Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM030386 (~~ '. 1Y!e;. 0 <!.~.2,tfllf/!b'. " Ib,:o.v'-6 L {' ********************************************************************* * * * 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS * * * * * * District No. 1 Commissioner: Larry W. Dennison,Member* * District No.2 Commissioner: B.G. Brown, Member * * District No. 3 Commissioner: 30hn L. Pitts, Chairman * * * * Clerk of the Board: 3erdine C. Bragg * * Public Works Director: Gary A. Rowe * * * ********************************************************************* M I NUT E S Week of March 3, 1986 The meeting was called to order by Chairman 30hn L. Pitts at the appointed hour. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Larry W. Dennison were both in attendance. AGREEMENT re: Rental of VFW Hall: Happy Valley Dancers: The rental agreement with the Happy Valley Dancers was approved by motion of Commissioner Dennison and seconded by Commissioner Brown. AGREEMENT re: Rental of VFW Hall: Victorian Sauares: Commis- sioner Dennison moved to approve the rental agreement for use of the VFW Hall as submitted by the Victorian Squares. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. CONTRACT re: Maintenance of the Recreation Center and the Multi-Service Building': Quimper Cleaners: After talking with Pat Whiteman, Custodian, about the quality of the work done by Quimper Cleaners, their contract to provide maintenance services for the Multi- Service Building and the Recreation Center was approved by motion of Commissioner Dennison and seconded by Commissioner Brown. License Transfer: State Liauor Control Board: The applica- tion for a liquor permit for the new owners of the Peninsula Food Store in Quilcene was approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dennison as recommended by the Health Department. Final Payment to PC & D on 3efferson County 3ail: Commis- sioner Brown moved to approve the final paYment to PC & D, Inc. for their work on the 3efferson County jail. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The charges from PC & D that relate to work done for Palmer Constructors will be included in the costs that are request- ed for reimbursement from the bonding company. Reauest from Hood Canal Coordinating' Council re: Meeting of Planners and Environmental Health Sanitarians from 3efferson. Kitsap and Mason Counties: It was a consensus of the Board that the meeting. suggested by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, of the Mason. Kitsap and 3efferson County Planners and Environmental Health Sanitarians be arranged. Board: Board Brown, Reappointments to the Olympic Area Agencv on Aging Advisorv Harry Pollard was reappointed to a 3 year term on the Advisory for the OlYmPic Area Agency on Aging by motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner Dennison. The vacancy on this Board created by the resignation of 30hn Parker. is still open. The vacancy has to be filled by a local elected official. Chairman Pitts will discuss this matter further with Mayor Brent Shirley and Beverly Brice, Director, of 03A. JV61 12 fA<< ~Jl. 780 . Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 2 Appointments to the Brinnon Senior Center Governing Board: Commissioner Brown moved and Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion to reappoint Percy Blaisdell to another 3 year term on the Brinnon Senior Center Governing Board. Mr. Blaisdell's term will now expire 4/15/89. Ray Raney was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Charles Lachowitzer, by motion of Commissioner Dennison, seconded by Commis- sioner Brown. Mr. Raney's term will expire 4/15/86. Discussion of the Centennial Committee: The resolution set- ting up a Centennial Committee was passed, and Commissioner Dennison reported that the possibility of using carryover Hotel/Motel funds to support Centennial activities has been discussed. He proposed that a meeting be arranged with Peter Simpson, Mary Dietz, the Historical Society, and Dick Kint for an exploratory session to discuss the Cen- tennial Committee and the development of a plan for Centennial activit- ies. Since the Board is going to meet with Peter Simpson later in the day, the Chairman suggested that this proposal be discussed with him at that time. to help determine the best way to proceed. Peter Simpson. Director. Clallam-3efferson Community Action Council re: Brinnon Community Center: Acquisition of Brinnon Motel property: The Board met with Peter Simpson in Executive Session to discuss the acquisition of the Brinnon Motel property for the Brinnon Community Center. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: BID OPENING re: Crushin The Clerk of the Board opened the ing and stockpiling crushed scree Director read the bids as follows: PUBLIC WORKS ~ Stock ilin Crushed Screenin s: ids at the appoint time, for crush- ings for 1986 and the Public Works SPEC. HOLDERS: BID TOTALS: I I 1) Shold Excavating Alt. 1 $125,442.13 Port Townsend Alt. 2 223,374.66 2) puget Sound Surfacers Alt. 1* 109,276.00 Forks Alt. 2* 186,222.00 3) Delhur, Port Angeles Alt. 1 129,892.00 Alt. 2 266.430.00 Engineer's Estimate Alt. 1 132,700.00 Alt. 2 246,900.00 * This is the lowest bid 0 alternates 1 and 2, with secondary proposals to c'~ru.sh rock at an alternate sites included with each id. A third proposal was also included which will e reviewed. Commissioner Brown moved to have t e County Engineer check the bids for accuracy, make a comparison on the bids for each alternate and present a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. Designation of Local Reprlesentative for Emeraencv Management: Commissioner Brown moved to appoipt County Engineer, Bob Nesbitt, as the local representative for Emergency Management. Commissioner '1m. 12 tAbf it~ 781 Page: 3 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Dennison seconded the motion. The Chairman signed a letter to the state Department of Emergency Management, informing them of Mr. Nesbitt'S appointment. J Leland Creek Brid e' Co res ondence from area ro ert owners: Public Works Director; Gary Rowe, reported that letters have been sent to all of the property pwners that use the Leland Creek Bridge, advising them of the bridg replacement project and the es- timated completion date. Some of he property owners are not happy with the timing of the project, and may pursue the matter through the Courts. Providing an interim struct re is not an economical or viable option, Gary Rowe added, and the pro ess that is being worked on right now is the quickest way to proceed w th this bridge replacement. Contract Award for the Rem delin of the Courthouse Basement Office space: The remodeling con ract for the office space in the basement of the Courthouse has been revised to exclude the encapsula- tion of the asbestos, which will be one as a separate project and will include this work in the entire' base ent area. Commissioner Dennison moved to award space in the basement of the Courth the amount $7,150.00 which is base recommended by the Public Works Dir the motion. New Public Works After discussion of the job description posi- tion, Gary Rowe reported that the P blic Works Department will be post- ing a notice for the new position 0 Traffic Sign Technician within the department. contract to remodel the office use to Blue Heron Construction in on the revised scope of work, .as ctor. Commissioner Brown seconded PLANNING I EPARTMENT A lication for Shoreli e substantial Develo ment Permit: Coast Oyster: Associate Planner, B b Duffy, explained that this Shore- line substantial Development per it application submitted by Coast oyster Company is to modify and imp ove their operating oyster and clam hatchery on east Quilcene Bay. Agency comments on this permit wer received from the Washington state Department of Ecology, the WashiDfgton state Department of Fisheries, and the Jefferson County Public orks Department. Written testimony was also received from Mr. & Mrs. Borden, citing an odor problem, and Leslie Aickin in support of the roposal. The Planning/Building De- partment recommends approval of th permit with the condition that any work done within the Linger Longer Road right-of-way be conducted only after a permit for such work is 0 tained from the Public Works Depart- ment, Mr. Duffy reported. After further explanation by Mr. Duffy of the modifications and im- provements proposed in the permit application, Leslie Aickin asked if there would be anything installe that would involve the exchange of sea water? Bob Duffy reported th t this proposal is for an expansion of the present sea water exchange ystem. Ms. Aickin asked if there is any information available about waste material, excess medicines or extra algae from the feeding proc ss that may be introduced to the bay from the exchange operation. Bob Duffy reported that he has no information on these items. Chairman Pitts added that in his discus ions with representatives from Coast Oyster, they advised that the inc ease in the volume of water exchanged by the modified system is not sig ificant and that the species of algae that will be introduced to the bay are species that either already exist in the Bay or that cannot xist in the bay because of the temp- erature and composition of sea w ter. A modification approval by the Department of Ecology for a nati nal pollutant discharge permit would . VOL 12' tACf lIt. 782 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 4 address the discharge of excess medicines and waste, Commissioner Dennison noted. I Commissioner Dennison moved to appjove the Shoreli.ne Permit application submitted by Coast Oyster with the conditions outlined by the Planning Department and with the stipulati n that the Department of Ecology be asked to look into the matter of he impacts that discharge of excess medicines, waste material or exc ss algae may have on Quilcene