Your browser does not support modern web standards implemented on our site
Therefore the page you accessed might not appear as it should.
See www.webstandards.org/upgrade for more information.

Whatcom Watch Bird Logo


Past Issues


Whatcom Watch Online
Old Growth, Landfills and Wetlands


October-November 2014

Twenty Years Ago

Old Growth, Landfills and Wetlands

To celebrate over 20 years of publishing Whatcom Watch, we will be publishing excerpts from 20 years ago. David M. Laws has been generous enough to volunteer to review the Whatcom Watch from 20 years ago to find suitable material to reprint. The below excerpts are from the October and November, 1994 issue of Whatcom Watch.

Proposed Logging of Old Growth Forest at Canyon Lake Creek Whatcom County Land Owned by Trillium and Trees by Citifor of China

by Andy Ross

Two companies are proposing to harvest old growth forest in Canyon Lake Creek watershed, which is east of and above the confluence of the North and Middle Forks of the Nooksack River (Forest Practice Application 1917850). Citifor Inc. (of China) owns the trees, and Trillium, Inc. (local) owns the land. The forest bears more resemblance to the montane-sub-alpine forests around Picture Lake near the end of the Mt. Baker Highway than to nearby lowland forests. In the area of the proposed harvest, winter snows linger into July, and nearby are 800-year-old trees only two to three feet in diameter.

All the exportable grade timber is to be harvested from the 118 acres Trillium owns, except for 34 acres lacking merchantable trees (meadows, a few “decadent” mountain hemlocks, and 14 acres around several small creeks. All that will remain are trees less than 10 inches in diameter and larger ones that are defective (e.g., a blown-out top), or in the immediate vicinity of steep headwater creeks. The trees left standing adjacent to the creeks are supposed to alleviate slope stability concerns (which involves considerably more and that have not been addressed). We will not live to see the forest regain a tenth of its current structure. Regeneration of the trees themselves happens far more quickly than re-establishment of the harvested forest. But even the regeneration of the trees themselves is not guaranteed here due to the harsh climate. In addition, survival of planted seedlings is limited by the steep, rocky soils.

[...]

Eighty-six percent of Canyon Lake Creek watershed has been harvested once, some of it twice. … The forest of the inner gorge likely made a substantial contribution to holding up the slopes . . . and would have helped stabilize the channel during and after slope failures and elevated streamflows (i.e., floods) by falling into the channel. Large trees, yards in diameter and over a hundred feet tall, in the stream-channel could contribute substantially to channel stability. It seems obvious that Canyon Lake Creek has not always been degraded as is now the case.

Salmon (yes, they still exist) have tried to use Canyon Lake Creek’s alluvial fan in the past. Good salmon habitat is rare, and good habitat that lasts from one fall to the next is even rarer. The stream channel of the alluvial fan shifts considerably year to year and even within a single winter. In 1984, 70 fall chinook showed up, though I did not find any data to determine if their young returned. The potential for good, stable salmon habitat is enormous in Canyon Lake Creek, which in light of the critical condition of salmon stocks in the Nooksack should be fostered (forested), not hindered. This proposed harvest in Canyon Lake Creek watershed could impact the frequency and magnitude of channel altering streamflows and peakflows—for the worse. The impacts could last decades or more: time the salmon don’t have.

[…]

As of September 14, 1994, the application to harvest was under review by the Department of Natural Resources, Northwest Region office, to determine if the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist submitted by the applicant (Citifor and Trillium) was adequate and if the impact was significant (DS, determination of significance) or not significant (DNS, determination of non-significance). The paperwork for a DNS was filled out prior to August 30, 1994, and is now on Phil Meyer’s (Assistant Regional Manager) desk for review and his signature, if he determines that the proposed harvest will not significantly effect the quality of the environment. It will, but nonetheless, he has far too little information on which to base and justify a DNS.

