HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 30 20021
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
July 30, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon
Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
COORDINATION PROPOSAL (AB2002 -294)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated staff was asked to look at an open space
program and come up with a way to deal with open spaces. The County has three
programs that are currently or soon will be operating. The Parks Department
program has been the recipient of a great deal of the Conservation Futures funds.
The Public Works Department also has a program, particularly in the Lake Whatcom
watershed for possible acquisitions. The third program is the proposed purchase of
development rights (PDR) program.
This proposal looks at all three programs and considers the need for the
programs to work together. The goal is a collaborative approach to maximize
benefits to citizens and not compete with each other for funds.
The kinds of properties they are looking at are resource lands or passive
recreation properties, such as trails. There are limitations on Conservation Futures
funds for the types of properties they can purchase. That is what they are going to
talk about.
If this program was adopted, then Farmer Bob, for example, receives a PDR
offer from the County. Farmer Bob's property might have other valuable resources
besides the agricultural resources. Farmer Bob's property may have a stream
corridor with salmon habitat benefits, or other unique habitat features that should
have long -term protections. As this ordinance is proposed, everything would be
voluntary on the part of the landowner. The County would not require the owner to
do anything to enhance the property. However, if there are other programs that
would augment what Farmer Bob has, then the County would want to coordinate
them to receive as many public benefits as possible on that property. That theory
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
is the core of this program. Make sure they evaluate each project for multiple
benefits.
The three different programs have different objectives, so staff wanted to
have overall guiding principles to the program. He suggested they develop
program guidelines and principles under which all programs would comply. Make
sure they honor the individual project to make sure the project, on its own, could
get funding. However, other things would be considered. Make sure the possibility
of multiple benefits is reviewed. Make sure they acknowledge special situations.
Make sure that the individual programs communicate and are predictable. Make
sure that they are looking at the Comprehensive Plan and other County policies to
make sure they are in compliance. Each program should have rating and eligibility
criteria established. Make sure they can match those funds to any extent possible.
Those are the overriding principles. Each program would have their own criteria
about what they want to buy and what project would be a good fit or a bad fit to a
program.
They are coordinating the three programs, and are also looking at the other
programs that exist. Someone will have to be aware of all the programs to
evaluate whether any of these proposals have multiple opportunities and programs.
One idea is to have a coordinator to do that. This position could be part time and
be a facilitator and promoter to work with individual landowners and connect
people. That would be a more limited role in terms of time and commitment than a
more expanded role. There is an opportunity to expand the role to be the contact
person for the County to have a higher level of participation.
They are looking at what the Council wants to look at to review each
purchase to ensure the purchases are consistent. They also need to determine the
procedure for allocating open space funds. For a program to function, it's
necessary to have an idea of the funding they have to work with. This proposal
would establish a mechanism by which the Council would make decisions about who
is going to get what. It might be important to also reserve some funds for
contingencies that they are not able to predict. The programs themselves should
have an idea of the amount that is available to work with. Purchases could be
contingent on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds, for example. They
need to have a base level for each program.
To develop the proposal, staff would look to some outside consultant to assist
them to set out the framework of the overall program, and then assist each
individual program with establishing their own specifics. If they can develop good
matching opportunities, they can look at a fair amount of funds over the next ten
years. This is a way to try and get a coordinated effort to maximize their abilities
to bring together the various programs that the public sector identifies as valuable.
He is not asking for approval of funding this program today. He would like
feedback to see if there is interest in this program.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane asked for ideas on the procedure for allocating open space funds.
He questioned whether they would set a percentage or a set amount every year.
Olason stated they want to evaluate what programmatic plans people have. The
parks projects are different than PDR's. The Parks Department does occasional
major purchases instead of little, frequent purchases that the PDR program would
do. If they are doing a PDR program in Lake Whatcom, they could develop an
inventory of what they want to buy, and get a sense of how much it will cost. If
they are not getting participation in the PDR program, and funds accumulate, then
they could allocate money to a Parks purchase. The program needs some
flexibility. However, they should have a basic set amount for each program to
encourage people to take time to make application.
McShane stated he recently learned about the Forest Legacy program.
Whatcom County doesn't qualify now, but the program is being reviewed. Olason
stated there is a matching forestry program that may be the same program.
McShane stated he doesn't have time to pursue it that carefully. Staff
doesn't either. The Climate Trust has a lot of money this County could use,
especially since a lot of power plants are being proposed locally. That is a
potentially significant amount of money. Olason stated that is why someone should
dedicate time to do this.
