HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 13 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
October 13, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION BY THE WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION (AB98 -361)
(Clerk's Note: Due to an audio tape malfunction, the first portion of the meeting is not
recorded.)
Erica Schreder, Toxics Coalition, stated that she would provide context for looking at
pesticides and issues surrounding pesticide use. The Toxics Coalition mission is to prevent
pollution. They work nationally to prevent pollution in the home and the use of industrial
pollution. Their main focus is to protect children from toxins. From the time they're conceived
to adulthood, they have more exposure and impacts from toxins than adults do. People often
don't know the impacts of toxins. Pesticides are an invisible threat that harm children. They are
used everywhere, including schools, homes, and parks. Pesticides are intentional poisons that
kill living things. They are used in agriculture and forestry. Herbicides and insecticides are used
on roadsides.
Hoag questioned the uses in forestry. Schreder responded that they are used to suppress
everything but crop trees. They control insects. A broad -leaf herb is used to kill everything but
conifer.
Farm workers are routinely exposed to pesticides, such as nerve potions. Many effects
are not obvious and are chronic, such as cancer. A reason cancer isn't tied to pesticides is
because people who are exposed don't know about pesticides or the application location. There
are only a couple of states that require pesticide use reporting.
(Clerk's Note: The following portion of the minutes are from Committee Chair Hoag's
notes)
Schreder stated that California and New York can find out what pesticides are used and
in what quantities. Washington State does not have that information. Inert ingredients can be
toxic and dangerous. In the registration process, only the active ingredients are used to test for
chronic effects.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 1
I (Clerk's Note: Due to an audiotape malfunction, this is the end of tape one. Continued
2 with tape two)
3
4 Schreder continued to state that all pesticides have not been tested according to current
5 standards. The Environmental Protection Agency has approved these substances for use.
6
7 Many effects are surprising, because of the lack of registration and testing before they are
8 approved for use. She discussed the Dursban effects. Because of the effects that were found,
9 and it was not tested fully, it has been restricted. One aspect of pesticides is their effect to
10 hormonal systems. Hormones are made up of glands in the body. The glands release hormones,
11 which travel through the blood stream to organs. They act like a receptor. Synthetic chemicals
12 mimic hormones and cause the same effect as natural hormones. There have been studies done
13 from England to Washington State on the effects of pesticides on fish. The fish develop
14 abnormal reproductive systems. There have also been studies on alligators, otters, and other
15 species, which show elevated levels of estrogen, which lead to skewed reproductive systems.
16 Dioxin levels are hurting eagle populations. Dioxin does not disintegrate. The die -off of sea
17 animals is speculated because of higher pollution levels. Other examples are in Florida with
18 panthers. Pollution hurts animals. The effects may be subtle. They should look at the
19 implications for humans. Hormonal systems are similar across species, and they share
20 vulnerability to pollutants and exposures. Many people have above average exposure to Dioxin.
21 One scientist found that a plasticizer from a test tube was mimicking estrogen. Even though
22 infants are just developing, they are among the most highly exposed. Some pollutants that
23 people are exposed to that have hormonal effects include DDT, 2 4D, atrazine, carbaryl,
24 chlordane, and trifluralin. A consensus statement was developed that looks at all the evidence.
25 The statement stated that there needs to be control, or else large -scale dysfunction of the
26 population is possible.
27
28 Evidence of effects in humans includes increased rates of cancer related to hormones.
29 Also, some cancers are related to pesticide exposure, especially childhood cancer. There is a
30 relation between greater use of pesticides and cancer. Environmental estrogen greatly affects
31 breast cancer. Known risk factors for breast cancer relate to lifetime exposure to estrogen.
32
33 Cancer isn't the only concern. There is also a decline in sperm counts. This is related to
34 environmental pollutants. There are increases in birth defects. Genital malformation doubled
35 between 1970 and 1993.
36
37 There is evidence that learning and behavioral disorders are linked to contamination from
38 fish consumption by mothers. Pesticides affect learning and the ability to think, and they act on
39 the nervous system. Hormones act in parts per trillion, which is a very small amount. Lower
40 levels have effects. It is difficult to trace the cause of a human effect. It could take decades to
41 trace an effect after exposure. It is also difficult to isolate a single type of exposure. There is
42 exposure to pesticides and industrial chemicals. There is no control group. There is no one that
43 doesn't have a buildup of pollutants in their system. There are also limits on human
44 experimentation.