Garbage, Compost, Incinerators, Landfills, and Politics: Which Stinks Most?

by Nancy Keene

If you have read the Bellingham Herald in the last six months you probably have noticed quite a bit of coverage about various garbage issues. KGMI regularly features Barbara Brenner and Bob Imhof calling each other names about these issues, and even the Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress have helped muddy the garbage waters. So what really is going on? Nationally, who knows? Locally, the smell of money is intricately entwined with that of garbage. The following is an attempt to clearly lay all the issues out so you can make up your own mind what is right.

[...]

The [County] directs the County’s waste to the highest priority disposal method outlined in that ordinance: processing (removing recyclables and compostables from mixed garbage), incinerating, and finally landfilling. [This] gives Recomp a virtual monopoly in Whatcom County as long as they remove some recyclables, which also includes the compostable parts of our garbage, before incinerating the rest. […] Recomp has only been able to remove 3 percent of the waste as recyclables at a cost/ton that is ten times higher than curbside recycling. For the past year and a half they have not removed any recyclables. […] The processing recyclables/incineration priority … costs $880,000 a year more than landfilling …. The ordinance also contains no cost control measures … [Recomp] can charge whatever they want, and the county cannot opt for a lower priority disposal method.

[..] The state considers incineration and landfilling to be equal disposal technologies, so how did Whatcom County come to give incinerators such a clear priority? The short answer is… there were two incinerator operators who were very good at convincing politicians that incinerators were the technology of the future. […]

A number of state-of-the-art regional landfills … now have the capacity of generating energy from methane gas. […] The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that incinerator ash … must be treated as hazardous waste … The U.S. EPA has recently released a study that finds that … municipal solid waste incinerators are one of the three leading sources of dioxins being released into the environment.

So fare the two incinerator operators are still very good at convincing politicians that incinerators are environmentally preferable to landfills. They are also very good at convincing politicians that since they invested the money to build the incinerators to burn this county’s garbage the county owes them the extra $880.000 per year. What do you think?

Nancy Keene is a member of the Whatcom County Solid Waste Advisory Committee

Squalicum Creek Wetlands Threatened

by Sue Lorentz

Squalicum Valley within the City has been a haven for wildlife and fisheries for many years. It is a diverse system of wetlands, riparian zones, mixed forests and meadow areas. Two small lakes and good public access help make the area a community treasure.

Squalicum is changing rapidly though. Industrial development interests are pressuring City government to convert these areas to industrial uses allowed in the now [sic] comprehensive plan.

Land use disputes in the past fostered a recent effort to re-evaluate land uses within the valley in light of more stringent environmental protection laws currently in effect. A citizen task force has prepared new land use recommendations through implementation of a Coastal Zone Management Grant process sponsored by the State Dept. of Ecology. For the most part, these recommendations transfer development activity away from high quality wetlands, the stream corridor and the floodway, knowing that these features in this location are irreplaceable.

Presently the City Council is considering whether to adopt what is known as the Beck Floodplan, a means of protecting existing development while acknowledging that certain wetland areas are regulated to the extent that they are probably not developable.

A major property owner, Bellingham Cold Storage (BCS), is requesting that the city consider an alternate floodplan. If this alternate plan were accomplished, development of BCS property consisting of Category I and II forested wetlands would come closer to permanent conversion, as much as 36 acres.

Alternatives for BCS expansion exist along the north side of Orchard Drive, west of I-5 adjacent to existing freezer warehouses. This alternative could be achieved more cost effectively without destroying high value wetlands, but the owner is resisting.

During four public hearings on the floodplan before the City Council, no one has testified in support of the proposed floodplan, but rather testimony has come from property owners concerned about reduced development options. The wetlands have been presumed safe, for now. During the September 26th hearing, however, BCS consultants presented a plan for berming Sunset Pond along James Street and the railroad grade to the north to impound water on public and private land between James Street and Hannegan Road during extreme flooding events. The City Council has instructed staff to seriously consider this alternative. Citizen participation is near absent. Forested wetlands are now seriously threatened. The City Council does not appear to believe there is a significant constituency concerned about wetland loss. Where are all of you that are concerned about preserving the remaining wetland acreage in Bellingham? Investigate this matter. Call or write your Council now! Time is running out.


Back to Top of Story