BOARD OF
ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF MEETING
JANUARY 10,
2000
The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on January 10, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. , Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Wm. L. McDowell,. Chairman, William F. Thorn, member and Mike Shelton, Member, present. By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed the following minutes:
Nov. 22 Special and Regular
Sessions; Nov. 23 Special Session; Nov. 24 Special Session
Dec. 6 Special and Regular Sessions
The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board, along with the December, 1999 payroll:
Voucher (War.) 1999: # 66114 – 66304………. $ 233,139.03
Voucher (War.) 2000: # 66083
– 66112………. $ 434,215.98
Elaine
Marlow Auditor’s Office 5 years
Marilyn
Messner Juvenile Services 15 years
Nancy
Warren Juvenile Services 5 years
Barbara
Cope Health Department 20 years
Dick
Toft Human Resources 5 years
Jan
Smith Sheriff’s
Office 5 years
Dave Bonvouloir Public Works/SW 15 years
Dana Kelly, Health Department,
Public Health Nurse
Hiring Requests & Personnel Actions
By unanimous
motion, the Board approved the following Personnel Action Authorizations:
PAA # Description/Position Action Eff. Date
001/00 SW Acctg. Coord. #2204 Replacement 1-10-00
002-00 Dep. Pros. Atty. #1812 Replacement 2-8-00
003-00 Dept. Asst.-Camano #607 Replacement 2-3-00
004-00 Micro
Suppt. Tech Asst. #708 Replacement 1-10-00.
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN ISLAND COUNTY AND ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS, INC.
The Island
County Treasurer requested approval of an amendment to existing Contract #RM-TREAS-98-0005 with
Arbitrage Compliance Specialists, Inc., in the amount of $1,195.00 for the
period 1/1/99 through 12/31/99, bringing the total contract to $2,840.00.
This involves legal review of applicable Island County bond and debt
issues to determine a list of funds subject to arbitrage rebate; verify bond
yield for such issue; calculate rebate liability and provide a written report
of all findings, recommendations and opinions, including a summary of the
calculation methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. Services also include preparation of any
necessary IRS forms.
By unanimous
motion, the Board approved the Amendment
to the arbitrage compliance contract RM-TREAS-98-0005.
Emergency Management Division Grant - Contract with Washington State Military Department #EM 019100
The Board approved, by unanimous motion, Emergency Management Division Grant Contract with Washington State Military Department #EM 019100 [Risk Management #RM-GSA-99-0107] in the amount of $1,430.00 representing the County’s time that was spent providing Y2K status reports during the rollover period from December 28, 1999 to January 4, 2000.
Approve/Sign: Washington Counties Risk Pool
Risk
Management Self-Assessments
Betty
Kemp, Director, GSA/Risk Management, presented for the Board’s approval and
signature, the Washington Counties Risk Pool Risk Management Self-Assessments,
after the matter had been reviewed with the Board at a recent staff
session. Two issues of concern surfaced
which are continuing to be worked on: written
safety policy for use of fairgrounds and the confined space issue.
The Board provided Ms. Kemp with the following instructions:
1. Request that Lew Legat/Jack Taylor, Public Works, discuss at staff session with Ms. Kemp and the Board, the confined space issue
2. Commissioner Shelton will work with Ms. Kemp to arrange for Risk Pool visit here on a Wednesday [not a Wednesday Staff Session] allowing about two hours with elected officials and appointed department heads. Especially important that the major generators of claims attend.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved Washington Counties Risk Management Self Assessment for Island County.
Contract Bond from Wyndham Design, Inc. per bid awarded 1-3-00 for the Wilkinson Road Closure project under CRP 99-01
As a follow-on to award of bid on 12/20/99 and Contract approval with Wyndham Design, Inc. on 1-3-00 for the Wilkinson Road Closure project under CRP 99-01, the Board by unanimous motion accepted and approved the Contract Bond from that firm in the amount of the project, $27,686.75.
