HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 4 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 4, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Dan McShane
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF APPLYING FOR
INTERVENER STATUS IN THE EFSEC PROCESS FOR THE SUMAS
ENERGY 2 PROJECT (AB2000 -125)
Hoag stated this item is postponed indefinitely.
DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A FRANKLIN COUNTY RESOLUTION THAT
REQUESTS CHANGES TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (AB2000-
146)
Dawson stated Franklin County sent this resolution with a cover letter asking
that Whatcom County adopt this resolution or one similar. The agricultural counties
are feeling the Endangered Species Act (ESA) crunch. The Army Corps of Engineers
will be the final decision - makers. She suggested sending a letter to the Corps of
Engineers, with copies going to the federal legislators, the President, and others
addressed in the resolution. In addition, she suggested adding a concluding
sentence to the letter; °It is also our position that the National Marine Fisheries
Service focus must remain with monitoring catch, as opposed to regulating land
use. To regulate land use, we believe, is a usurpation of state rights." Dawson
stated a letter is more personal than a resolution. People tend to be more receptive
to letters.
Crawford supported a letter instead of a resolution. He was concerned with
the phrase, "as opposed to." He endorsed the idea that National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) needs to put as much weight on the taking as the spawning. The
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
48
language suggests to him that they quit looking at the land use and start looking at
the catch. NMFS needs to look at everything.
Dawson stated land use regulation needs to stay with the state. The federal
government isn't correctly managing what they are supposed to. They've
mismanaged everything.
Hoag asked what the historical role of NMFS is. Dawson stated that
historically it has been focused on catch.
Hoag stated that in California NMFS was involved in restoration plans that
involved land use. She questioned whether NMFS has ever been in involved with
spawning areas or whether they've only been out in the ocean.
Dawson stated she always thought the ocean.
Hoag agreed, and thought Fish and Wildlife dealt with inland issues.
However, she was not sure if that is an accurate perception. If it is, then she
supported Dawson's motion. If it is not, then it would not be appropriate for the
Council to ask them to stay out of something they've historically been involved in.
She wanted to know the answer to that.
Dawson stated Hoag could call NMFS and ask that question.
Crawford asked how many people in Whatcom County are still involved in
salmon fishing.
Dawson stated it is like the timber business.
Hoag stated there are not nearly as many as there used to be.
Crawford stated he assumed there is a regulatory environment that looks at
land use in terms of protecting an ocean -going fish, and does not look at the
management alternatives in terms of take. If that is what they are saying, if it is as
simple as that, then the fisherman would advocate the perspective of NMFS and
ESA. Their livelihood would be protected. He is trying to weigh that against the
interests of the landowners and the foresters in terms of where the majority of the
Whatcom County citizen interests are best served. He assumed the letter would
represent that. He questioned how many in the county would advocate a view
taken by NMFS.
Hoag stated she has talked to several fishermen. She can't speak for them
all. Of they ones she's talked to, they would sooner have a shutdown of fisheries
instead of a limited take to the point they can't come out ahead. There have been
programs where the government would pay them not to fish until the resource
rebounds. The effect on the resources has been well documented. On the
Columbia River, a small difference on the allowed take made a big difference on the
number of returning spawners. It is an issue that the fishermen she has spoken
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
48
with do support. The Council wants to address land use and solve its problems, but
within the proper regulatory channels. She was not comfortable with NMFS, who
has not handled harvest well, dictating land use.
Crawford asked where fishers harvest.
Hoag stated the harvest is all over, from the bay to Alaska. All is handled by
NMFS.
Dawson stated there is talk of land use regulation on rivers that have
traditionally not been harvested and have wonderful habitats for fish, but the fish
have not gone there. The people who know their area the best, such as people who
live on the river, are better to control the land use than people who come in from
outside.
Crawford stated he would be comfortable if there was additional language
that conveyed that the County knows that NMFS is considering the take in equal
proportion with the land use, so they can justify the impacts of the land use
legislation with the numbers of the take. They may have already done that. He
assumed they would not have listed the endangered species unless they have
rationalized the amount of take that is going on. He has looked at the figures
produced by the Common Sense Salmon Recovery people, who think NMFS has
done a horrible job on this whole thing. He hasn't heard the NMFS side of things.
However, the Common Sense Salmon Recovery people have a very good point.
Dawson stated they could incorporate the idea that the take is equally
important to the land use.
Hoag stated the letter isn't going to NMFS, but to the Army Corps of
Engineers. She liked letters, but the letter is weaker than the resolution because
the resolution has specific statements. They need to make distinct points in the
letter.