McShane stated Title II funding is an option also. It has been difficult
figuring out how to use that money. It is money that can be used for conservation
easements. There are downsides to using it.
Fleetwood asked if the consultant is a one -time cost. Olason stated it would
be a one -time cost. It should be someone with open space planning experience to
help develop the program. Once the program is done, they would have a facilitator
staff person.
Fleetwood stated that if they were to allocate by percentage to the three
programs, there would be about $230,000 from the Conservation Futures funds to
each program. That is about one acquisition per year. Hopefully, grant money
would be infused into the programs.
(Clerk's Note: Due to sound system malfunction, a portion of the meeting
was not audiotaped. The minutes are transcribed from the clerk's notes.)
Olason stated an option is that they could focus on PDR's for a while, and
then do something else.
Brenner stated she thought they were doing conservation easement
purchases in all the watershed special districts. Olason stated that could be.
Brenner stated she preferred to expand beyond Lake Whatcom, which is
what is referenced on page three, bullet two. Do not rely too much on multiple
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
benefits. Something may come along that may have lots of agricultural benefits,
but nothing else. She asked if it is possible to work with the City of Bellingham to
pay a part of the cost of the coordinator. The City is doing a lot of this same kind
of thing. Olason stated anything is possible.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that if they do
a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, they will work with the City of
Bellingham to find receiving areas. If they add multiple programs, it's possible to
do that kind of sharing.
Brenner stated she thought they could only use Conservation Futures funds
for purchases, and not for consultants and staff. Olason stated there are multiple
interpretations of what Conservation Futures funds can be used for. They have
used it for consultants before. They are preparing for a program that will purchase
property. The funds would not be used for maintenance of property, which is
clearly not allowed.
Brenner asked for a legal opinion. Olason stated he tried that. The legal
opinion was that the requirement is murky, but they can't use the funds for
maintenance. As long as the funds are tied to getting the process going, it is clean.
But that is debatable.
Roy stated each program establishes its own goals. She asked if the
programs have them in place currently. Olason stated he is not sure. They have
some in place. This proposal will formalize those goals.
Hart stated having a process where each program is communicating together
ensures that they will have a better product coming before the Council and that will
be able to take advantage of multiple sources of funding. If the staff really looks at
a project, they might be able to find additional funds.
Roy stated a strength of this proposal is looking for multiple funding. She
asked if the coordinator could be a grant writer. Olason stated the coordinator
could be a grant writer. It depends on how much they want someone to work on
this. That is something to think about as they develop the program.
Brenner asked if the County still has the grant writer position. Hart stated it
does.
Brenner stated that, if they are doing grant writing, use the existing grant
writer person rather than have the coordinator do it.
Roy stated she disagreed. The coordinator needs expertise in a particular
area to write that grant. She questions having one person to write grants for all
the departments.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Hart stated another reason for the coordinator is that there is always an
opportunity for a windfall. They are in fierce competition with other communities
for public dollars. They would compete for State funding dollars as these funds
come up.
Olason stated this goes back to the recommendation of the PDR committee.
It depends on whether they want to have someone who is a minor player to provide
general information, or have someone who is running a program and is really
looking for dollars. That is part of the process they need to work through.
Roy asked what staff needs from the committee today. Olason asked for
suggestions and impressions on the proposal.
McShane stated he liked the idea. They don't have to decide now how much
to allocate to each program. They did address wanting to keep a certain sum of
money aside for big opportunities that may show up. Being ready for available
monies when they show up will take some expertise.
Fleetwood stated this lays out a good process.
Brenner stated she liked the proposal. She has a problem with moving
ahead with a .5 fulltime equivalent (FTE) employee. Olason stated the .5 FTE is
attributed to working through the planning phase, not the permanent coordinator.
The type of coordinator position would be worked out with the plan. In terms of the
money associated with that last item on page five, they anticipate that it will take
six to nine months to work through the planning process. It would take current
staff the time equivalent to a .5 FTE to work with the consultant and departments
on the plan. The question after that is if there is a coordinator attached to the
program.
Brenner asked if the proposal is for a .5 FTE staff for Planning and
Development Services planner. The estimate of $35,000 for a .5 FTE seems a lot.
Olason stated he figured 40 percent of the salary of a senior planner position,
including expenses.