By unanimous motion, the Board made the following appointments and reappointments:
Bill Vincent, Camano Island, reappointed for a term to
February 1, 2006
·
James
K. Johnston reappointed, representing North Whidbey for a term to January 14, 2002
·
Bill
Cornell reappointed, representing
Veteran’s Organizations, for a term to January 14, 2002
Workforce Development Council
·
Rhea
Nelson to redesignate representation
from Vocational Rehabilitation to
Community Based
Organizations, term of appointment to July 27,
2002
·
Judy
Abott appointed to Workforce
Development Council representing
Vocational Rehabilitation, for a term to July 27, 2002
·
Cynthia
Shelton appointed to Workforce
Development Council representing
K-12 Education, with existing term running until July 27,
2001
The Board, having received a briefing at recent staff session on various Health Department Contracts, and the contracts now having been through the Contract Review approval process, by unanimous motion, approved the following:
DSHS & Island
County: Interagency Work Order
Amendment, Health Passport Services, #20872(1), $26,331.00.
DSHS&
Island County: Interagency Work Order
Amendment, Child
Abuse Prevention, Early Intervention,
20958(1), $34,769.00
DSHS & Island
County: Medicaid Match, HD-10-99, NTE
$140,000.
Island County and Whidbey
General Hospital: Protective
Custody Monitoring, HS-14-99,
$2,000
Community Litter Cleanup Agreement /Agreement #C0000113 – BETWEEN ISLAND COUNTY AND /Department of Ecology –
As presented and reviewed by Dave Bonvouloir, Solid Waste Manager, the Board by unanimous
motion, approved and signed Community Litter Cleanup Agreement # C0000113 – between the
County and Department of Ecology to provide up to $49,500 to Island County Solid Waste Division for litter and illegal dumpsite activities, effective 1/1/00 through 6/30/01.
The
Board met in Executive Session beginning at 11:00 a.m. 42.30.110 (1) (i) for the purpose of discussing with special legal counsel pending or potential litigation. The Chairman announced that he expected the
session to last approximately one hour, and did not believe there would be an
announcement made in open public session afterwards.
Ordinances
Introduced [copies made available to the public]:
·
Ordinance #C-02-00 (PLG-003) Amending the boundary of the
Bayview and West Beach RAIDs
[GMA doc. #5268]
·
Ordinance #C-03-00
(PLG-002-00) Amendment to
Critical Areas Ordinance for buffer of Category B wetlands and Type V Streams
[GMA doc. #5267]
Ordinance #C-02-00. Keith Dearborn explained that Ordinance #C-02-00 was prepared to respond to the November 23, 1999 order of the Western Washington Growth Board [WWGB]. The boundaries to eight RAIDs were invalidated by the WWGB, finding for six of those eight RAIDs Island County was in full compliance with GMA with changes made in August by Island County; for two RAIDs, the County was found not in compliance and directed to make further changes. The proposed ordinance includes an amendment to 17.03 and to the zoning atlas. Amendment to 17.03 changes one table, and Mr. Dearborn showed what the changes were using two maps posted on the wall[GMA doc. #5296, West Beach RAID; #5297 Bayview RAID. Copies of each map have been provided to John Graham for the Coalition.
·
For West Beach, as
the WWGB directed, the proposal is to eliminate a connecting strip between the plat of Seaview and the
numerous plats on the south. In doing so, two RAIDs have been
created: to the north “Seaview” RAID;
the one to the south “West Beach” RAID.
·
Dotted line shows the area of the RAID that the
ordinance would eliminate.
·
As directed by the WWGB,
for Bayview Residential RAID, the
proposal is to modify that RAID, and the proposed dotted area on the
map is the area that would be eliminated.
Also proposed is that what has been referred to in the past as the
Bayview Residential RAID now be renamed the Sunlight Beach RAID since it
consists almost exclusively of subdivisions that are in the Sunlight Beach
area.
Staff believe the two proposals comply with the Growth
Board’s order and recommend this ordinance be set for hearing. Neither change, if adopted, go into effect
until the Growth Board determines compliance with their order and lift the
order of invalidity for the two RAIDs.
For all the other RAIDs that order was rescinded on November 23, 1999.