45
46 People need to remember the children. Testing has been on adults, not children.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 2
I Children have more exposure to pesticides. Pound for pound, they take in more water, air, and
2 food, so they get a higher dose. A recent study found levels of DDT, which has been banned in
3 the United States for twenty -five years. Chemicals persist. When chemicals are tested for
4 effects, they are tested singly, but that is not reflective of the real world. Chemicals that would
5 react to each other would have impacts.
6
7 Pesticides are not necessary. There are alternatives. The worst should be phased out.
8 The worst are those that degrade and affect hormonal systems and cause disease. There are
9 examples of where alternatives have been used, such as adopted integrated pest management.
10 Cities, counties, and school districts are using alternative methods.
11
12 The State Department of Ecology (DOE) made an announcement that they plan to phase
13 out persistent chemicals. This is a new direction for them. There is going to be a public meeting
14 and a hearing on December 2.
15
16 Hoag questioned above average Dioxin exposure due to breastfeeding and eating fish,
17 which are healthy things that are recommended, and whether it stays in the system. Schreder
18 stated that Dioxin is attracted to fatty tissues. Dioxin degrades slowly. The only way to get it
19 out of our bodies is to stop releasing the pollutants.
20
21 Hoag questioned the plastic items in which food is packaged and whether they contain a
22 similar plasticizer. Schreder stated that Consumer Reports did a study for which she would
23 provide information. The safest thing to do is use glass for food items that contain oils. Avoid
24 plastic. They have not been thoroughly tested. Common household laundry detergents also use
25 a plasticizer because it is also a surfactant.
26
27 Sutter questioned the quantity of contamination due to leaching.
28
29 Carl Weimer, ReSourcces, stated that the County has a specific publication available in
30 the County Solid Waste Division on local pesticides and chemicals.
31
32 2. UPDATE ON THE COUNTY /TRIBES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PLANNING
33 (AB98 -101)
34
35 Hoag announced that items #2 and #3 would not be discussed because staff was not
36 present to give their updates.
37
38 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that Mr. Monsen, Public Works Director, is
39 was in Seattle discussing negotiation issues with the tribes on water issues. He will address the
40 committee about the Comprehensive Water Plan at another time. The plan should be available at
41 the end of the day, and it should include a broad range of water issues. Monsen intends to
42 address the committee in the next week or two. He has been working diligently for weeks on
43 this plan and he wants to work with the Council. He is trying to get a plan developed to a point
44 that it can be brought forward to the Council as a working document. It is not finished, and will
45 require input from the Council as well as the administration.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 3
I Hoag requested specific information regarding when Monsen intended to present his
2 information. Time is of the essence. Also, Council Member Sutter questioned the identification
3 of the members of the Fisheries Management Team to address ESHB2496 planning. Wareing
4 stated that he would pass the question along to Monsen. The administration did not receive a
5 request from Council for discussion.
6
7 Hoag stated that it was discussed at the last meeting and again scheduled for this meeting.
9 3. UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE WATER TEAM (AB98 -303)
10
11 This item was not discussed.
12
13
14 OTHER BUSINESS
15
16 Hoag stated that George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District Coordinator, was invited
17 to discuss the draft salmon recovery plan (AB98 -115).
18
19 Boggs stated that the recovery plan describes the activities taken to improve water quality
20 in Whatcom County. It is aimed at providing cool, clean water for fish, reduce fecal coliform
21 and ammonia levels.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
24
25 Boggs continued to state that the field office technical value standards discuss standards
26 utilized in designing the conservation plan for the dairy farm. There are 2 1/2 people working on
27 the conservation plans. If the location has critical areas, then they advise the producer to review
28 the County Critical Areas Ordinance. Whatcom County has taken important steps in addressing
29 the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the rural areas. Also, the County recently hired an
30 inspector to enforce the manure management ordinance, which addresses best management
31 practices for dairies and small farms. The Conservation District is interviewing three applicants
32 for one more full -time dairy waste technician. They have received funding from the
33 Conservation Commission to add another full -time equivalent (FTE) so they can help dairy
34 farms come into compliance with SB6161 and to implement manure best management practices.
35 The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed by the Natural Resources
36 Conservation Services (MRCS) and the Governor's office designates the standard that will be
37 applied when state and federal funding is offered in order to assist farmers in the installation of
38 practices. There will be a discussion regarding the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
39 (CREP). The State put up $24 million over the next four years in combination with $170 million
40 in federal funds to lease areas adjacent to streams and creeks from a land owner, if he or she
41 agrees to follow the riparian forest buffer standards. If the land owner agrees to follow the
42 standards, then in 10 — 15 years he or she would receive a lease payment of 150% - 170% of the
43 going lease rates. That is a significant incentive. Under the federal program, the land is leased
44 at the going lease rate. The State plan is to augment that incentive and pay an additional amount
45 of 150% - 170 %.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 4
I Hoag questioned whether the land and access would remain in control of the farmer.
