HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 3 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
June 3, 2008
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD REQUESTED BY WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (AB2008 -199)
Weimer stated there have been concerns with the Board since it was formed.
Members haven't kept up with their training requirements. The Board has not been
functional for a couple of years. He asked if the Committee wants to go forward with the
dissolution.
Fleetwood moved to grant the request and recommend dissolution to the full
Council. It was well- intentioned to begin with. They can create a new board in the future if
necessary. Now, all responsible parties are recommending dissolution.
Weimer stated a ordinance will come forward. He will make sure the original citizen
proponents still have any interest in continuing this board.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON THE COUNTY'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE CODES
RELATED TO PROTECTING WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT (AB2008 -217)
Weimer stated they hear often that the County has excellent protection codes, but
doesn't have good enforcement. He would like to hear from those folks.
Wendy Steffenson, ReSources North Sound Bay Keeper, stated a stormwater team
was formed in 2004. Also, she has comments on the critical areas ordinance (CAO). She
discussed the history of the critical areas ordinance. The CAO and shoreline management
program (SMP) processes were very thorough and incorporated best available science.
There was a wide variety of stakeholders on the citizen advisory committee. There was also
a technical advisory committee. They worked well together, even though they didn't all
agree. Everyone was pleased with the products.
She has heard from many sources that the County's CAO isn't being enforced. She
investigates citizen complaints about the CAO. She is working with the County on a public
disclosure request.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, Page 1
The first issue is that the County doesn't track its permits by whether or not the
subject property is in a critical area. Someone can't look up permits by critical area.
Getting the information has been difficult. They are doing tedious public disclosure requests
about whether there has been building or fill and grade activity in critical areas. Record
keeping has to change.
Record - keeping is poor. The technical administrator is supposed to issue written
verification that a proposal complies with the chapter. If there is written verification, no
further action is needed. The technical administrator is usually the critical areas inspector,
who does not verify certain important information. They need to know the wetland or
stream category, the required buffer size, and the distance between the activity and the
critical area. Staff should track that information.
Also, the final inspection doesn't note any critical areas. They must have follow -up
and notation on the final inspection. She is working on an audit of this process with the
County.
Fleetwood asked who is making the complaints. Steffenson stated they are
anonymous complaints.
Weimer asked how many permits they've looked at. Steffenson stated they've
looked at three permits.
Kelly asked if the complaints were made to the County or to Ms. Steffenson.
Steffenson stated the complaints were made to her. Some people are not comfortable
going to County government. She is aware of the County's complaint process.
Oliver Grah, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the staff would
like to work with Ms. Steffenson to educate her on the County's processes. It's great that a
citizen group is looking into the County process. Once the group becomes informed of the
County process, Ms. Steffenson will also be confident that the County wants an effective
regulatory program. A limiting factor has to do with the volume of complaints and follow -up
of citizen complaints and requests for information. They do have a large staff involved with
permit review and enforcement follow -up. He introduced the County staff members.
Crawford stated a statement was made that people are uncomfortable coming to the
County. He asked if there is a process for keeping anonymity. Grah stated there is. He
explained the process. They get a large number of citizen inquiries for follow -up
investigations. So far this year there are 150 enforcement cases, most from citizen
complaints. At least half are regarding environmental issues. Not many have been closed
yet because they take quite a bit of time. He described the investigatory process. They
take all citizen inquiries very seriously. Citizens may disclose information anonymously.
Crawford stated the County is good about working with people to mitigate their
violations and get the person the proper permit applications. The staff does a good job of
differentiating between people who knowingly do violations and people who aren't aware.
Staff is good about working with those folks who didn't realize they had to have permits as
opposed to heavy- handed punishment.
Weimer asked if there is a resource issue for dealing with these issues or if they
need to streamline the process.
Lee First, Resources North Sound Bay Keeper, stated she manages stormwater team
volunteers. They monitor erosion control on construction sites. Their main concern is that
sediment doesn't leave construction sites and enter water bodies. They report violations.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, Page 2
1 They visit hundreds of sites each year, and report over 100 to the appropriate jurisdiction.
2 In the last six months, they visited 57 County sites. Of those, they reported 18 of the sties
3 due to violations or potential violations. Of the County sites she looked at, 32 percent
4 needed action. Within the City of Bellingham, 12 percent of the sites warranted action.
5 Sixteen percent of State sites warrant action. Therefore, twice as many County sites
6 require more frequent site visits and more action taken. She described photos of example
7 sites that violate stormwater control requirements.
8
9 Weimer stated they have many volunteers who look at many sites. He asked if they
10 track the sites they've reported to make sure they are fixed. First stated they don't have
11 the resources to go out into the county. They try to revisit sites in the city, but they don't
12 always get there.