By unanimous motion, the Board scheduled Ordinance #C-02-00 [PLG-003-00]
for public hearing on February 7, 2000 at 10:45 a.m.
Ordinance #C-03-00. Ordinance #C-03-00 [PLG-002-00] regarding Certain Rural Residential RAIDs was presented by Mr. Dearborn, the last regulatory amendment to respond to the Growth Board’s June 2nd order, a companion ordinance to Ordinance #C-135-99. In November during settlement discussions the County made an offer to WEAN to settle the remaining issues relating to GMA compliance. The County delayed action on Type 5 streams and Category B wetlands in order to allow WEAN an opportunity to consider the County’s settlement proposal. The offer was not extended to the Coalition because the Coalition indicated that the actions with Ordinance #C-135-99 and prior actions taken related to critical areas addressed their concerns. Because the County’s proposal was unacceptable to WEAN the Board decided to proceed with final changes to Category B wetlands and Type 5 streams.
For Type 5 streams the buffer would be increased to 50’; for any Type 5 stream tributary to a salmon stream or for properties on Type 5 streams that are not tributary to salmon streams 10 acres or larger in size the buffer would increase from 25’ to 50’. This was not a change supported by the Board’s judgment on science on record for protection of critical areas, but has been proposed to deal with the question of the threat that 5 acre lots present to Type 5 streams.
Also proposed is an increase in Category B wetland buffer [wet pasture dry in the summer, wet in the winter]. Based on science the prior Board of County Commissioners decided a 25’ buffer was sufficient for a Category B wetland. That issue under the State’s GMA requirements for critical areas was not assailable; it was a decision made in the early Nineties and not challengeable at this time. The County was directed by the Growth Board to look at the question of whether the 25’ buffer was functioning to provide wildlife habitat as well as critical area protection, and Andy Castelle made it clear that the 25’ buffer was principally for water quality purposes and in that way protects the Category B wetland but that it has ancillary and secondary benefits for wildlife. There has been comments and testimony from the Department of Fish & Wildlife saying larger buffers are needed to provide wildlife benefit and the proposed ordinance would increase Category B wetland buffers from 25’ to 50’ to provide the additional wildlife benefits suggested. In both cases, Mr. Dearborn pointed out these actions were being done to address the critical area five acre rural densities question and not the critical area protection question per se’. Two other amendments are included in the ordinance, procedural in nature which he reviewed briefly at this time.
By unanimous motion, the Board scheduled Ordinance #C-03-00 [PLG-002-00] for public
hearing on February 14, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
HEARING
HELD: ORDINANCE #C-135-99 (PLG-042-99) Rural Densities – Amending the Comp
Plan and Development Regulations to
comply with the Order of the
Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings
Board
A Public Hearing was held at 1:30
p.m. to consider Ordinance #C-135-99 [PLG-042-99], Amending the Comp Plan and Development Regulations to comply
with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, with
regard to rural densities, the hearing continued
from 11/8/99, 11/22/99 and 11/23/99.
Attendance:
Public: 4 [Attendance Sheet
GMA doc. #5295]
Staff: Keith Dearborn; Phil Bakke
1. On Page A-3, the table showing the 20-acre
row at the top, RF should be deleted
and inserted next to RA in the 10 acre row.
Using acreage numbers from the prior page, 18,670 should be reduced to
4,680; and 17% changed to 4%. In the 10
acre row, 6,080 should be increased to
20,070; the 5% increased to 18%.
2. Note 2.
A correction, pointed out by Mr.
Graham during the hearing in November,
where it says 9 acres to 20 acres should say 9 acres and larger.
Maps Posted: GMA documents: #5298 and #5299
One map shows in the darker brown all parcels in the
rural zone 20 acres or larger in
size. It is not a new map, but
prepared to illustrate there is
no pattern, rather the result of 80
years of subdivision in the county leaving these remnants scattered throughout
the county 20 acres or larger. Shown in a butterscotch color are parcels that are 9 acres and larger and
again, there is no logical
pattern.
The other map combines the same information with the
UGAs, joint planning areas and resource lands designations for commercial AG
and the rural forest and Rural AG. Even
when that is done, there does not seem to be any pattern of any scale that
would cause someone to zero in on a small geographic area and apply county wide
to say these areas should be further down zoned.