Bay. Commissioner Brown seconded the mo ion, which passed unanimously. A lication for Shorelin Substantial Develo ment Permit: Sea Farms of Norway. Inc: Prosecutin Attorney John RaYmond was present along with 43 interested area res dents during the Board' sreview and consideration of the Shoreline Sub tantial Development Permit applica- tion submitted by Sea Farms of Nor ay, Inc. The Prosecuting Attorney reported hat he had reviewed the letter sub- mitted by Peter 3. Eglick, Attorn y for the Oak Bay/Hood Head Coali- tion, in which they request an app al of the Planning Department's finding that aquaculture is a "pri ary" use under the Shoreline Manage- ment Master Program (SMMP). Mr. Eglick clarified that the Coa ition's appeal is that the applica- tion and the processing of it, has Inot taken into account the fact that this use is also a float, which is a separate section under the County SMMP. A float is considered an tunclassified used in an aquatic en- vironment WhiCh. would indicate a e.termination to review the proposal as a primary or secondary use. It i~ the Coalition's opinion that this should be reviewed as a secondary use, which would mean it should be reviewed by the Shoreline Commissi n.who would review it, hold a public hearing and then make a recomme dation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Eglick added that the Coalit on is appealing the failure of the County to process this applicati n as an application for a float as well as an aquaculture development. Chairman Pitts asked if aquacultur and it's forms are being described as aquaculture in this permit and re then divorced from the issues of dock, piers and floats? David Sta heim, Aquaculture Consultant for the Planning Department, advised that fish farming is described as a form of aquaculture. Bob Duffy of the I Planning Department staff then exp- lained why he determinedtha. t the~c.tivity Of. this particular p.ermit is a primary use. He explained that hen a project application is receiv- ed, he reviews it to determine in hat category it fits. In this part- icular application, the request w s for a permit to install a salmon rearing test pen and on page 5. a~ in Section 5 page 30 of the 3effer- son County SMMP, aquaculture is d fined as "the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish or another a atic plants or animals." Since the application did involve that, Mr. Duffy further stated that he considered this application a aquaculture type development. On pages 26 and 27 of the SMMP, the t ble indicates what category in which to place an aquaculture developm nt. In this particular case, this project is in an aquatic environm nt (not a conservancy environment), which is defined as "projects that originate waterward of the extreme low tide" because it is beyond the lextreme low tide locatio. n. The SMMP classifies this type of project a~ a primary use. Section 4.201 de- fines Primary Use as "Those uses d emed as being preferable within the definition and policy of a particu ar shoreline designati(!m," and fur- ther states that "Aquacultural pra tices are those activitJies directly related to the cultivation, growt , or harvesting of aquatic plants or animals. For the purposes of thi section, related uses jare not con- sidered aquacultural practices." 0 related uses were proposed in this application. ! ! As a matter of reason and practiCtlity, Mr. Duffy added,1 there are a number of activities associated with any aquaculture ~.roject, i.e. feeding fish, driving a boat to t e project site for servicing, which 12 I 12' 783 .'Vat. Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 I I activities and the iJtent of the part of the aquacultdre project. Page: 5 are ancillary activities as SMMP is to include these The following questions were then sked by Mr. Eglick: Q) Is the pen in this proposed p oject application, going to be sup- ported in some fashion so that it doesn't sink? A) The pen will besupporte by black polyethylene pipe. Q) Is that known as a floatation A) Mr. Duffy answered that this pipe does serve to hold the pen up, but that he did not 1now the technical term for it. Q) Does it float? I Al Mr. Duffy answered that ,e understood that it floats. Q) Is the floatation collar to be 'I used in the pursuit of a commercial activity? I A) Mr. Duffy answered that he reviewed this particular proposal in terms of an aquacul tuti1e project as opposed to a commercial project. Q) Is it your testimony then, thaJ this is not a ~ommercial project? I A) Mr. Duffy reiterated thalt his analysis is that this project is an aquaculture prOji'ct. Some aquaculture projects do involve commercial aspec s. Others involve private aspects. The Board then advised that these questions could be addressed to the Prosecuting Attorney and the apPlitant as well as Mr. Duffy. Mr. Eg- lick then stated that he was tryi g to establish, for the record, if the Planning Department consider d this as a commercial