2 Boggs replied that is an issue that they are looking into. The final standards have not yet been
3 made public.
4
5 Sutter questioned the size of zones 1 — 3 and how they are determined. Boggs responded
6 that he would be briefed on those specifics later in the day. The existing standard is a 15 -foot
7 exclusion zone that is a riparian area, with no management activities. The next zone is a 30 -foot
8 managed area where they could plant poplars and other managed crops. That zone two could be
9 expanded based upon the characteristics of the stream. The final standards could be more
10 stringent.
11
12 Sutter stated that it could be more costly to the farmer to lease out the land than to farm it
13 if it is too large. Boggs stated that the implication is that the farmer needs every acre to apply
14 the fertilizer, and a certain amount of acreage is taken out of production when buffers are
15 applied. That buffer zone could not then be used to apply manure, and dairy production would
16 have to be reduced. The lease payment would offset lost income from the reduced herd size and
17 milk production.
18
19 Dawson stated that the booklet discussed enhanced enforcement of existing rules.
20 However, they are coming down with new rules. Boggs stated that the existing standards are
21 being revised to meet the standards of the ESA.
22
23 Hoag questioned what would happen if someone does not lease land for a buffer. Boggs
24 stated that it would be questionable whether they would receive State or federal assistance.
25 Because the ESA forbids government from "taking," they couldn't finance an activity that
26 threatens a take.
27
28 Hoag questioned whether they would only be restricted to the Critical Areas Ordinance
29 (CAO) buffers. Boggs stated that he would have to compare the minimum amount. It has
30 flexibility to fall back to the conservation plan. For instance, in a salmonid stream, the CAO
31 requires a 100 -foot buffer. With a conservation plan, a farmer would be allowed to lessen the
32 buffer to an appropriate area, with proper management practices.
33
34 Bob Andersen, R.S. Planning Design & Ecology, stated that the resources available in the
35 Planning and Development Services library provide references for the kind of distances required
36 for nitrate control. The Council should look at various lease options and keep a door open to
37 include natural conservation easements. They only have 10 — 15 years within which to work. If
38 there was a longer period of time and farmers are actually paid for the purchase of conservation
39 easements, then they might be competitive in price. There may be other sources for money, such
40 as mitigation banking.
41
42 Dawson stated that they would have been told that this is a local situation and the County
43 has to develop a plan, or else it would come down from the State. However, the information
44 from the Governor's office states that the State will develop the Salmon Recovery Plan and the
45 County would implement the program. They are getting different messages.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 5
I Sutter stated that they also have been told that different geographical areas have different
2 planning requirements.
3
4 Hoag stated that there are areas that have no local planning and areas that have regional
5 or sub - regional planning. It refers repeatedly that the County is to develop its own plan. She
6 read from the plan.
7
8 Boggs stated that there is a technical team that provided information that was reviewed.
9 Information regarding mitigation is an important tool that needs to be developed and enhanced to
10 take things beyond the 10 — 15 year horizon. Whatcom County needs to have a firm conviction
11 that it is essential for the recovery of species.
12
13 Hoag stated that if land is purchased on farms, then there is the issue of who controls and
14 observes the buffer. That impacts the farmers that live there. She would like to see measures
15 that leave the land in the farmers' control, but also provide incentives.
16
17 Boggs stated that other activities include a hydraulic permit authority. A technician
18 pulled together agencies to develop and streamline the process on getting drainage permits at the
19 same time to incorporate riparian areas into the plan. They will try to expedite the process so
20 there could be a good relationship. Also, there is a recent grant for shellfish regarding public
21 outreach to small farms. They are doing that through a dairy waste grant also. They are trying
22 to get landowners to appreciate the implications of their activities on clean water, fish, and
23 shellfish.
24
25 Also, there is a letter regarding the Conservation District resources for contribution to the
26 ESA response. In the context of looking at the ESA response, it is important to look at a broad
27 view, not just ESHB 2496. The County should also look at it with ESHB 2514 and a Habitat
28 Conservation Plan. There are species that are of concern, such as cutthroat and coho. The
29 County should go through the process in a comprehensive manner so as not to constantly revisit
30 the issue.