Graphics: A set of graphics dated 1/10/00 used by Keith Dearborn during the Hearing
were entered in the record as follows:
Platting Trends [Source ICPD Dec. 1974 by decades] #5300
Rural AG Lands #5301
Rural Zoned Parcels – 10 acres and larger adjacent to resource lands, #5302
Land Use Distribution – Rural Lands #5303
Land Use Distribution – Rural Lands [Pie Chart] #5304
Existing Rural Zone Land Use Distribution #5305
Existing Rural Zone Land Use Distribution [pie chart] #5306
Land Use Distribution Rural Zone-10 acres & Larger #5307
Rural Forest Lands #5308
Mr. Dearborn recalled there had been much discussion about the possibility of fashioning a new rural zone with a larger than five acre minimum lot size. A rural remand committee looked closely at that issue and a workshop was held on the subject. A number of options were reviewed, including creating a new rural zone with a 10 acre minimum lot size oriented around critical areas. The Coalition and others suggested Type 5 stream include all Type 5 streams; the committee majority recommended it be for type 5 streams that are tributary to fish spawning streams. The Coalition and WEAN suggested wetlands also be included.
When detailed maps were done for
Type 5 Stream corridors [Maxwelton being one] it was clear that 10 acre and larger parcels were random;
some barely touched the streams, some had streams going through the middle of
the parcel or corner of the parcel,
many of the parcels were separated and isolated by smaller parcels, and
no logical pattern was observed that would come from the creation of a 10 acre zone oriented around critical
areas. Everyone has agreed the criteria
should be objective, demonstrable on a map and at a certain point the map
adopted. No one knows where all type 5 streams are, the
same with wetlands. When it comes to critical area regulation it has
always been the case that the criteria override the maps. It is not thought fair or manageable administratively to have criteria
that would zone property and a property owner not know what the zoning was
until they came in with a proposal and discovered throughout a critical area
study they had a type 5 stream or wetland.
One of the options looked at was
designating all parcels over 20
acres or 20 acres and larger, but there were a
number of problems, mainly the fairness of just picking
people out who have chosen not to divide their property and making them in the
larger lot zone.
The Rural Remand Committee looked at the ability to expand UGAs and concluded that with the management system adopted for Langley there was no threat from 5 acre zoning to the logical expansion to UGAs over time. That same management system concept has been agreed to by Oak Harbor. For Coupeville there is no UGA beyond its existing boundaries. Staff analysis did not show any justification for further down zoning relating to the ability to expand UGAs. The Committee and staff looked at the question of down zoning larger parcels because of resource land protection. Mr. Dearborn referred to the table included in the graphics showing the number of acres of lands that are 10 acres or larger that abut commercial AG lands.
Commercial AG [medium green on the map] shows some parcels 10 acres or larger that abut Commercial AG, but most Commercial AG lands are already surrounded by parcels 5 acres or smaller . The Committee in looking at the issue of resource land protection by majority concluded that the AG protection ordinance provided sufficient protection to Commercial AG from nuisance complaints from adjoining lots that did not feel any further down zoning could be justified. Some members of the committee felt the down zoning should occur to protect resource lands but admitted it was not because of protection of nuisance complaints, rather more of a concern they had that smaller lots around Commercial AG were ultimately lead to the Commercial AG zone being down zoned, based on an historical view and not GMA regulation. Another proposal was to make PRDs mandatory for all parcels 20 acres or larger. A number of changes were made to the PRD ordinance including lifting the minimum parcel size for a PRD to 20 acres to try to encourage lot consolidation.
Discovered from old files was that the Planning Department in 1974 prepared a detailed land use survey in conjunction with a comprehensive plan being considered. The graphic Platting Trends (#5300) is a tabulation of platted lots since 1890 summarized by decade. It has always been known, and the land use pattern of today with so few parcels 20 acres or larger in size, has been principally due to decisions made in the Fifties and Sixties. Between 1984 and 1997 some 2,000 additional lots were created. Platting activity in the county is a very small contributor to the inventory of lots that people build on; the vast majority comes from the big supply created in the Fifties and Sixties.
