Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 4 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 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 June 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Sharon Roy Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM PROPOSAL (AB2002 -216) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. He submitted the proposed program (on file). The PDR Committee was comprised mostly of people from the agricultural community. Other people attended regularly. The committee began meeting in September in response to many Council requests to address some of the problems in agriculture, particularly the loss of farmland. Nelson stated that the trend data should go back beyond 1954. In the 1800's, there would have been very few farms. The trend line would be different if they postulated from the turn of the century. McShane stated that if they went back to 1950, the trend line would be a bell curve. Olason stated the Council decided to look into other ways to protect farmland. The committee first discussed whether a PDR program would do that much to preserve farmland. Early on, they decided it would be a component of an overall program. A PDR program can allow the purchase of strategic properties when they become available and to dissuade development pressures in a given area. They aren't designed to buy up all the farmland. There is a list of other programs needed to have a farmland preservation strategy. Maintaining strong agricultural zoning is critical, but it's transitory. All the other programs are to Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. bolster the zoning. The committee looked at a work program. A lot of these things in the list are identified in the work program. An extreme problem is limited funding, particularly with PDR purchases. One of the early discussions was how to make the best use of that limited funding. The committee identified the Conservation Futures funds, which are the only funds available at the local level. Programs that are operating now and that have an adopted program in place can apply for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds. Those have been increased since this last farm bill. There is quite a bit of money there. The committee anticipates being able to get matching funds, with the Conservation Futures funds to provide the initial funding. There is a section in the document that describes other types of funding sources that they could pursue. Many of those are somewhat speculative or long -term. Their initial recommendation is to work with the Conservation Futures funds, with matching USDA funds. The committee spent the most time on program eligibility, which is where they are going to buy property and how they are going to strategically purchase that property. The committee spent time discussing what the strategy could and should be. They looked at agricultural or rural zoned lands that would provide a barrier to encroachment, which meant that the property had to typically be on the edge of a large area of agricultural land. They also looked at agricultural areas outside of the agriculture zone. There are still major blocks of land that are not zoned for agriculture, but are farmed. Those parcels in five -acre zoning are extremely vulnerable. The committee also looked at lands that are unique and regionally important. One of the areas they looked at were areas farmed with seed potato crops. Those are very high -value crops that require dry soil conditions. The report includes a map of the targeted areas. The committee tried to identify areas that would provide protection from encroachment. The committee did not look at areas in the flood plain. That is not its focus. They looked at areas surrounding cities to deflect areas from growing one way versus another. The area near Enterprise Road has a lot of potato crops. It is all five -acres zoning, and has been parcelized. The targeted areas would be eligible for purchase proposals. Nelson asked if the southern part of the county, Acme Valley, was not included because of the flood plain. Olason stated that area was not included because there is not as much pressure in the southern part of the valley. Prices there seem fairly low. The south fork valley gets less light and more rain. The area has limitations in terms of quality, and it's not as accessible to Bellingham or Lynden. The committee had to agree to come up with something more than just choosing the entire county. They looked at several things to choose the target areas. It was a judgment call. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Fleetwood asked if there was consensus among the members ultimately about where the targeted areas should be. Olason stated the committee members agreed to go with the target areas for the first two rounds. Then, they would re- evaluate the target areas to determine whether or not they want to expand the targeted areas. This is an experiment to see if they are going to get interest in those areas. Some of these areas may be very expensive, such as north of Lynden. As a part of this process, they are going to have to get strategic properties, which may be more expensive. Caskey- Schreiber asked if these areas are already zoned something other than agriculture. Olason stated the targeted areas area zoned either agriculture or rural. These areas have a lot of development adjacent to them. The committee tried to set the boundaries, so there is a clear emphasis that these target areas are for agriculture. They went through criteria in terms of rating the properties. After there is an application, they anticipate having a selection committee made up of farmers and people with expertise in real estate and banking. A critical part of this is the concept of partnering with other groups. The County doesn't have a lot of money to do this. This is a new era, to go from zoning to buying the rights to develop from someone and being, in essence, co- owners of a property. They would be in a position to have to monitor the