Brenner stated she is concerned with the budget right now. She is concerned
about funding staff out of Conservation Futures funds. Hart stated the funding
would only come out of the Conservation Futures fund for the upfront portion of the
work being done. The rest of the funding would have to be worked out through the
administration. If they want to accelerate the program and meet the Farm Bill
deadlines, then the way they can get there legally is to do the upfront work and
assign some of it to the Conservation Futures funds. They are still constructing the
program. This is a preliminary discussion. Staff will consider the concerns
expressed.
Brenner asked the deadline for the Farm Bill. Olason stated they would
probably ask for applications in January.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated that would give Council time during budget discussions to
decide how this will work. Olason stated the Council decided to expedite
scheduling, and move the timeline up by one month. Staff submitted a
supplemental budget request that includes some Conservation Futures funds for a
potential source. The way the grants work is, if they want USDA funds, they have
to have an offer in hand. It's important for the County, in the next two or three
months, to get everything done so they can get to a point of making an offer to
someone.
Brenner asked if the Council would have time during budget discussions to
make sure this is funded. The supplemental is only through the end of the year.
Olason stated that at budget time, the administration and Council can work out
where the ongoing funding will come from.
Roy stated one of the most important things they do in terms of the County's
future is how they manage growth and planning. She supports it. Money is tight,
and they will have to look at priorities at budget time. This would be a high priority
for her.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council that staff go ahead and
bring forward a concrete proposal.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, presented an update on the purchase of
development rights (PDR) process. Staff will present an ordinance for introduction
on August 13. When the Council sees it, it will be an ordinance that does not have
a lot of detail. It will authorize establishment of the PDR program. It will reference
program guidelines. The guidelines will have the detail. The guidelines will be
changed from time to time. They will be authorized by the Council, but will not
have to go through a public hearing every time there is a change. The ordinance
provides general direction, and the guidelines would run the day -to -day program.
They may be updating the program guidelines shortly after the committee begins.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, presented information
on permit applications from the last six months (on file). The information includes
a map. The number of applications for single - family homes is up by 30 percent.
The map shows where that is occurring. It is mostly occurring in areas of existing
subdivisions that have a large number of lots available now and into the future.
There is a fast pace of residential development. Each single - family home
application goes through a process to evaluate whether or not there is a critical
area nearby. There is a lot of staff time that goes into the process. He explained
where the growth is happening. A lot is happening in the agricultural areas.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked about the Foothills urban growth area (UGA). Hart stated it
is the Kendall UGA. It was a recreational plat for many years. There was a
conversion in use from vacation homes to year -round homes. Staff will create a
map of where people are doing improvements. They will see a trend shift on Lake
Whatcom and Lake Samish from part -time residences to permanent residences. A
lot of the growth that Whatcom County experienced was from folks coming from
other locations. They need to think about that. The question is what they are
moving here for, such as the rural ambience.
Fleetwood stated it looks like sprawl. He asked if it is. Hart stated Mr.
Olason should recapture the analysis they did for agricultural lands.
Olason stated they found that about half of the number of parcels was less
than five acres in the agricultural zone. The average is 17 acres in a 40 -acre zone.
There is a lot of infill potential. There were a lot of five -acre divisions that occurred
in the mid- 1990's. Since they changed Title 20 two years ago, they haven't had
one division. They did a number of changes to Title 20 in 1999. They looked at
provisions for division of an existing residence. That's where a lot of the additional
lots came from. The lot supply is not growing, but there is a reserve. Most were
divided two to 20 years ago.
McShane asked for a breakdown of how many exempt subdivisions there are.
Hart stated he could provide that information. The difference is a site planning
issue. If someone comes in for a normal short- or long -plat process, staff works
with the developer on the home site development to avoid critical area issues. In
an exempt division process, the issue is that they are able to just work on the
house, instead of having the entire division worked out ahead of time.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there have been 188
exempt divisions so far in 2002. They expect to get 450 by the end of the year.
McShane stated that is 188 subdivisions that don't know whether there is
good water, access to roadways, or development potential.
Brenner asked for another map that shows the UGA as well as the cities.
She's surprised to see so little development in the Bellingham urban fringe. She
thought there were subdivisions happening in there. Hart stated he would check
into that.
Brenner asked how many are in the Birch Bay cluster. Hart stated he would
get that information.
Hart stated there is an issue about Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)
boundaries. He needs to work with Bruce Roll. The purpose of a map is to provide
generalized information to a reader of that map. The purpose of a regulation is to
say that a person has to follow conditions prior to development. If a regulation
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
says that a person must follow regulations in a watershed, the ruling document is
the regulation, not the map. The map gets them focused on the area generally.