The Rural tables are not new but combine the information in a different way, i.e. combines Rural, Rural Forest and Rural AG for purposes of looking at a variety of rural densities and the graphic [#5301] shows what they look like today. Changes in the last 30 years have been very small. There is no evidence of any kind that the pattern of development today would change in any substantive or those are going to change in any substantive or consequential way over the next 20 years. Subdivision creation has been inconsequential to the creation of lots, and is of no conse-quence when it comes to the variety of densities question, looking at the last 30 years as the basis. The same graphic in picture form shows in a pie chart how the land supply in the rural area combine to address the question of variety of densities. There is nothing in the GMA that specifies a formula on what variety of rural densities means, or a suggested minimum lot size. The Central Puget Sound Growth Board said that 10 acres was clearly rural; anything smaller deserves close scrutiny.
PUBLIC INPUT
Marianne Edain, representing WEAN, submitted for the record a 1/9/00 letter to the Island County Commissioners on Rural Densities, from Steve Erickson, WEAN, with an attached letter from Steve Erickson to the Whidbey News Times, Coupeville Reporter, South Whidbey Record; Stanwood-Camano News, regarding Proposed GMA Lawsuit Settlement “WEAN Proposes GMA Lawsuit Settlement to County Commissioners” [GMA doc. #5309]. She also submitted a copy of "Criteria for the Restoration and Creation of Wetland Habitats of Lentic-Breeding Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest by Klaus O. Richter [GMA doc. #5310], which she described as basically “what it will take to keep our frogs”. For clarification of the record, she confirmed that she was asking on behalf of WEAN that the proposed settlement document be part of the record, specifically relating to WEAN’s proposal to map critical areas, included in the document dated 12/20/99 Settlement Document/Press Release [attached to GMA doc. #5309]
Regarding the matter of what is a pattern of development, she has suggested a number of times that when the Hearings Board talks about pattern, what is referred to is the accumulative effect of smaller and smaller parcels on critical areas. The pattern WEAN sees is the foreseeable degradation of critical areas. WEAN put forth a proposal to map those critical areas and believe that that mapping is going to have to happen sooner or later and WEAN prefers to se it happen sooner. As to the question of what constitutes rural, the Western Growth Board has said that 5 acre parcels are the minimum they could consider rural at any rate and that board has required a variety of rural densities. She maintained that to zone 80% of the county for 5 acre parcels is patently is not a variety.
John Graham, Citizens Growth Management Coalition, handed for the Commissioners’ information a copy of a News Release from Skagit County April 20, 1999 “Farms, forests & open space make positive fiscal contribution to Skagit County”; news article from Skagit Valley Herald ”Forests and farms more than pay their way” April 21, 1999; and copy of a study “Cost of Community Services, Skagit County, Washington, by American Farmland Trust [GMA Doc. #5311].
No others in the audience indicated a desire to speak and the public
input portion
of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Thorn observed that the summary given by Mr. Dearborn fairly stated what the County has been through and the struggle in this area; the damage was done a long time ago and while it has continued, it has continued at a low pace compared to what happened in the Sixties. The scattering of the parcels is baffling when trying to decide how to deal with those and avoid issues such as spot zoning and to treat land owners fairly; the County has given months and months of appraisal and reappraisal to this issue and has tried to relate it to critical areas in a variety of ways, none which seemed to have had any real basis in fact or basis in fairness and he thought the proposal now was about how the County could do with what remains. There is a reasonable distribution of density.
Chairman McDowell referred to the illustration on the Platting Trends chart taking the records from 1984-1997 that comes out to be 1430 lots in a ten year period; it is not until going back to the 1930’s that so few lots were created. Again, as has been stated, the damage was done in the Sixties; nevertheless he thought that 1,430 lots in a decade was not that huge of a number to be looking at for the next decade if that trend continues.