property in perpetuity and making sure that the co- owners are maintaining it to the condition of the easement. Looking around the country, there are two ways this is done. Back East, there are counties with staff that only works on easements. They spend a lot of money on the program. In the West, it is different. In California, the work is contracted out to an entity other than the county. The Conservation Futures fund allows for other groups to handle this money. Part of what this proposal talks about is some of the partners the County might consider. Those partners include the Land Trust, which has included a proposal with this proposal to do negotiations and monitoring for the long -term. The other partner the County could use is the Conservation District, which has authorization to levy a per parcel fee. That fee could incorporate some of the management requirements of this program. Nelson asked who would own the land. Olason stated the County would only buy the development right. All other aspects of the decisions about the land would be with the landowner. The conservation easement runs with the land and is on the deed. A buyer would agree, upon purchase, to abide by the conditions of the easement. Nelson asked if part of the conditions would be to continue agricultural practices. Olason stated that would be primary. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Nelson asked if a buyer of the land would purchase the land at a fair market value. Olason stated the proposal addresses the purchase price. There is a market value for the property. The County entertains peoples' proposals to buy the development rights away from the property. There is a requirement to establish a farmland value, which is strictly what one can use that property for and make money on from farming. There are formulas that calculate that value. There are also comparables. Subtract the farmland value from the market value. That would be what they would pay the landowner to extinguish any future development potential. Nelson asked what happens if the buyer is not a farmer. Olason stated they can't make anyone farm. The easement still prevails. The program is for production agriculture that is soil- based. The easement that applies to the property will have some restrictions on the amount of impervious surface that they can develop for some other use. That would retain the remainder in some open condition that could be farmed at some point, even if they choose not to. Nelson stated his concern is that there will be a supply of cheap land available to anyone who wants to buy it and who may not have any intention of farming it. Olason stated that someone could buy the property just to put a "starter palace" on it. The committee discussed it quite a bit. If the County buys a conservation easement on 40 acres, for example, the owner will have received his money for the sale. Then, the owner sells it to someone who wants a large parcel of land, but has no intention of farming. A lot of people really like 40 -acre home sites. According to a study, there is no appreciable difference in the market value of certain acreages between those with easements and those without easements. For example, twenty -acre parcels are the same price, with or without an easement. The concern is about what the program buys. They can't make people farm. The issue that came up with the committee was whether there should be a provision in the easement that gives the County the right of first refusal to purchase the back at a formula- based, agricultural value. That is being done back East because of this problem. They want to maintain some ability to ensure that it gets farmed, and that it doesn't become pure open space. The way they designed this program was for agricultural production and agricultural value. If it is a good farm, it will rate well. Nelson asked how this could impact other people in the county in competing with someone who is able to come into the county and buy land that is cheaper, and use it for agricultural purposes that compete with local farmers. McShane stated that in that scenario, someone coming into the county to farm would become a local. Olason stated it might attract people to the county to farm. That issue wasn't brought up at the committee. His concern is if there are two or three farmers who want it. They could bid against it. Ultimately, the County can't make Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. anyone farm. The only thing the County can do is to have the land available for people who might want to farm. McShane stated that if the County uses its option through the right of first refusal condition to buy these lands, it would end up owning a bunch of properties to lease or sell back to farmers. Olason stated the right of first refusal option was to make sure they don't spend the money now, and still make it unaffordable for someone to farm. Whatcom County is in a growth area where that could be a serious problem. In the short term, the responsibility for implementation would be with the Planning and Development Services Department. The concept is to get something on the ground. To get the first couple of rounds out, the County will probably have to do it. If they develop a program with the Conservation District, it might stretch that timeline out. That may or may not be a critical issue. Caskey- Schreiber stated she prefers to see this get going as soon as possible. A lot of people have been waiting for years for this. Don't stretch it out any longer than they have to. Roy asked if the Conservation District or any other agency besides the Land Trust have indicated an interest. Olason stated they have. The proposal describes the concerns of those partners in getting involved. Most of the concerns are about having a funding source. In the proposal, they assume that the County would partner at least with the Land Trust to do the negotiations and monitoring. Staff and the Conservation District would develop the standard language for the conservation easement and the ordinance