When they are talking about large lands and scientific data that relates to natural
resources, it is a different issue. When they make the connection between the two,
and it impacts private property and legal issues, they need to have a discussion.
Recently, a WRIA map with new data was created. The question is whether
that data is better than the data they had previously. So far, staff has told him that
the data is better. The next question is whether they should use the new data in
terms of administrative decisions. Based on available data, if someone is close to a
watershed, he has to read the ordinance, which is the ruling document, and make a
determination of whether someone is in the watershed. Therefore, that person
would have to follow regulations. If the person disagrees, then the County imposes
upon that person the obligation to show that the property is not in that watershed
and to show that the water doesn't come and go in a particular direction on that
person's property. The County imposes a cost, which is how it works all over the
state. There is a variety of issues here, some of which are policy. His
recommendation is that they have an internal conversation with the Public Works
Department and Planning Department to make sure they have a system. Right
now, the system to accept data about whether or not someone is in or out of a
particular resource boundary does not improve the system each time they get that
new data. He would like to see a digital system at some point. People are doing
thousands of dollars worth of work to survey their properties. The County should
come up with a policy for watershed and natural resources to allow those people to
provide the digital data to the County, which improves the map for the next person
in line. They would be constantly improving the natural resource database. There
are policy implications to that. Don't change the boundaries until they can look at
the broader issue first. The broader issue is how they incorporate the data they
receive into the County. Now, it isn't providing a better layer of information. Stick
with the 1989 boundary, work with this policy, and then adopt boundaries for all
the watersheds.
Brenner stated make sure they don't put the onus on the property owner if
they find that someone is now in the watershed. Hart stated most of the cost in the
watershed is a speculative value, not an actual value. Staff accidentally gave
someone the wrong boundary. He retracted the line, but they need to have the
larger discussion on the role of the map and the administrative decision.
Brenner suggested that they have some kind of interim zone or something
around the fringes of the boundary to avoid increased costs to people. Hart stated
it would be to the benefit of the landowner to determine whether or not they are in
or out of a natural resource area.
Fleetwood asked if they will have the transfer of development right (TDR)
discussion in committee in two weeks. Hart submitted the final draft report from
1996 on TDR's. It includes a good summary. The report recommended action
items to improve the TDR system.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a break from 11: 00 a. m. to 11: 10 a. m.
The sound system was repaired, and the remainder of the meeting was
audiotaped.)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING SALMON NET PENS AND SUPPORT OF WILD
SALMON FISHERIES (AB2002 -202)
McShane stated he went through the information from the Marine Resources
Committee and crafted a draft resolution that incorporated some of that
information. He moved to recommend approval of the resolution.
Fleetwood stated the first whereas statement needs to be clarified.
McShane moved to amend the second whereas statement, "Whereas, these
same residents have volunteered...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood state the third whereas statement needs a verb.
McShane moved to amend the third whereas statement, "...and fisheries
dependefA on healthy wild fish populations...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to replace the fifth whereas statement with the following
statement, "Whereas farmed salmon pose a threat to wild salmon stocks through
the use of antibiotics to treat net pens, causing an increase of antibiotic resistant
bacteria in a marine environment."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to amend sixth whereas statement, "...marine environment
(e�,) through degradation of water quality ... and pelagic organisms; and"
Motion carried unanimously.
Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated they have the word "degrade"
twice in one sentence. She suggested replacing "degradation of" with "impacts to."
McShane moved to amend the sixth whereas statement, "...through
degradation e impacts to water quality..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, 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
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner suggested they remove "quality" in the seventh whereas statement.
Habitat is habitat. They are talking about overall habitat.
McShane stated he preferred to leave the word in. The types of habitat the
Atlantic salmon might disrupt is pretty specific.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated it disrupts all the habitat, not a portion of it.
Roy stated this language came from the MRC. She preferred to leave it as it
is.
Brenner stated the eighth whereas statement should say "...in the last half of
the decade...." It's been in the last five years, not ten years.
Ann Mosness, citizen, stated the NOAA report on the net pen salmon farming
industry in the Pacific Northwest states that a reporting regulation has been in
effect since 1996. It shows that approximately 600,000 farmed salmon escaped
between 1996 and 1999.
Roy asked if it is important that they be that specific.