31
32 Lastly, there will be significant resources available through the Environmental Protection
33 Agency (EPA) to work on watersheds. The Nooksack River is ranked #1 for problems and a
34 priority for help in the State. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is close to
35 completion. The County has shellfish protection plans, and is a geographic priority area for
36 federal actions with the dairies. There are mechanisms that show progress. He anticipated
37 significant resources becoming available.
38
39 Hoag questioned the statewide conservation standards that meet requirements through the
40 Natural Resources Conservation Service and whether the committee had a copy of the
41 requirements. Boggs gave a copy to Council early this spring. It says that several agencies
42 formed working committees to review riparian forest standards. That process is coming to a
43 close.
44
45 Hoag questioned whether the benchmarks mentioned in the section on solutions have
46 been determined. Boggs stated that they are not set. It is up to the needs of the coho, chinook,
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 6
I and cutthroat. The County should be able to set its own benchmarks. The Conservation
2 Commission hired a coordinator for the technical advisory group to help analysis on limiting
3 factors. The information would be provided to the regional committee on ESHB 2496 to
4 prioritize.
5
6 Hoag questioned the response of the tribes on the Conservation District's (CD) offer to
7 help with ESHB 2496. Boggs stated that they want the Conservation District on the team. They
8 have been participating informally. People have been trying to work out the organizational chart
9 and solve issues such as lead agency, and integrate the two management teams of fisheries and
10 land use. They would also integrate the notion that the technical advisory group, sponsored by
11 the Conservation Commission to bring in various agencies, would be expensive.
12
13 Hoag stated that they have already generally outlined the general structure. The CD was
14 to provide staff and administer. Boggs stated that the County will serve as lead agency, and
15 would contract with the CD to augment the process.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether the lead agency had to be officially designated to qualify for
18 funding. Boggs stated that it needed a joint resolution by the tribes, the County, and the cities.
19 Funding has come and gone. He provided information to Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director,
20 and has been working with him. There will be a resolution designating the County as lead under
21 ESHB 2496. The tribes agreed to do that. The various entities have to approve.
22
23 Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association, questioned who is designating the
24 land use management team and whether the County Council would have confirmation ability.
25 She didn't see enough oversight and input by the Council. That is a real concern. She
26 questioned who is going to preside on the land use team and who has oversight authority. Boggs
27 stated that County Executive Pete Kremen has the answers to those questions.
28
29 Bovencamp questioned whether entering into an MOA with the tribes on ESHB
30 2496would leave land use authority open to the tribes. She questioned how to ensure that land
31 use stays under the County's jurisdiction. Boggs stated that the MOA only states that everyone
32 will meet, and it would not give up any jurisdiction.
33
34 Brenner requested Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, confirm the
35 jurisdictional issues. Frakes stated that the document does not change jurisdiction.
36
37 Sutter stated that Council couldn't give decision - making authority to another entity.
38
39 Sutter questioned funding. Boggs stated that there is not any State funding. There were
40 funds available earlier in the year for start-up grants. He expected funding to be available for the
41 process through the State. He hoped to get a lead agency designated and a regional committee
42 formed.
43
44 Hoag stated that there was a salmon conference recently about which the County Council
45 knew nothing. There was also a meeting with DOE, the County Executive, the Mayor of
46 Bellingham, and others that the Council knew nothing about. There are major problems with
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, 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
how this is being handled. The Council is not included in information sharing. The Council is
continually ignored by the administration.
Brenner suggested a motion to bring to Council, which restates the position that they
need to be informed. Making the request in committee does not have the same force.
Sutter stated that the State needs to notify the Council personally about information. The
Council should not have to be notified by the administration. Also, she was appointed to the
State Joint Natural Resources Committee and has not yet received any information on the
committee's meetings.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that there is usually
a salmon meeting weekly somewhere in the State. It behooves the County to find ways to bring
each other together instead of fighting with each other. No one knows exactly how to move
forward. The County needs to look at the State plan, determine what the County has done, and
what else needs to be done.
Hoag stated that this was supposed to begin at the local level. Barry Hill, Water
Resources Coordinator for Whatcom County, has said that the plan is coming from the State. In
reality, each area comes up with a plan to address their site - specific concerns, which makes up
the State plan. They haven't heard from Pete Kremen and Barry Hill. The Sate plan absorbs the
County plan. The County needs to ensure the County plan is acceptable to the guidelines that
National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) has created. If it is acceptable, then it becomes a
part of what the State presents to NMFS. Other counties are not looking at the State for
guidance.
Sutter stated that the State has given a guideline.