use or not, which would be important for tht Shorelines Hearing Board, if they reviewed this record. Q) To Bob Duffy: ivity? Did you revie this project as a commercial act- A) No, I did not. Bob Duffy then continued by stat ng that the application before the Commissioners, is a Shoreline. SUb~lt.ant ial Development Permit APPliC. a- tion from Sea Farms of Norway to onduct salmon rearing tests at two sites: Oak Bay and Hood Canal. T e testing is being conducted to de- termine if these sites are suitabl for rearing salmon on a full scale basis. , Mr. Eglick was then asked toprocJed with his presentation before the Board considered the question of wether or not this project is a pri- mary use for aquaculture. Mr. Egl ck advised that he had asked all the questions he needed to ask and re erred the Board to his written sub- mission. Mr. Eglick then referre to and read brief quotes from the following sections of the Jefferso County Shoreline Management Master Program: Matrix (Page 26 1/2): The Coa items on the matrix are cum that involves a boat launch, project, the Coalition feels, pier or float and is thus an u matrix. Unclassified uses are by the Planners and ultimately ition's position is that some of the lative, i.e. an aquaculture project r an off shore moorage devise. This is a project which includes a dock, classified use by definition of this left to a case by case determination the Commissioners. VOl 12 fACE ~. 784 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 6 The Coalition is saying, Mr. Eglick continued, that because of the way this application was processed, no one looked at the float as an unclassified use which would trigger a determina- tion of primary or secondary use. If it had been determined that the use was secondary then a hearing by the Shoreline Com- mission would have been necessitated. The Coalition is saying that this whole step has been missed. Page 9, Definition 38: Float question that this is a float. "Something that floats." No Section 5.60 (PaGe 33): Definition "The dock, pier or float, is a structure built over or floating upon the water used as a landing place for marine transport or for commercial, or rec- reational purposes. The Coalition contends that, even though this is a test pen, it is used for commercial purposes because it is in furtherance of the business activities of Sea Farms of Norway. PaGe 7, Def ini tion 22: Commercial "Uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale or retail trade or business activi- ties." The Coalition feels that this project represents a business activity. The Coalition's contention, Mr. Eglick continued, is that this particu- lar aquaculture project, unlike some others, involves a float, which is in the aquatic environment and should be classified as a secondary use. The Coalition also contends that if the adjacent Conservancy environ- ment is considered the float would be a secondary use and this should help the Board make their decision. At a minimum this application should be referred to the Shoreline Commission for a hearing. This is a different type of aquaculture which is indicated by the float. Chairman Pitts asked what the Coalition feels is the definition of research operation in regard to this test site? Mr. Eglick advised that if the University of Washington was proposing this operation be- cause they have a federal grant to study the effects of this type of salmon rearing, then that would be considered a research type of opera- tion because you could not contend that the University of Washington as a non-profit educational, organization was engaged in a business activ- ity. One of the things that is being done here, Chairman Pitts continued, is an attempt to answer certain biological questions in regard to an aqua- culture operation. Salmon pens and salmon rearing has taken place for many years, and the distinction of this particular permit application is an effort to gain information that would, most assuredly benefit the applicant, but would also benefit the community at large. In the sci- entific community, various sources of information are used to provide information for making decisions. By finding information which will tell whether some of the questions that have been raised are valid or invalid, is very important, Chairman Pitts advised, to him as a deci- sion maker. Bob Duffy reiterated that he viewed the application as a floating fish pen and not as a dock and the test pen operation is not designed to produce fish on a commercial basis, but is intended to gather informa- tion. Should the Board of Commissioners choose to classify this other than as the staff has recommended, they could do so and still hold a meeting on the application this afternoon by granting a administrative variance to the procedures, which is provided for in the Shoreline Program. Mr. Duffy noted that he would argue first for the staff pos- ition. Commissioner Dennison asked the project proponent