Mr. Dearborn pointed out that efforts are under way to prepare a study of development activity that staff should have available in the next several weeks, and recommended that the hearing be continued in order to allow receipt and consideration of that information, along with additional studies staff are working on now comparing a variety of areas in the county in terms of scenic character and minimum lot size.
By unanimous motion, the Board continued the public hearing on Ordinance #C-135-99 until February 14, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. [Notice of Continuance: GMA doc. #5312].
7:00 PM GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT - PUBLIC HEARINGS
·
ORDINANCE #C-151-99
(PLG-049-99) Amending Chapter 17.02.ICC
To Comply With The Order Of The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board Relating To Certain Provisions Of The County’s Critical Area Regulations
Relating To Existing And On-Going Agricultural Activities
Exhibit
A 17.02.107 Critical Areas
Exhibit
B Agricultural BMPs
Exhibit
C Findings and Legislative Intent
·
ORDINANCE #C-152-99
(PLG-050-99) Amending Chapter 17.02.ICC
To Comply With The Order Of The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board Relating To The Critical Areas Exemption For Existing And On-Going
Agriculture
Exhibit
A 17.02.107 Critical Areas
Attendance
Public: Approximately 35+
[Attendance List GMA doc. #5313]
Consultant/Staff Keith Dearborn; Larry Kwarsick
ORDINANCE #C-151-99
[PLG-049-99] [GMA doc.
#5204]
Chairman
McDowell made the following opening comments [entered as GMA doc. #5314]
“We are here today because the Growth Board invalidated
our CAO exemption for Ag in the RA and R Zones and directed us to finish
preparing BMPs. In October ’98 existing
Ag activities within wetlands and close to streams (such as grazing) became
uses that may not always comply with our CAO.
Rather than making these uses illegal, the Board of Commissioners
decided to exempt these existing activities if they complied with BMPs. Provided wetlands and streams were
protected, the Board could identify no legal or policy reason to treat Ag
practice differently from other non-conforming uses. WEAN and the Coalition appealed this decision to the Growth
Board. The Growth Board has told us
that we can allow this exemption for CA properties only. But this was before we prepared BMPs. We
are here tonight to consider these proposed BMPs and to consider re-extending
this exemption to RA and R zoned properties.
It is important for everyone to understand that
regardless of what action we take regarding RA and R, our action will not go
into effect until the Growth Board lifts its invalidity order. Both the BMPs and extending the exemption
are very important to the County Commissioners and we believe to landowners.
Ag practices on smaller parcels are integral to the rural character and
lifestyle of many residents of the County.
It would also be virtually impossible for the County to stop these
activities through enforcement actions.
For example, how can we compel you or your children to sell your horses
or cows? Think of the impact on
4-H. Please understand that we must adopt BMPs. This is the only way we can reconcile
conflicting or competing goals of the GMA.
What we are trying to do in
concept is very simple:
·
give
property owners a choice -- comply with
County standards or prepare your own plan;
·
give
you a reasonable time period to do this; make sure that your plan (if this is
what you choose to do) is as protective as our standards.
In
concept our standards are also very simple.
Larry will explain them in more detail.”
Commissioner Thorn acknowledged that for some time the County had struggled with GMA and the County’s response to it and the Comprehensive Plan; during that time one theme stood out among all constituencies: everyone wants to preserve rural character. It is clear that farms and forests are an integral part of that rural character and the County is trying to work toward that end to preserve that, not just for the benefit of those who drive by but for the land owners here today who are making a living at farming and who want to continue that.
Commissioner Shelton observed that the vast majority attending tonight’s hearing were from South Whidbey which he thought spoke to a culture that exists there, one that probably exists to some level throughout Island County: People who have moved here have done so purchasing a piece of property with the idea of supplementing their income through an AG practice or may just want to have animals for their children to participate in 4-H. This is an issue people feel very strongly about. With the development of Island County and the requirement in state and federal law to protect critical areas, including streams and wetlands, the County has had to come up with a way to allow folks to continue what they have been doing, but with some new stipulations. Best Management Practices can be developed and extended to property owners with Commercial AG. Perhaps the future of AG in this County is more in terms of farming as a supplemental form of income. The County’s purpose in developing BMPs is not to limit those just to Commercial AG but extend it to Rural AG and ultimately to Rural lands. He is committed to that kind of a program, one he sees as the best that can be offered under existing law. The exemption would allow development of a farm management plan, utilize the BMPs and continue AG practices with conditions. BMPs are meant to specify those conditions.