Knapp stated that they also need to know what work has been done so far. King, Pierce,
and Snohomish counties have hired 50+ people to work on their plans. They have much larger
revenue bases.
Hoag stated that the problem is that the Council is not seeing that anything is being done,
and they are not receiving any information about what is being done. She questioned who is
Whatcom County is the State's salmon contact.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Knapp stated that he did not know. Hoag stated that she would look into it.
Boggs stated that he would try to attend future Natural Resources Committee meetings if
he had advance notice. Hoag asked for his input in two weeks, at the next scheduled committee
meeting.
Hoag questioned the negotiations between NRCS and NMFS review of field office
technical guides. Boggs responded that, in the context of the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, 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
District, he gave the committee a copy of the standards. Standard 391A is under discussion. The
most recent draft is May 1998, which is being revised. There has been a controversy about the
science. He will provide a copy of the information.
Hoag requested that they receive a copy of any information that he receives regarding
salmon issues. Boggs stated that there is a seminar in Tacoma on salmon restoration. It is open
to the public.
Knapp stated that he would also forward any salmon information. Also, the
Comprehensive Plan has certain land use related areas that are consistent with ESA. It is a task
to identify which of those areas in the Comprehensive Plan are consistent and which are not.
The land use effort is the first step. Mary Wilkosz, Regional Director of the Northwest Counties
Conservation Commission, can attend a committee meeting to discuss the make up of the land
use issue.
Hoag questioned who has been doing input. Boggs stated that he believed it is part of the
agricultural activities and the NRCS has been giving input. The Governor's office has not been
talking to the NRCS.
Brenner requested a resolution from the Council that Sutter be notified of any and all
State Joint Natural Resources meetings and that the Council needs to be in the loop to respond to
salmon and water issues.
Bovencamp stated that meetings regarding ESA and ESHB 2514 pertain to Whatcom
County.
Sutter stated that it is important to have a single point of contact. There are two different
issues, which are her appointment and the central contact for other information. They need
something to go to all agencies and governments. They also need something on the Internet.
Brown moved to have a resolution created. They should be separated. They should send
the resolution regarding Sutter's appointment to the Governor's Joint Natural Resources
Committee and request notification of all meetings is sent to her.
Brown stated that the Council should re -affirm her appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to recommend a resolution which would state that the County Council
requests all information regarding ESA and salmon and water issues, including meeting
notifications, seminars, work shops, etc.
Motion carried unanimously.
UPDATE ON PORTAGE BAY (AB98 -046)
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, 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
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that they have
assigned a code enforcement officer to focus on manure. They were able to get a temporary
person on board. There is also a full -time person on board. Two people are now dedicated.
Three or four complaints have been received so far. None have resulted in a violation. One
complaint was about spreading manure on grass, which is not in violation.
Hoag questioned whether inspectors have been going out into the County. Knapp stated
that they have, and they are training the temporary person.
Hoag questioned their findings. Knapp stated that everyone is in compliance. They are
doing independent inspections. It has only been going for a week, so they have been focused on
complaints. The enforcement officers are out in the field observing.
Bob Andersen, R.S. Andersen Planning Design & Ecology, stated that they need to look
at who sets the standards for salmon habitat. Local groups offer opinions, and there is a top
down pressure from the State and the Federal governments. There should be a document that
describes critical habitat for population recovery. A technical group on fisheries management
for National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) should have a document that describes
population recovery needs. Best management practices and mitigation is not adequate. They
must be components to a full implementation program that is measurable.
Hoag stated that the Plan discusses generalities, but it doesn't look at specifics.
Andersen stated that the County needs definition about County jurisdiction, which would
say that the County does not have responsibility for population management, harvest, or other
types of issues. Their role is only regarding the physical habitat. Hoag responded that other
issues are severely impacting the County. They need to monitor what is going in and out of the
river in terms of smolt and spawning. No one is looking at the population of seals and sea lions.
The salmon issue is a huge picture, and they are only focusing on land use.
Sutter stated that land use efforts, no matter how good they are, would fail because other
things are failing. Yet, they will still be expected to solve the problems through land use.
Andersen stated that Whatcom County is stellar in terms of increased stock and
performance. However, it will still be a threatened species if Skagit and other counties do not
keep up. It has to be a full Puget Sound area success story.
Hoag stated that NMFS stated that, if they felt a particular river had recovered, they
might lift the designation off of the river.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:07 p.m.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 10
2 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
3
4
5 ATTEST:
6
7
9
10 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
11
12
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 10/13/98, Page 11