if they intend to move the test pens at the end of the seven month test period? They advised that everything would be moved at the end of this period. This test pen operation is different from the salmon rearing operation be- ~'Ol 12tAcr, : i- 785 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 7 cause of the tests that will be done such as: dissolved oxygen ratings, plankton counts, doing current surveys and monitoring the ability of the fish to survive at this site. None of this will be proprietary information. The information will be given to the County and the State. Prosecuting Attorney, 30hn Raymond, noted that the basic question be- fore the Board immediately is whether or not aquaculture asset out in Section 5.30 of the SMMP is broader than the appellants feel it is or as broad as the staff feels it is. Is there an accumulative process or does aquaculture include the necessary floats, etc. and commercial development associated with the aquaculture. Mr. Raymond further ad- vised that in his review of the matter he found prior to this, it has been the policy of the Planning Department, that in another form of aquaculture (Oyster Seed Raft) that does use, what would be referred to as floats by the appellants, that this raft has not been considered a "float" under the separate category, but was considered under number 8 on Page 31 of the SMMP. In response to Commissioner Dennison's request for staff input on the need for a Shoreline Commission review of this application, Bob Duffy reported that each individual application has to be looked at, and through a process of analysis, the category in which the project best fits is determined. If there is confusion about what category an ap- plication would fit, it is dealt with as an unclassified project. It seemed fairly straight forward to the staff that a fish pen needs some support, which is not used as a dock, pier or float, it's used as an integral component of that aquaculture test facility. Page 22 of the SMMP outlines how to determine the application category. Planning/Building Director, David Goldsmith added that as one of the authors of the County's Shoreline Program and in working with the Shoreline Commission, the kind of aquaculture that was dealt with in- eluded operations that have rafts, floats, buoys and a number of de- vices that make them work. The department's classification of this project is no different than the classification of other, similar kinds of aquaculture activities. The last sentence on the bottom of page 22, Mr. Eglick pointed out, is exactly what is being argued. There are two use activities, one is aquaculture and one is a float, dock or pier, and those are separate use activities in the SMMP. This sentence states "when a proposal contains two or more use activities, within a shoreline designation, the least preferred category will be applied." In the terms of how future applications are processed, for larger operations, you may be precluded from applying policies and performance standards of the dock, piers and floats section, because your action on this application in- dicates that those standards do not apply to net pen aquaculture, Mr. Eglick continued. The reason the Coalition has raised this issue, Mr. Eglick stated, is that they believe that even this proposal for a test pen merits a public hearing in front of the Shoreline Commission, which is indicated, by their interpretation, by this last sentence. Commissioner Brown added that the Board can set a public hearing on any subject they feel they would like public testimony before a decision is made. The scope of this project is another matter that may be causing some of the problem here. Mr. Eglick asked to be allowed to comment on that when the Prosecuting Attorney and Board feel it would be appro- priate. John Raymond again clarified that the staff's position is that the float structures for the pens were included in the definition of aquaculture. The Coalitions position is that there are forms of aquaculture that don't require a float and if you have a form of aquaculture that does require a float, then you must use the aqua- culture in addition to the float categories. ,VOl 12 Met 19:. 786 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 8 Discussion continued on this matter regarding the intent of the Shoreline Management Master Program with regard to aquaculture and the application of the program to this project, as well as the Coalition's position on these matters. Commissioner Brown asked the Prosecuting Attorney if it is his opinion that the Board's decision on this issue would be setting a precedent which could somewhat limit control of future, larger project proposals submitted by the same company in the same area? 30hn Raymond answered that realistically, it could be assumed that Sea Farms of Norway could come back and apply for a larger permit, if everything meets with their criteria. However, until the County