Larry Kwarsick submitted the following for tonight’s record:
·
Final Draft Agricultural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) dated December,
1999 - New Exhibit B to Ord. C-151-99 [GMA doc. #5315] (copies available for the public)
·
“Selected
Agricultural Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Neuse River
Basin”, Technical Bulletin 311, Sept. 1997 by North Carolina State University
Department of Soil Science and
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
containing the idea of a two-tiered managed riparian buffers areas
adjacent to wetland streams [GMA
doc. #5316]
·
Bibliography
of studies found throughout the United States, by Natural Resources Consultants,
Inc., Seattle, Wa., consultants working with Skagit County regarding
managed riparian buffers [GMA doc. #5317]
·
NWCC
Technical Note 99-1 Stream Visual Assessment protocol, December 1998, noting
page 9 Riparian zone [GMA doc. #5318]
Mr. Kwarsick briefly reviewed for those in the audience what had occurred between November and today:
·
A
BMP manual was adopted covering a
variety of activities conditionally
exempted from the critical area ordinance.
·
The
BOCC based on public testimony opted
not to adopt the BMPs originally proposed, and provide additional community
involvement and input.
·
The
BMPs dealing with necessity of conforming with standards or developing farm
management plans only apply to existing on-going AG activities occurring on
or adjacent to critical areas…wetlands and streams. The BMPs do not impact or affect existing on-going
activities or future new AG activities not involved with or occurring on or adjacent to wetlands or streams.
He mentioned that existing federal standards include the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 and 1985 Food Security Act with “Swampbuster provisions; both recognize the historical on-going agricultural activities. The National Resource Conservation Service promulgated guidelines, standards and general information in terms of how to conduct on going farm activities using good stewardship and conservation, and these standards Mr. Kwarsick tried to embrace in the development of Island County’s AG BMPs. All counties in Washington State were required to develop critical area ordinances and some counties recognize existing on-going agricultural activities and exempt them conditionally from the full force and effect of critical areas ordinance. Mr. Kwarsick was of the belief that was the standard the Board of Commissioners was trying to develop.
The study in North Carolina included the idea of a two-tiered managed riparian zone adjacent to wetlands and streams. The Natural Resource and Conservation Service document notes that a riparian zone of natural vegetation that extend at least two active channel widths on each side of a stream system would be considered to be an adequate riparian zone. Skagit County is proposing a managed buffer system, which Mr. Kwarsick also has tried to embrace in combination with the other documentation in the current proposal. The consultant for Skagit County provided the bibliography of studies found throughout the United States dealing with riparian systems. While most of the studies deal with forested buffer areas, information was included dealing with vegetative filter strips for agricultural non-point source pollution and control. He looked at the managed riparian buffer as a practical useable tool in trying to determine a path to balance the competing goals of the Act.
Two community meetings were held December 7 and December 9; since then, he met with the Ag Sub-committee where over 60 interested parties attended. Following that meeting he prepared a final document, but at that point he had not yet met with the Appellants. He subsequently did meet with them and received some additional written comments, and produced another document sent to those who participated in the community meetings to illustrate some other ideas. He clarified that the document being discussed tonight was in fact the one that following the community meetings and the meeting with the AG Sub-committee.
He made it clear that the County’s intent is to preserve historical agricultural economy, lifestyle and the heritage of the community and to develop a document that applies to all existing on-gong agricultural activities regardless of the zoning.
Mr. Kwarsick then went through the document “Final Draft Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) dated December, 1999” touching on the various sections for explanation purposes. One of the things pointed out was the fact that the draft includes compliance tracking and verification system, monitoring program using the County’s Watershed Planning Activities currently under way and recognize that enforcement is the least desirable of all aspects but there must be an enforcement provision.