McShane stated he prefers to be general. The phrase "...over 500,000 in the
last decade..." is accurate and defensible.
Fleetwood asked if there is evidence showing annual escapement.
McShane stated they don't document leakage. It is hard to track the few fish
that jump really well and leap out of the pens, or the small fish that swim out of a
small hole. The record is a rough number of fish when the pen breaks and all the
fish get out.
Brenner stated the percentage difference is dramatic. They should specify
the last six years. It doesn't hurt to be specific when they have specific
information.
McShane stated that if they get more specific, he preferred to directly cite
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife fact sheet word for word. He
didn't think that was necessary. They only reported what was documented, and
there are other fish that they might not have documented because of leakage. The
number from British Columbia is even larger. If they get that specific, they get into
a debate about the numbers. The committee's desire is to keep it general.
Fleetwood suggested amending the ninth whereas statement, "...in B.C. lin�
Addition, and spawning populations have been documented in three...." It reads
better.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane moved to amend the "...in B.C. in ddotien- and spawning
populations have been documented in three..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner suggested an amendment to the resolution statement. Separate the
existing parenthetical statement and make it a new, second resolved statement.
Roy stated the committee would work in order on the resolution.
Fleetwood referenced the 11th whereas statement and stated they could spell
out what the precautionary approaches are.
McShane stated they are familiar with the precautionary approaches, and
they don't need to define it.
Roy moved to approve Councilmember Brenner's suggestion about the
resolved statement, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Whatcom County
Council opposes the establishment of commercial
prof" Feselutien, cengngeremal is defined as "the Fearing of fish for marine salmon
net pens in Whatcom County waters and the waters of the Pacific Northwest. NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that for the purposes of this resolution,
"commercial" is defined as "the rearing of fish for profit. ""
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked if the statement about net pens in Whatcom County and
Pacific Northwest waters should be "waters that contain wild stocks." They are
trying to say that the Atlantic salmon are in areas where there aren't wild stocks
and they can't get out.
McShane stated they've already identified marine salmon net pens. They are
identifying the pens in a marine environment.
Stroebel stated they should consider that there will be wild stocks in any of
the water bodies, whether it is marine or fresh water.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to prohibit people from operating in closed
ponds. Stroebel stated those isolated ponds wouldn't be marine net pens.
Brenner asked if the language is okay the way it is. Stroebel stated it is.
Brenner suggested changing the first whereas statement, "...significant
sacrifices in and forgone harvest opportunity..."
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane moved to change first whereas statement, '...significant sacrifices +f�
and forgone harvest..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood asked if they included the term "commercial marine salmon" in the
resolution statement to address the NSEA recommendation. He asked if NSEA is
comfortable with this proposal.
McShane stated they will have to look at NSEA's suggested resolution.
Roy stated NSEA didn't want to interfere with hatchery net pens of native
stock. The committee has not done that. She's been talking to both tribes. The
Nooksack Tribe is very supportive of this. There will be a letter from 15 tribes
represented by the native fishing group supporting this concept. Their concern was
not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Part of salmon recovery is growing
native salmon.
McShane stated it is difficult to write whereas statements that fully lay out
some of the technical arguments because of differing opinions on the issues. The
packet of information from the MRC was very informative. The committee has
heard two different things about whether or not Atlantic salmon are a threat. They
have to find a balance point. Some people don't see them as a threat. When the
Atlantic salmon escape, the fish most probably sit around passively. However,
there were a few that managed to get to Alaska. The same is true with their ability
to spawn. He is convinced the precautionary approach is the way to go.
Economically, the community doesn't have an interest in farm fish. For local
sustainable economic development, it doesn't help Whatcom County.
Fleetwood asked if the local fishing lobby has an opinion.
McShane stated they are very opposed to rearing of Atlantic salmon. There
is a lot of opportunity for sustainable economic development in this county to have
value -added fishing.
Fleetwood asked if there are any researchers who think that they are already
moving in a direction and they are not going to be able to reverse these problems.
Mosness stated one researcher, Mr. Volpe, is studying this issue. Mr. Volpe says
that 80 percent of the streams have these fish in them. He found 14 of the Atlantic
salmon in a five - kilometer stretch of a stream on Vancouver Island. He predicts
that the fish farm industry will collapse within a decade, and will take wild salmon
with it. This is very important.
Motion to recommend approval as amended carried unanimously.
Roy stated this would be scheduled before the full Council in two weeks.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 7/30/2002, Page 13