language. They will have to have that effort worked into the budget. The proposal includes a bare bones budget that assumes the assistance of the Conservation District and the Land Trust. They also assume the cost of appraisals. The Land Trust fees would come out of the Conservation Futures purchase price of the property. Fleetwood asked the amount of acreage the targeted areas include. Olason stated he would find out and report that information to the County. Crawford stated the Comprehensive Plan targets protecting 100,000 acres of agricultural land. Of that total target, 88,000 acres are currently zoned agricultural. That leaves about 12,000 acres in contention. He doubts that the committee approached the targeted areas with that acreage in mind. The overall concept, if they are going to follow the County Comprehensive Plan, would be to ensure that there is 100,000 acres of agricultural land. If they use that set of numbers, they would ultimately look at about 12,000 acres to target. Fleetwood asked how many conservation easement development rights the County could buy with half of the available Conservation Futures funds right now Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. and given a match by the USDA. Olason stated that the Skagit County program pays for development rights. Whatcom County's concept was a barrier concept to develop some edges to the city urban growth areas. Their real concern is to have an easement that precludes conversion. There aren't very many of these targeted area parcels that don't have houses. The development right concept addresses the development right that exists today. The purchase of development rights has to account for the potential conversion in the future. They have to look at the overall farmland worth and subtract that from the market price to get the value of the development right. They don't just count the development rights that are available today. That is the difference between this program and Skagit County's program. A farm owner adjacent to the urban growth area (UGA) has a speculative value in the property that would be experienced, should the UGA boundary change to include the farmer's property. The amount of allowed development could go from one house per forty acres to four houses per acre. Brenner stated that, hypothetically, there could be a future County Council that would pave over all the agricultural land. She doesn't like to assume that the County Council will make the agricultural land worse. There are two things that the County Council has made very high priorities. One priority is protecting the watershed and the other is preserving agricultural land. The County Council will be tarred and feathered if it tried to extend an urban growth area into prime agricultural land. She doesn't think that it would happen. Nelson asked if the County's legal staff reviewed this proposal. Olason stated they've seen it. It's not a proposed ordinance yet. If the County is interested in partnering, staff needs to meet with legal counsel to evaluate setting up a contract. Staff also needs a legal opinion on provisions that talk about how they use funds. Nelson asked to have that legal review done before the Council evaluates the proposal to partner with these agencies. Olason stated they could do that. He wanted feedback from the Council on whether it would consider partnering. If so, the staff can follow through with the legal review. Nelson asked if the Conservation District would take a lead in the partnership. Olason stated there are three options. Staff recommends option three, which is to have the County work with the Land Trust on the first two rounds of applications, to get started quickly. Option two could be pursued in that timeframe. The Conservation District said it could have its approvals by October. They want to have a fee in place to assist them with the program. Nelson asked if the administration has reviewed the costs of the program to the County. Olason stated the administration has looked at it. There is not a lot of money to go around. The money for the employee position will have to come from the general fund unless they can bill the Conservation Futures fund for the initial program development phase. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Brenner asked if this program is based on future potential land conversions. Olason stated they've decided to start with appraisal -based offers. Brenner asked if any of the target areas are in urban growth areas. Olason stated they are not. They are adjacent to urban growth areas. The appraiser has to estimate the potential for conversion. That is always part of a review. Brenner stated there is an implication that a property could be more valuable because it might be rezoned. She would like to see an appraisal that is based only on current zoning and does not assume conversions in the future. She is not comfortable with the speculation that the land will be converted. It would be cheaper than buying development rights based on speculated conversion for the Council to approve a policy that prime agricultural land in these areas will not be converted into urban growth areas, because the Council has made a commitment to this. McShane stated that this proposal needs to be considered within a broader spectrum of an entire preservation program. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Brenner asked if the staff is asking the Council to consider an appraisal, with the consideration that a future Council might vote to convert the land to an urban growth area. Olason stated that is not a part of the proposal. In the procedure of trying to evaluate and compensate a participant, there is a speculative value that is in all properties, depending on the location. Another problem is, if they don't address the speculative nature of the lands, they might not get anyone to participate in the key areas that they want to purchase. It is a market driven thing. It is a voluntary program. The key to making it work is to provide a market payout that will attract a landowner. Brenner asked if one option, instead of speculating on a possible conversion, is if the Council approves a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that those types of properties will never be converted to urban growth areas. Olason stated a conservation easement is for perpetuity. Politically, the Council might make that policy for now. In the future, the policy could change. The idea with the easement is to set a permanent condition on a specific piece of property. Brenner asked if the nursery that is now a paved -over mall was given in perpetuity. She asked where they draw the line. Olason stated there is a provision in all conservation easements that, at such point that the purpose of the easement is no longer possible, the easement can be lifted by a court of law. The landowner would have to pay back a portion of the returns. The landowner typically has to pay back whatever they were paid, plus interest. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is possible to allot Conservation Futures funding to staff to get this program going. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is possible. It would reduce the available funding for other objectives of the fund. There may be other sources of funds for this kind of thing, beyond the general fund. It takes time for the administration to research it. The administration can make a recommendation. The administration has looked at this with the staff. Roy stated she would like to have information on what the administration recommends regarding the proposal. Brenner asked if there would be pressure on other development rights programs to use a speculative conversion concept if this program incorporates the speculative conversion concept. Olason stated it is a willing buyer /willing seller issue. Someone may have an idea that his or her property would be worth more if it were converted, and someone will pay him or her more for the property. That creates an additional value beyond the defined value. There is a speculative aspect to selling development rights. A person has to consider the reality, even if it is remote, that there is a speculative value. Brenner stated that even if the County Council decided to get rid of all agricultural land, there is a Growth Hearings Board that will step in and stop the County. Olason stated that could happen if the County decision is appealed. McShane stated that appeal has to be from a local group of citizens. Brenner stated she is concerned about the idea of speculating what future zoning changes might happen if the County has made a strong commitment of not doing those zoning changes. Olason stated that could be reflected in the price offered. There might be appraisers who don't offer very much, and they may not have people participate because of that. Brenner asked if the program is working well in Skagit County. Olason stated it is working. Landowners are not beating the County's doors down, partly because Skagit County only pays for development rights. Brenner asked if Skagit County has been converting prime agricultural lands next to cities into urban growth areas. Olason stated yes, over time. Agricultural lands surround Mt. Vernon. It is just like Lynden. Lynden doesn't have very many places to go. If they grow as they have been, they will have to look at the agricultural lands. When the Planning and Development Committee meets on June 18, it needs to decide if they want to do partnering. It also needs to decide whether or not the County should do this program, where the funds will come from, and what the schedule will be. He needs that direction so he can draft an ordinance for the Council. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Brenner asked if they are also going to consider the concept of working on a transfer of development rights program that works, and giving farmers a transfer that is more than the value. A developer might be interested in getting bonus density by purchasing three times the value. Olason stated the message from the committee is that there is clearly not enough money to do an overall program. That is why the proposal is very targeted. The committee recommends doing a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Henry Bierlink, Agricultural Preservation Committee, thanked the Purchase of Development Rights Committee and Kraig Olason for working on this complicated task. This has to be in the toolbox to protect farmland for the future. There are a lot of other tools they need as well. Not all of the questions have been figured out, but move forward with this as quickly as they can. They've been thinking about this for ten years. It's time to start doing something. Crawford asked about the fundamental reasons why this is important. There are a bunch of things that affect the viability of agricultural industries in Whatcom County. He assumes that land preservation is one important component of that. He asked about the importance of land preservation in the context of all the components, including water availability, crop prices, world economies, markets, and transportation costs. He wants to understand the importance of the government stepping in and protecting a piece of topsoil as opposed to letting the guys in the industry make good decisions on their own behalf. Bierlink stated that if farming is going to survive, they need several things. The County Council has some bearing on some of those things. The County Council doesn't have much bearing on areas such as the market and world economy. There are certain things that the County Council does have control of, most specifically land. They are involved in the watershed planning process as well. Land, water, and infrastructure are the main three things that are needed from the County Council. The County Council is helping with the water and the infrastructure. On the land issue, the market will take care of a lot of it, but they need to set up a structure for it. A PDR program will set the parameters for what a TDR program can be in the future. They will have to build on the PDR program and develop what a TDR program can do. In a short -term market, agricultural land will always lose to development. They can't compete. They are a long -range investment. The value of farming is not as dramatic as development value. There will always be a market for someone to buy a piece of land and speculate on what they can do to put a house or business on it. Someone will get a much quicker short -term response than if he or she plants corn, for example. That reality forces them to look at these programs to maintain a critical mass for agriculture. They want to maintain enough land to support the entire infrastructure including the agricultural businesses and processing plants. If they let the market take it where it would naturally go, then agriculture hasn't got a chance. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. Crawford asked about the farmers who say their kids aren't interested in continuing farming, there is no money in farming, and he or she wants to protect their development rights. He asked how to respond to that position. Bierlink stated those arguments happen on the Agricultural Preservation Committee Board of Supervisors. That is the reality. The Board has decided that it is an Agriculture Preservation Committee. That means they are interested in the long -term future of the entire agricultural industry. There are times when that conflicts with the individual interest of that particular farmer. Those are gut- wrenching times. The Board of Supervisors understands that the bigger picture is the important picture. At times, that may mean that what an individual would like to do for his or her own best interest may not be in the best interest of the entire agricultural community. The Council needs to decide if a farmer's interest compliments or conflicts with the interest of agriculture in general. Veronica Wisniewski, Whatcom Conservation District Associate Supervisor, stated that if she thought that zoning alone was working to preserve agriculture in Whatcom County, she would not have spent the last six months working on the Purchase of Development Rights Committee. Zoning is an important part of the package to keep agriculture in place in Whatcom County. No PDR program alone will preserve agriculture in this county. They have to take a few more steps to make this work. It can be a very effective and necessary program to protect farmland. The program ought to be considered as a preface to getting a TDR program in place, which will be useful for this county to have in place. There was discussion about the Whatcom Conservation District being used as a part to implement this program. The County will face the issue of whether or not the Conservation District should have the assessment authority. If the County Council wants the Conservation District to support this program, it will have to consider that issue. The Conservation District can't support the program without having an assessment. This is a working document. The County Council can make changes to the program. It is to preserve agriculture in Whatcom County. Brenner asked if the assessment would be countywide. Wisniewski stated it is countywide. The Conservation District covers the entire county. Brenner asked if it is an assessment based on assessed property value. Wisniewski stated it would be a per parcel fee. McShane asked for information on the assessment fee when this is discussed at the next meeting on June 18. 2. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A MORATORIUM ON MARINE SALMON NET PENS AND SUPPORTING WILD SALMON FISHERIES (AB2002- 202) Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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 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 stated he distributed an amended version of the resolution, which would be discussed. Ann Mosness, Sudden Valley, stated the four farms off of Bainbridge Island put more sewage into Puget Sound than the entire city of almost 900,000 people. These fish farms are creating a dirty environment under the waterline and out of site. They don't have adequate regulations on the drugs given to the farmed fish. They are not testing for antibiotic resistant bacteria. A food is going into the marketplace that is not colored and not labeled. There are not penalties for the fish escapes. There is not enforcement of the regulations. Imported fish from other countries are using 75 times more chemicals than is estimated as being used in Washington. This industry has exploded beyond regulatory agencies' capacities to oversee. She encouraged the County Council to take strong measures to restrict this industry. The industry uses between two and five pounds of fish to create pellets that feed one pound of farmed fish. A study predicts that, by 2005, the fish oil of the world will be gone. The fish that are used to make the fish meal for the farm fish industry will be gone for the profit of a few companies in other countries. There are fish farms in Washington. British Columbia is planning to double the number of their fish farms. The profits are going back to Scandinavian. Whatcom County is closest to B.C., which is considering doubling the number of pens. They've put $75 million into expanding their aquaculture industry. Policymakers are willing to let this industry exist if the public accepts farmed salmon as a substitute for wild salmon. Then, policymakers don't have to protect wild salmon. They can let wild salmon go. That will be the outcome of this fish farm industry. It is predicted that the fish farm industry will collapse within a decade. The question is what that collapse will take with it. It is predicted that the collapse will take the wild salmon industry with it. When B.C. doubles the number of fish pens, they will be installed against the Alaska border and Washington border. That will impact local fish. The local regulations require that they protect wild salmon. The fishing industry has been restricted and shut down to protect wild salmon. This