PUD offered to purchase their lines. Their answer was no.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 22
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
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntly Road, Bellingham, stated he was on the
Neighbors Opposing Power Encroachment (NOPE) committee. He was the person
who called all the utilities together to work on the utility portion of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is one of the better documents in the state because of the
NOPE initiative. He was confused about this, but believed the ordinance was to
work with Sumas Energy and the proposed 115 kilovolt lines that would run
through the County. He went to the initial meeting on January 4 in Sumas and
talked with the project engineer. His interest is in the transmission lines. Sumas
Energy hired a consultant from Portland who was to draw up an opportunity for the
115 - kilovolt lines to run through the county. His criteria for drawing the lines was
based on population density only, and attempted to keep it away from a majority of
the people. The state environmental impact statement said the lines would be part
of the EIS because they were part of the plant siting. If they ended up in the EIS,
they would be part of how the plant would be built. He is not for or against the
lines. It is inappropriate for a Portland consultant to describe lines on a map based
only on population density. The Comprehensive Plan says the County must plan for
utility corridors, which hasn't been done. The County was not given an opportunity
to sit at the table and ask the people who will build the power line, meaning Puget
Sound Energy, to use the existing 115 kilovolt poles. Initiative 490 was written to
make the lines stay in utility corridors and for the County to plan utility corridors.
Maybe they could move 230 - kilovolt power in Whatcom County from that facility to
the existing major Bonneville corridor. Maybe they could move in the gas lines and
create what they need. To have a Portland consultant only look at population
density is ridiculous and flies in the face of the Growth Management Plan. He
wanted to see the moratorium go into effect if it is a statement that says the
County can do better than where the line on the map now exists.
Marlene Noteboom, Lynden, stated she would skip some of her presentation
due to lack of time. She encouraged all to read the DEIS about the transmission
lines. Page 3.12 -8 of the DEIS says that EMF levels of the 115 kilovolt lines,
compared to the three -phase distribution lines, would be higher, thus
approximately 60 percent of the route would result in increased levels of EMF as a
result of the new lines. The nearest residence to either line would be approximately
75 feet. She drove two miles of one of those routes and counted eleven households
that are 75 feet or closer to those lines. Her house is at 20 feet from the line. She
can provide much information supporting the fact that they need to take a look at
EMF levels. She has a medical background. Continuing education is extremely
important as part of her professional career. This time is needed for continuing
education. The residences want time to provide testimony that will provide people
information about what this might cause and where this should go.
Cal Leenstra, 1802 Lakeside. stated he is against the 115 kilovolt line,
especially in the Birchwood Street area. He just bought a building that will house
medical care personnel. There are medical centers in the vicinity. This is in an
industrial zone. They don't want industrial zone property to not be affected by the
moratorium. Plenty of properties in the City of Bellingham are zoned Industrial, but
are used for something that is completely different. Birchwood is one of those
areas. Cornwall Park is on Birchwood Avenue and the city is looking at extending
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 23
DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This
document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained
herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom
County Council.
1 the park on Birchwood Avenue. They can't say that EMF at 115 kilovolts are no
2 problem. If it isn't a problem today, it may be in ten years. They don't know for
3 sure. He was not in favor of 115 - kilovolt line within 40 feet of his building. They
4 should consider that the school district abandoned the Britton Road property
5 because of public concern about EMF. Perception is truth when it comes to EMF and
6 property values. Lines can be leased from Puget Power. He suggested they lease
7 lines instead of building more. He was also involved in NOPE. He is against the
8 proliferation of the additional 115 - kilovolt lines. They should keep the existing
9 corridors, such as the Bonneville Power Administration corridor. If that is not
10 possible, they should use existing facilities that could be leased.
11
12 Hoag asked what line would go past Birchwood. Leenstra stated the PUD line
13 would be a 115 - kilovolt line to serve Bellingham Cold Storage. The line goes along
14 the existing railroad track, which is behind the growing medical district. He
15 suggested the lines be put on Orchard Street instead of Birchwood Avenue because
16 that is where their main facility is. Power lines devalue property. There is no
17 provision for compensating property owners whose property has been devalued.
18 Compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
19
20
21 ADJOURN
22
23 The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
24
25
26
27
28 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 24