Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole November 9 19991 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole November 9, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Absent: Kathy Sutter None L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Tom Brown Robert Imhof 1. WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT ON PLANNING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB99 -017) (Clerk's Note: Portions of the conversation were inaudible on the tape.) George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, stated a report on the District's activities is required by the Critical Areas Ordinance on an annual basis. (Report on file.) Included in the report is a letter of transmittal that details specific activities for the years 1998 and 1999. It also makes reference to his presentation. The purpose of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Conservation Planning on Agricultural Lands (CPAL), which is a portion of that, is to provide environmental protection for agricultural land and to meet the dictates of the Growth Management Act. The goals of the CPAL were a synthesis of the recognition that agriculture is critical to the community and they wanted to maintain production of food and forage. At the same time, there is a new recognition of the natural resource systems. They are trying to meld the two with the new regulations and ease the burden of excessive and confusing regulations. Brenner asked if they are to help with the regulations on a local, state, or federal level. Boggs stated they would try and consolidate the layers of government into one place they can go to set aside the issues regarding shorelines, the Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other regulations. The team effort includes Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department. They inform the property owners of the program, review and comment on plans, and enforce compliance with approved plans and the Critical Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, 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 Areas Ordinance. The Conservation District's role is to review and approve plans that may be generated elsewhere, although they haven't seen that. They also provide technical assistance in drafting the plans and teach alternative methods and best management practices. Brenner questioned whether the farmers are charged a fee for the District's review and approval of the plans. Boggs stated they don't charge for their services. The County has provided two contracts for two years in the amount of $50,000 per year to assist in this effort. Because they are a political subdivision, they cannot charge for services. They rely upon the County's stipend and any grants they can capture such as the Centennial Clean Water Act grants or those from Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Of late, they have had interest from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). They have gone out and referred the District to landowners who have violated the Critical Areas Ordinance. Hoag stated they have enforced compliance of an approved plan by the Whatcom County Planning Department. She questioned whether they know the status of the plans. Boggs stated they have that information. The District has given the Planning Department a copy of information relative to the Section 8 of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the complete plans of each dairy owner, along with a map of the premises where they've identified wetlands, streams, creeks, ditches, and buffers. It also discusses the management activities that can occur within those buffers. For the small farms, they get the entire plan. Brenner stated part of what they want to do is help ease the farmers' burdens. Some of the farmers that were fined really deserved it, but not all did. She heard there are local representatives that are trying to help ease the burden. She questioned whether they could work with DOE to shape them up a bit. Boggs stated they are two different things. One thing is the County's Critical Areas Ordinance, which says no agricultural activities will take place within 100 feet of a salmonid bearing stream. The Planning Department is making a referral and giving a notice of correction to the landowners. The dairies are under different legislation, and there is a specific statutory mandate for DOE to go to every dairy to inspect and ensure there is a plan that is adopted, implemented, and followed. They hope to have the entire county canvassed by January. Brenner stated his job was going to be a lot harder if DOE gets heavy handed with some and ignores others. It makes people angry and not want to work with the Conservation District. She questioned whether there is any way the District and the County can put pressure on DOE to work with the County and the District to get at those who are really the problem. Boggs stated DOE comes to the District office on a regular basis. They've expressed a desire that the same message go out, whether it's from them or Whatcom County. They've tried to be consistent in that regard. In addition, the ordinance that Mr. Knapp has to enforce is black letter. It doesn't provide for much flexibility regarding the gravity of the violation. Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, Page 2 1 It is up to the individual proponent to bring forward other mitigating circumstances 2 that should be taken into consideration. 3 4 Boggs continued his presentation, and discussed the District's 5 accomplishments in the last two years. They have done 59 of the comprehensive 6 Diary Nutrient Management (DNM) plans, which has an element that addresses the 7 County's Critical Areas Ordinance. With their management practices, they have 8 been able to reduce the width of the buffer and to allow agricultural activities to 9 occur within it in a managed fashion so they can focus on water quality and keep 10 producing forage and food. Every dairy farm has to be done by July 31, 2001 and 11 they have a long waiting list. For any farmers that have run afoul of the Critical 12 Areas Ordinance, the District can pull out that farm and deal with it immediately. 