Dawson stated that sometimes a shorter letter has more impact. The
breaching of the dams is the thing that the agriculture community wants them to
focus on.
Hoag agreed, but it doesn't make the Council's point. She was opposed to
breaching the dams, but not just because of the cost - benefit ratio in terms of
salmon recovery. It is also because of the bigger picture. If they take the dams
out, she wanted to know how the electrical power is going to be replaced. The
energy will be replaced by fossil fuel burning plants. There are well- documented
negative impacts on fish from fossil fuel burning plants.
Dawson stated they could add in the letter that the cost - benefit for salmon
recovery is negligible. They could also mention that fossil fuels have a negative
impact on the fish.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated that if they remove the dams, they would have many more
roads with trucks to carry the cargo that is now being barged. The letter needs to
be much more succinct. They should also make the section on natural rivers being
dangerous for salmon much shorter. It doesn't make a strong point.
Brenner stated she didn't support this letter because she didn't like to see
everything dammed up. It isn't good. No one is talking about alternative types of
energy. People keep saying there is only hydro or fossil fuel energy sources. There
are plenty of alternatives. If they put 1 /10th of the money to alternatives that they
put toward hydro and fossil fuels, there would be more energy options for people.
Hoag stated there is a conference in Seattle about alternative power. It is an
issue that is at the forefront. She asked how Brenner would address the traffic
carrying goods that would be increased on the roads instead of being carried by the
barges.
Brenner stated the rail system is supposed to be increasing again in the
country. Rail is a big option. They don't necessarily need more roads.
Dawson asked if Brenner thought the dams would help the salmon.
Brenner stated the salmon would do fine without the dams. The salmon
population would have been in a better state of health if the dams had not been in
place in the first place. Where there are declining populations of salmon, and it has
been proven that dam has a lot to do with it, it is an option to consider.
Hoag asked if Brenner was familiar with the Army Corps of Engineer study on
the Snake River dams. The conclusion was that there wasn't a proven benefit to
the salmon.
Brenner stated it is common sense. If the dams hadn't been there in the first
place, it would have been better for salmon. She is not willing to say they shouldn't
do it, but they need to look at the option.
Hoag stated removing dams is expensive and it would not produce power. If
they are not certain that it would be any benefit to the salmon to remove the dams,
it seems like poor public policy. She questioned what Brenner thought if the reason
that the runs are reduced is because of the protection status on the seals or
because NMFS has allowed an over - harvest on the fish.
Brenner stated there is not only one reason that the salmon are in trouble.
She is not saying this is the only thing to consider. They should consider whether
the taking the dams down would be beneficial. She is not willing to support a
resolution that says the Council doesn't support breaching the dams. People should
be able to look at that option.
Dawson stated the agriculture counties want Whatcom County to take a
position.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated she was not willing to say they should not breach dams.
Crawford moved to recommend the letter to full Council with the following
changes:
1. Second paragraph, remove the words, "are often dangerous areas" and
replace with, "have always presented certain hazards."
2. Fourth sentence, amend language, "In addition... eneFgy electrical
power...."
3. Add the final sentence that Dawson would wordsmith and present to the
Council regarding imploring the representatives to direct NMFS to put at
least equal weight on the issue of the take vs. the issue of land use.
4. Add language in the first paragraph regarding looking at the big picture in
terms of the negative impacts of pollution, added traffic, and going to
fossil fuels.
Hoag stated they should send the letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, the
President, and Congress.
Crawford suggested also sending it to presidential candidates Al Gore and
George W. Bush.
Brenner stated there is a lot of presumption in the last sentence. Saying that
the dams are a positive for salmon is amazing. It is a positive for people and
energy, not salmon.
Hoag stated they are talking about the net effect, which addresses the big
picture.
Brenner stated nature had things going a certain away. It created survival of
the fittest. That is why they had strong, wild fish. If they are going to pamper the
fish, they may be able to keep the salmon, but would lose the salmon's genetic
strength.
Dawson stated climbing a fish ladder at a dam would also make the salmon
genetically strong.
Hoag suggested a change to the last sentence, "...net effect e€ on salmon
survival..."
Crawford agreed. He appreciated Councilmember Brenner's concerns, but
will stand by his motion.
Brenner stated the letter sounds like they should have more dams because
they are good for the salmon. That is what the letter implies, and she doesn't
agree with that. Dams are a necessary evil. They should stick to the argument of
what they do for people.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Planning and Development Committee on
September 12, 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 4/4/2000, Page 6