By unanimous motion, the Board substitute what is currently attached to Ordinance
#C-151-99 as Exhibit B, with “Final Draft Agricultural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) dated December,
1999” .
PUBLIC INPUT
Tom Roehl, representing himself, the Property Rights Alliance, other friends and clients, expressed concern in terms of the different drafts being circulated, and appreciated going back to the December 1999 version; however, believed that version needed some word-smithing, and was concerned about what the farmers may be subjected to and how BMPs would be administered. He noted that the County was increasing substantially a number of small actions on lands that will require extensive review requiring folks to go out and hire consultants for BSA’s, habitat management agreements, storm water management plans. In some cases, things are being over-designed. Farmers are the folks who make rural character.
These conditions seem to be imposed on Ag because of the perception that Ag has the potential to pollute surface water bodies. It should be clear that the farm management plans are not being written by the County, and that the NCRS is free to work with its worksheets. Further, it should also be made clear that a farm management plan is an alternative to BMPs. The Neuse River Basin guidelines are not for minimum standards for mandatory regulation, rather are for when government compensates the farmer for dedicating conservation easements on wetlands and streams. He is concerned that when farmers here want to apply for those compensated conservation plans that NRCS has to make a finding of necessity. If Island County adopts mandatory standards that create this system of buffers what necessity is there for purchased conservation easements and what will that do to farmers eligibility for the compensated easements provided for in the federal law? He also said to keep in mind that critical areas include eagle habitat areas, osprey and heron etc. and so for the purpose of this ordinance, should have a different definition of critical area to be clear that whenever the term critical is used here it means unfarmed wetlands and unfarmed buffers of regulated streams, and give serious consideration given NRCS guidelines that it be only type 2 or 3 streams unless a type 4 or 5 stream is of a direct critical affect and leads directly to a surface water body.
For the record, Mr. Roehl requested his comments on the previous draft be entered, e-mail dated 1/8/00 [cover letter 2 pages plus attached proposed final AG-BMPs version contains his highlighted comments inserted between sections, entered as GMA doc. #5289]. With regard to the bibliography of studies Mr. Kwarsick submitted, Mr. Roehl made the observation that most had to do with forested riparian areas. When studying the NRCS guidelines he noticed those talked about areas where the riparian area already exists. Island County has a lot of areas farmed right up to the edge of what is going to be called a Type 5 stream possibly that might be 2’ wide and he did not think those people should have to establish riparian areas, and that matter should be made very clear in the County’s provisions. If the federal or state government want to adopt regulations the County should not be mandated to write a new ordinance that could break the contract with the farmers.
Marianne Edain, WEAN, provided for the record a 1/8/00 dated letter from Steve Erickson, WEAN, regarding AG BMPs
received 1/7; 3-page letter plus a copy of the draft with his comments
interspersed [entered as GMA doc. #5288]
and also referred to a letter
dated 12/27/99 from Steve Erickson re
Most Recent draft AG BMPs [GMA doc. #5319].
Also for the record she entered a copy of Animal Waste Nutrient
Management dated Friday, November 19, 1999 [GMA doc. #5320].
She noted there were various iterations of the proposed BMPs at various times, and
correspondence with Mr. Kwarsick. Wean and the Coalition met with Mr. Kwarsick and were led to believe the changes being made were changes approved by the Commissioners, now finding they are back to the December 1999 version which has some severe short-comings and fails the GMA mandate, as well as the mandate from the Hearings Board. Comments from Steve Erickson’s comments are in response to changes WEAN received via e-mail. Some of the changes they see as useful and good, but WEAN still has some concerns and sees basic underlying flaws, the biggest being the impossibility of NRCS and the Conservation District to review and to manage. They have yet to see the job description for the new County hire proposed for enforcement and monitoring .
As to one of the comments by Mr. Roehl she thought the notion of insulating a plan from any further ordinances or review was shaky at best on legal grounds. The last [not tonight’s version] iteration included a proposal to limit riparian buffers to no more than 50% of the parcel as a whole which is not reasonable for which there is no scientific basis. There are some parcels which are as much as 100% wetland critical area. She will need to wait for new draft to see what in fact is being proposed. WEAN does not