13
14 Weimer asked if they notice a difference in compliance in the Lake Whatcom
15 watershed versus other locations. First stated compliance is better in the Lake Whatcom
16 watershed. Only one site they looked at was bad.
17
18 Weimer asked if it has been consistent over the last three years that the City has
19 better compliance than the County. First stated she only looked at statistics for the last six
20 months.
21
22 Weimer asked why the City would have better compliance than the County. First
23 stated the City of Bellingham and the State actually appreciate their reports.
24
25 Steffenson stated that when they started, all sites, including in the City, were bad.
26 The City has greatly improved. At first, the City staff resented their work. However, it's
27 become a more positive working relationship. The City has also beefed up their
28 enforcement staff. Areas in the City, but not the County, have tightened up.
29
30 Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Community Oyster Farm Manager, submitted and
31 read from a summary (on file) of complaints he's filed in the Drayton Harbor watershed.
32 Most of the problems seem to be with funding issues, and are not a reflection of the
33 competency of County staff.
34
35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
36
37 Menzies continued to read from his summary. He submitted photos of one of the
38 properties (on file).
39
40 Kelly asked what Mr. Menzies recommends the County do. Menzies stated the
41 County should enforce the laws it already has. The County should respond more rapidly.
42 There should be staff and resources to allow more enforcement. Staff should respond to a
43 complaint within a week or two and work with the landowner.
44
45 Kelly stated councilmembers have little or no control over staff and what they do,
46 other than making sure there is enough staff. It's very unfortunate that a small business
47 person has to take his time to come here just to keep in business. Menzies stated the issue
48 isn't staff competency, but available staff resources.
49
50 Fleetwood asked who is required to have a conventional farm plan. Grah stated
51 there are three levels of agricultural activity that warrant different farm plans. He explained
52 the farm plan levels. Most cases that Mr. Menzies mentioned were low impact operations.
53
54 Fleetwood asked if there could be a farm operation small- enough that it does not
55 require a farm plan. He asked if all operations that could potentially cause water quality
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, Page 3
1 problems are covered under farm plans. Grah stated the goal of the Conservation and
2 Preservation of Agricultural Lands (CPAL) portion of the ordinance is to have all ongoing
3 agriculture that are in critical areas or buffer areas comply with that section of the Code
4 through the preparation and approval of a farm plan, so best management practices can be
5 identified and implemented to minimize adverse effects on water quality and habitat. All
6 ongoing agricultural uses should be under a farm plan of one type or another.
7
8 Kelly asked if people have a hard time getting complete farm plans. He asked if
9 there is enough staff to make sure those plans are created. Grah stated that is a complex
10 answer.
11
12 Menzies submitted a handout on sites in the watershed where there are bacteria
13 levels that exceed 200 colonies per 100 mL (on file).
14
15 Scott Wallace, citizen, stated he is concerned with lack of enforcement of the CAO
16 and farm plans. They are concerned about preventing damage to aquifer recharge,
17 wetland, and wildlife habitat areas. He described an issue with one property owner. They
18 tried to educate the property owner on best practices, but the property owner was not
19 interested. The County did not enforce the CAO with this property owner, and caused fecal
20 coliform levels to go from three to 130, and also caused algae blooms. He submitted a
21 handout of photos (on file). The State Department of Ecology (DOE) cited the property
22 owner and encouraged a farm plan. The County did not process that farm plan. There have
23 been continued violations, and the property owner hasn't shown concern for potential
24 problems. It took the Planning Department three months to respond to the citizen inquiry
25 he filed. There still has been no corrective action on the property for the 2007 land
26 disturbance and no monitoring of manure and paddock management. Damage continues to
27 the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and aquifer.
28
29 Before any new laws or taxes are passed, fairly and consistently enforce the existing
30 laws first. Collect legitimate revenues for permits. These can be applied to enforcement.
31 Make sure there is adequate funding. Cross -train County Assessor staff to look for
32 violations. The County complaint process doesn't work.
33
34 Weimer asked if this owner has a farm plan yet. Wallace stated they have submitted
35 applications for farm plans.
36
37 Weimer stated one message seems to be about record - keeping issues. Another
38 issue seems to be a slow response time. Grah stated all the staff take these issues and
39 their jobs very seriously. They are professionals with appropriate training and supervisor
40 guidance. There is almost enough staff to review permit applications. There isn't enough
41 staff for enforcement and code compliance. Only half of one fulltime equivalent (FTE)
42 employee is dedicated to natural resource code enforcement. They are doing the very best
43 they can with very limited staffing resources.
44
45 One staff person has been redirected to the CPAL program, but most of that staff
46 person's time is dedicated to permit review and public outreach to agricultural operators.
47 They do a lot of innovative planning for addressing all of these programs. The County
48 contracts with the Conservation District to prepare up to 200 farm plans, as an extension of
49 this public outreach program, which is a new activity. They hope to continue it next year
50 with continued funding.