other industry is coming in to threaten the existence of wild salmon. The regulators are not dealing with it because it is out of site, below the waterline. There has been a lot of media attention on the fish farm industry. If they don't do something with policy and regulation, they are going to watch the industry destroy the wild salmon industry and have a major impact on the environment. It will also make less food available for the hungry world population. The net pens should not be in the marine environment. In Iceland, they are on enclosed concrete ponds on land. That increases the cost to the industry. It should increase the cost. Fish is imported into this country that is priced so low that it has devastated the wild salmon industry. This is a war on the wild salmon fishing industry. These imports are doubled in the summertime. They can't Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, 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. coexist. This industry must be in closed containment systems so it pays its cost of pollution. There has to be testing contaminants of the fish flesh. There has to be adequate enforcement of the regulation on the labeling. Brenner suggested that Ms. Mosness's name be added to the list of proposers. McShane moved to add Councilmembers Brenner and Fleetwood to the list of sponsors on the resolution. He agreed that Ms. Mosness's name be added to the list of proposers. (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.) Brenner he suggested also adding language to next -to -last whereas statement, "farmed salmon may endanger human health...." She believes that it happens, but she can't prove it. She would like to see the language amended to give the resolution as much credibility as possible. McShane agreed. Mosness stated a research study that will be completed by the end of this year will have more conclusive evidence. She agreed with having the language that the Council will support. As more information comes out, people might take stronger positions. Roy asked if they are talking about the farmed salmon being Atlantic salmon exclusively. Some sort of net pens are used by wild salmon enhancement organizations to raise native stock before they are released. She asked for a definition of farmed salmon. She asked if net pens are used in ways to enhance the native salmon. Mosness stated Washington net pens will grow sable fish and cod in the near future. They can't really specify only Atlantic salmon. The difference in the fish is the confinement for a lifetime as opposed to those fish released as juveniles that go to sea. The lifetime confinement creates a necessity for medications. It creates a feedlot concentration of animals. Roy asked if net pens themselves are not necessarily all bad, but it's how they are used. The usage is where the term "farm" is applied. The Lummi Nation has fish hatcheries. That is not connected at all to farm salmon. Mosness stated that is correct. There is a problem with raising native salmon as well. The ones raised in net pens are a carnivorous species because they are fed pellets. About 70 percent of the species farms are Atlantic salmon, and 30 percent are Pacific salmon. The issue is the lifetime confinement. Roy stated she's heard some groups criticize hatchery salmon. She wants to make sure they are opposing non - native Atlantic salmon and genetically engineered fish. They are encouraging the Department of Fish and Wildlife to strengthen their draft aquaculture rules. They are also encouraging the wild Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 12 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. salmon industry. She is having difficulty with the terms in some of the whereas statements. McShane stated the issue is the definition of farming. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Mosness stated some of the drugs given to farmed salmon are not good for humans to eat. Hatchery fish and fish in the wild will die if they become ill. Roy stated she is concerned about having something in the whereas statements that would make it difficult for someone using similar techniques for wild salmon, which is okay. Fleetwood asked if the statement in the first whereas statement have facts that back it up. Caskey- Schreiber stated she attended the Lummi salmon summit. The farm fish drive the price of regular wild fish down, so the fishers can't get the market prices that they used to get. Mosness stated a lot of the species are not being harvested. There could have been 11 million humpies harvested in Puget Sound last fall, but there wasn't a harvest for them so they weren't harvested. In western Alaska, they are getting less than $.30 per pound for sockeye salmon. The last time there was a decline in the number of fish, they were getting $2.40 per pound in 1988. Crawford stated Ms. Mosness has made some excellent points. However, they've only heard one side of the story. They need to make a responsible decision based on hearing from the industry, other governmental entities, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife if the County Council is going to make a resolution like this. The information received so far sounds and looks very credible, and is a cause for concern. However, it's not enough for them to make a balanced decision. Brenner stated she would like Councilmember Crawford to feel comfortable with this. Unless there is an immediate timeline, the Council should take the time to allow other sides to present their information. However, she's read a lot of information on this issue. She's convinced that it's a problem. She suggested adding a whereas statement that would define farmed salmon, "WHEREAS farmed salmon are raised in confinement for life, except when they escape, and given drugs to remain healthy; and" Nelson stated he received a letter from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife on this issue. There are some strong concerns that need to be addressed. They councilmembers should look at the complete picture. This is a $40 million