13 They are given a map, section 8, and a gross review of the operations so they can 14 be confident there aren't too many cows and they are in nutrient balance. The 15 District tries to prevent any major source of pollution. There have only been three 16 small farms that have been done to date. He displayed a map of all the dairies in 17 Whatcom County. Certain dairies are ESHB 6161 certified, which means the plan 18 has been approved by the District, the farmer has implemented all the practices, 19 and they have made the certification that has gone on to the State. There are four 20 of those that are done. The status of ESHB 6161 approved means that the District 21 has reviewed the plan and is in the producer's hands, who has the guidance to 22 manage the farm, but may take time to implement. They have digitized farm fields 23 so they have information on acreage and animal units. They look at that as a tool 24 for groundwater protection. There are 242 dairies in the county. They hope to 25 have them all with plans by July 31, 2001. Of the areas that have plans, there are 26 about 300 acres of buffers. If they reduced that from 100 feet to 20 feet, that is 27 one -fifth of what would otherwise lay fallow and stay out of production. Not all the 28 buffers are 20 feet. There is a range, depending on the slope and soil. Buffers are 29 not no -touch zones. They have management areas within the buffers. In pasture 30 areas, there are management activities. He showed pictures of various managed 31 activities within buffer areas. 32 33 In 1998, they were just getting ready for the program. They anticipated 34 referrals. They had one that year. He spent a lot of time training staff. There are 35 articles in the newsletters talking about the Critical Areas Ordinance. They 36 conducted several workshops, including three small farm workshops and two dairy 37 workshops. Staff would talk about best management practices and wetland issues. 38 They also have worked on a draft conservation planning handbook for small farms. 39 There are many small farms and few resources. The draft has been circulating 40 around the agencies for response. Their hope is to provide the small landowner the 41 resources and a manual so they can develop a conservation plan on their own. One 42 of the requirements from the County is to provide a database. They are digitizing 43 all the farm plans, and they have a database for all the referrals they receive from 44 other agencies. Regarding the individual farms, they are tracking the land base, 45 the number of animals, and buffers. This will provide a good idea of what is going 46 on. Much of the county will be planned for. 47 Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, 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 Hoag questioned whether this is something that is widely accessible. Boggs stated they are a public entity and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Hoag stated she wanted to make sure someone couldn't indiscriminately call up someone's farm plan. Boggs stated they don't hand out that information, but practically it is public information. Hoag stated she was not opposed to someone calling and requesting the information, but she didn't want someone to be able to anonymously call up the information. Brenner asked how the numbers of accomplishments compare to the numbers that exist. Boggs stated there are 242 dairies. He didn't know how many small farms existed. There are hundreds. That is a bigger issue than the dairies. They have a $300,000 budget for the biennium to provide technical assistance to dairy farms. They are doing some small farm plans to the extent they have resources. Nelson asked about working with other crops, such as raspberries. Boggs stated they do not. Hoag asked about cattle. Boggs stated they have done some plans for beef. When they prioritize plans, the referrals are first, farms that are interested in state cost -share programs are next, and then the last are the other dairies. Boggs stated they are moving toward Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance. The type of buffers they will be implementing are being reviewed. They have heard stories of 150 -foot buffers. They are going to offer the resources to the County to help facilitate a review of the Critical Areas Ordinance. In the Agriculture zones, they are garnering review and ultimately may get to a 4(d) rule, which may have some flexibility. This is something they need to recognize. ESA is the wildcard. The County amassed its critical areas and put them on a map. That is based on the national wetlands inventory and other work. They have found it needs to be revisited because it is very inaccurate. They are using the caveat that these are approximate wetland boundaries that may or may not be there. In the plans, they are advised there are activities that can be done in the wetlands and should be farmed within limitations. Next steps include adequate funding for existing programs. The program they have provides a lot of flexibility with the farm plans. They are often able to contract it down from a 100 foot no touch buffer to a 20 foot managed buffer. There is going to be a waiting line for small farms. Dawson questioned whether the District could make option plans available that are based on plans they've already done. Boggs stated that is what they are going to do. With the resources the County provides, they will provide solutions to general problems they see in the areas. Until the County can have a Critical Areas Ordinance that meets ESA, they are in an interim period. Their best bet will be to Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, 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 take care of the most egregious problems. There is some opportunity to deal with buffer areas locally. Hoag asked about monitoring. Boggs stated they don't have any funding for monitoring. They have some ideas and have been talking with the tribes. Hoag questioned whether they need to have that to be successful. Boggs stated they could set some goals. They don't have enough science now, but they can put in place an appropriate monitoring assessment program that would demonstrate to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the efficacy. There is an opportunity to get a program, which will serve two purposes. One purpose would be to produce the minimum activities, which would give them the benefit of the doubt that would be enough unless they have the local science to show that they need to go out from there. That takes a big commitment. Tree cover and a filter strip will produce some bank stabilization, litter fall for the insects, and will help cool things down. He will be reporting again in October. Hoag asked about revisiting the Critical Areas Ordinance. Boggs stated he didn't know if that discussion is going on. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, stated it hasn't been in effect that long. It will occur at some point. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the first session of the agriculture and fish process in Spokane is on December 9. The Association of Counties has been invited to send some people to the table. He wanted to make sure there were some Whatcom County interests. 3. DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JEFF MONSEN AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB99 -391) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, introduced Scarlet Tang, the Public Information and Education Coordinator. They were looking for the person that could marriage the technical information into layman's terms to allow the public to make informed decisions. Brenner asked Tang what she has been doing so far. Scarlet Tang, Public Information and Education Coordinator, stated she has been looking at a natural lawn care program, especially in the Lake Whatcom watershed. It would help people identify and understand which products are less harmful to water. The program would tag those products in the retail stores to help promote them. Benner asked if she was working with some of the resources agencies. Tang stated she has been working with the Cooperative Extension. They are working on Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, 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 a similar program. They could combine some efforts. She has made contact with environmental groups in the County. Roll stated she has been making rounds and doing fact - finding for the last few weeks. Roll stated they have talked about a draft process procedural agreement. He distributed documents for the Council's information. It is a document the Planning teams have been working on. They are encouraged there was a lot of consensus. It starts to give them an understanding of how the twelve caucuses, five initiating governments, and the planning group are going to make decisions and how they are going to go about doing business. It is critical as they move forward with the water issues tied to the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) that they have an understanding of how this process is going to occur. Many times these documents can take in excess of a year to produce. Some of the language says they have to have representatives at the table at all times and they have to contribute actively to get at the core of what they are trying to do, which is to get representation from all the people in Whatcom County. Brenner stated she didn't know that the County came to this agreement that the County can go outside parameters. She was concerned that his definition of consensus meant that they are willing to live with these, or have no opposition. She thought consensus was that there was no opposition only. She questioned who makes the decision to just live with it. Roll stated this is how the group as a whole, including the twelve caucuses and the five initiating governments, are going to determine when to move on and when they have consensus. Consensus can mean a number of things. That was a debate in the group. This document is a working copy. He urged the councilmembers to provide input he can take to the groups. Brenner stated the Council has not come to a decision on how they are going to operate. Some believe they should set parameters. Hoag stated that is not what this is about. This is about them making their decisions. This is how they are going to run their meetings. Brenner stated that, until the Council decides its parameter, decisions could be made that the Council can't agree with. Roll stated this is different from the interlocal agreement and the debate they had about the resolution. It is about how this entity is going to do business as part of WRIA. It is part of the caucus and part of the representatives of initiating governments. draft. Brenner stated she understood the caucuses. Roll stated the entire group is comprised of 19 representatives. It is still a Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, 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 Hoag stated the way it is set up, the entire group will try to achieve consensus. If it is not reached, then they will table it to the next meeting. If it is still not reached, then they'll break into consensus on the part of the government and there will be a simple majority vote. The way the law is written, it only allows consensus on the government and a simple majority on the water resources. She questioned whether the language causes any problem with the law. Roll stated it doesn't. The law doesn't address how decisions will be made within the various groups. Hoag stated it specifically spells that out. Monsen stated it does for the final plans. These are all the decisions on recommendations to the various governments. Hoag stated she believed it was for all decisions. It just said the government decisions will be made by consensus, and the water resource decisions would be made by a majority vote. Sutter stated the Initiating Governments have to make decisions by consensus. The others can make decisions by majority vote. Monsen stated this is not in conflict with the law. In some respects, it goes further than what the law suggests as a minimum. Roll stated they crossed that path when they created this, and they made sure with the experts it is not in conflict with the law, but they will double -check it. He was very encouraged by the work that is occurring by the staff and the planning group. The organization seems to be effective. The level of input from all the players encourages him. He has met some of the caucuses. He is amazed at the amount of work being done on a volunteer basis by the caucuses. The challenge is to ensure things keep moving and they remain on a path that leads them to the end of WRIA. That will be a real challenge. Nelson questioned whether the facilitator would propose an amount of time to spend on each topic and how that time is determined. Roll stated they crack the whip. They have a very clear agenda that is published ahead of time. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. The remaining portion of the meeting was not audiotaped.) 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR 2000 (AB99 -442) 4. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB99 -018) This item was withdrawn. Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on January 25 , 2000. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Marlene Dawson, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 11/9/99, Page 8