51
52 The County staff is deficient in terms of numbers and timely follow up, but not in
53 dedication and professionalism. Staff does an amazing amount of work. Sometimes the
54 workload is two or three months out. They try to give emphasis to notifications that appear
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, Page 4
1 to have great public risk. Many cases may involve neighbor disputes, and it takes a lot of
2 time for staff to realize they are just neighbor disputes.
3
4 All the testimony given has some merit in terms of record - keeping. In the past, their
5 computer records have been based on staff memories. They have a program now to make
6 record - keeping more complete. Staff are asked to enter records in a way that anyone can
7 understand them, including future staff and the public.
8
9 Weimer stated he was surprised that there is no way to search whether a property is
10 under the CAO. Grah stated that's untrue. They must have a complete map for any parcel
11 where development activity is proposed. It may not be a highly accurate map. As proposed
12 development gets closer and closer to the critical area or its buffer, site specific delineations
13 for wetlands are required, conducted by a qualified specialists with a report that documents
14 the study. There may be many development permits on parcels that have CAO, but the
15 developments are well -away from the critical area and their buffer, so an assessment or
16 delineation doesn't need to be recorded in the Tidemark system. If a development proposal
17 encroaches into a critical area or buffer, and they ultimately approve the adverse impact,
18 they require compensatory mitigation. If they require compensatory mitigation, they set up
19 a mitigation case. All of the activity is recorded under that mitigation case. If a
20 development activity is ultimately permitted next to critical areas or in buffers,
21 compensatory mitigation is required. The staff track that activity under a different case
22 type.
23
24 Steffenson stated she understands the mitigation process. The purpose of the audit
25 is to determine if there is enough mitigation to enter into a critical area. Now, the County
26 can't answer the question of whether a critical area exists on a particular parcel of land.
27 They can track parcels that have mitigations, but those are only parcels in which the County
28 staff has determined is appropriate. It's not going to catch parcels where mitigation may be
29 appropriate according to the larger community, but perhaps not by Whatcom County
30 government.
31
32 Grah stated all staff involved are trained in wetlands identification and delineation.
33 On projects where a development is well away from such areas, there may not be notes in
34 the computer because it isn't a concern. However, the process still needs to include
35 documentation about whether there are wetlands or other critical areas on the parcel.
36 Regarding a specific permit application, 'there may not be a large number of notes in that
37 regard. When a project is proposed in or near a critical area is when the site investigations
38 and documentation become greater. However, they do take serious the Code that says
39 every development proposal must include a map of all critical areas on a parcel.
40
41 There is an idea from the Department Director to create a critical areas case. They
42 would evaluate and certify parcels for suitability of development, independent of a specific
43 development action. That way, a parcel is pre- screened for development in advance. It
44 would require an accurate map of critical areas and buffers for that parcel.
45
46 Kelly asked what fits into the category of natural resources enforcement. Grah
47 stated it includes agricultural nutrient loading.
48
49 Kelly asked the total number of enforcement staff, in the entire department.
50 Stalheim indicated there are four enforcement staff in the department.
51
52 Grah stated watershed staff is also involved with enforcement and monitoring
53 regarding certain watershed items. There is one primary enforcement officer, who will
54 recruit the assistance from technical specialists from different programs.
55
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, 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
50
Kelly asked how many staff are out in the field looking for compliance and doing
enforcements. Grah stated there are four positions. Three are filled.
Weimer asked about record - keeping using law enforcement methods. Grah stated
there is a lot of room for improvement regarding record - keeping. He's trying to make sure
staff are doing effective record - keeping for the public and future staff.
Crawford asked why the Planning and Development Services Department staff
requires mitigation at the time of subdivision, not at the time of building. He's been told
that it's too difficult to track those mitigation requirements over the years. He asked why
staff can't track those requirements. He asked how the County can do a better job of
tracking that information by parcel. Grah stated there is a land division process and a
development process. Now they are recognizing they are two separate processes. The land
division process is more of a planning task at the conceptual level. When the development
process begins, it depends on the plans for the lot. Laws may change. They have to make
sure permit decisions are well- informed and uphold the goal of the critical areas ordinance,
which is to protect public health and safety. An activity vested when a subdivision were
approved may not be effective to current standards for protecting public health and safety.
Weimer stated he appreciates the work people are doing. He would like staff to
respond to the citizens about the specifics of the cases they've brought forward. Also,
incorporate citizen volunteer efforts to help the staff identify problems. Grah stated they
would do that. They have worked with Mr. Menzies in the past. They will work with any
members of the public.
Weimer asked which water resource level of service would address enforcement.
Grah stated level of service three or four would begin to address enforcement.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
� �� 0 Nof Y
.•• H• •. '''•
Dana Brawn• is ail G1erk;
•.h' /NG'r�. •
fee
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 6/3/2008, Page 6