industry in the State of Washington. This is a new concept for many of them to consider. Agriculture has been going on for years. One issue in the health care Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 13 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. arena is fish production, because of the significant health benefits of fish consumption. Fish is a stock being used by most of the world for a major protein source. Farmed fish is becoming a major production item throughout the world for health issues and for protein production needed for human sustenance. They need to look at this comprehensively, not only from the perspective of a concern for their own native species. McShane stated asked if protein from the sea is a worldwide issue or U.S. issue. Nelson stated it is a worldwide issue. Cardiovascular disease is on the rise, particularly in the western culture countries. Fish is becoming a more predominant element of a balanced diet for preventing these diseases. It has far bigger impacts to health care costs. A significant question for the world as a whole is whether they use native species, which are dwindling, or begin to use aquaculture. They need to determine how to balance this need with protecting native species. He submitted two papers to the Council on this issue. He is concerned with whether or not certain whereas statements are factual. He agreed with Councilmember Crawford because they are concerned about protecting an industry. He wants to see the salmon stocks revitalized. They have to understand that it will take an alternative source to feed these fish populations to the world. They are not going to get it from the native species. Mosness stated that farmed fish have increased levels of Omega 6, which increases inflammation pain for people who have arthritis. The salmon created in pens is not the same salmon that is naturally available. It is predicted that 125 million wild salmon could be harvested in Alaska this summer. Whether or not there are markets for those salmon is something else. The farmed fish has taken away the marketplace. In addition, pesticides are used to kill the sea lice on the farmed fish. Brenner stated she wanted to see farm fishing happen, but not in areas where the farmed fish can escape and contaminate native stock. She wants to have the choice of being able to eat native wild salmon. The resolution doesn't have to say they are going to eliminate farmed salmon. The resolution says that the farmed salmon shouldn't be in the waters where they can escape and contaminate native stock. Nelson stated they need to make sure they don't endanger an industry that could potentially benefit people. Wendy Scherrer, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA), stated NSEA doesn't take a stand on farm fish. Marine salmon net pens are used in Whatcom and Skagit counties to augment recreational and commercial fisheries, using native stocks. The direction comes from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are net pens now in Squalicum Harbor. She would hate to see a resolution Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 14 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. approved that says marine salmon net pens are not allowed. There are issues about the interaction between non - native and wild native fish, economic goals, and cultural issues. Separating some of those issues out would clarify the resolution. Part of NSEA's mission is to return economically productive and self- sustaining runs to Whatcom County streams. NSEA gets its direction from the co- managers. She suggested including the Lummi, Nooksack, and Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists to provide direction. Also, include people who are farm fish people with an economic investment in the issue. The International Fish Culturist convention will be held in Bellingham in December. A lot of these techniques and discussion will be held in the local community. Some of the international questions being asked now will be discussed at that meeting. Nelson asked if there are any farmed fish in Whatcom County. Scherrer stated that the closest farmed fish is on Cyprus Island in Skagit County. McShane stated they need to define what farmed fish they are talking about. Scherrer stated they use hatchery stock for native fish. It is primarily to acclimate fish before they go out to the salt water. Amy Kraham, Marine Resources Committee (MRC), stated the MRC has been looking at this issue for a couple of years. The Northwest Straits Commission has also been talking about the farm fish issue. The MRC can provide more information to the councilmembers. The MRC is generally in support of the concept of the resolution. They may have particular issues with the whereas statements. The MRC has not made a recommendation. McShane stated he would incorporate the changes suggested by Councilmember Brenner. This would be held in committee to July 16, 2002. OTHER BUSINESS Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the Planning and Development Services Department met with Parks and Recreation Department and the Water Resources Division to discuss certain issues, including financial constraints. They need to look for where they can find the best bang for the buck on natural resource issues that are of importance to multiple County departments and divisions. By the July 16 meeting, staff should report back to the Natural Resources Committee to look at where they can find that collaboration, find cost efficiencies, and talk about leveraging dollars. It is necessary to link the strategies to the cities and get them involved. Brenner stated the County needs a strong interlocal agreement with the cities to provide bike access on roads. Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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. Roy stated the County should take a regional approach to many issues with the cities. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:43 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 16