actually receives such a permit, no action can be taken on such a permit. A permit for a larger operation would have to be considered on it's own merit, and a determination on this permit for two test pens, Mr. Raymond continued, would not be setting a precedent. A man representing Sea Farms of Norway, added that they have been aware from the beginning, that if these test pens were approved, they would not have any guarantee that any farm application applied for on any site would also be approved. Mr. Eglick further stated that the Coalition is trying to point to the concern that legally and as a practical matter, whatever action is taken on the test pen will be viewed as a precedent on such issues as whether this bay is an appropriate site for salmon pen operations for whatever size. Mr. Eglick's client's are concerned that to the extent that it is determined" today, that these sites are appropriate for salmon rearing pens, that the Board has all of the information neces- sary to make such a determination. And they are concerned because they don't agree with Sea Farms that these two sites, in particular, are appropriate sites. Commissioner Dennison asked i.f there was anything that precludes the Board from taking public testimony? Commissioner Brown advised that since this meeting was not advertised as a public hearing the people who may want to testify at such a hearing would not be prepared to do so today. 30hn RaYmond added that if a public hearing was going to be held, notification would have to be given so that both the proponent and opponents could be present to give testimony. The Planning Department sent notices to everyone who had asked to be notified, that this meeting was scheduled for today and that it was not a formal hearing, and comments would be accepted, Bob Duffy reported. Commissioner Dennison moved that this permit application be considered as recommended by the Planning/Building Department staff, as a primary use under the aquatics designation. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Board then proceeded with consideration of the Shoreline Permit Application #SH2-86 as submitted by Sea Farms of Norway, Inc. Bob Duffy then read the advisory report for the benefit of the Board and the residents in attendance. Mr. Duffy advised that a petition with 100 to 150 signatures, against this proposal has been received, as well as the testimony listed on the advisory report. The following letters were received since this report was written: Mr. & Mrs. Steven Weaver in opposition; Mr. << Mrs. David E. Woodruff, in opposition; Mr. << Mrs. Robert Williams in opposition; as well as the letter from Mr. Eglick the attorney representing some of the property owners in the area. All of the written testimony is on file for review at any time. The conditions suggested by the Planning Department as part of the permi t if it is approved were then reviewed. David Stalheim, aqua- : VOL "12 f'AGf 1ft. 787 . . Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 9 culture consultant for the Planning Department then explained condition #4 which requires a water quality monitoring program. The wording of condition #4 is confusing because a lot of the data received from a monitoring program on this test site may not apply to a full scale facility. Certain information on things such as tidal currents (surface and bottom) could indicate flushing action and could be used ina subsequent application. . The normal measurements that the Department of Ecology uses for water quality are: temperature, dissolved oxygen and phytoplankton occurrence (near the surface). Near the end of the test period, when the fish are reaching their maximum size and the largest impact will occur, is when a transect line shall be established through the projeqt site with five sampling stations. Condition #7 stating that ,no other application for fish pens will be accepted for one year from this permit date, Bob Duffy explained, means that the applicant is putting an investment in the site to determine suitability for a full scale farm and this condition is suggested so that after they have completed their study, another firm can not come in and occupy that spot without having done previous analysis of the site. Commissioner Brown advised that he does not feel this condition is reasonable and should be eliminated altogether. The statement at the beginning of the Advisory Report which states "the testing is being conducted to determine if these sites are sui table for rearing salmon on a full-scale basis" is infringing in the area that is of concern to the people, and Commissioner Brown asked that this statement be taken out of the report. A statement should be put in the report that this project is for test purposes only at this site and any new projects will require a complete and separate new application. The Sea Farms of Norway representative advised that they would accept the elimination of Condition #7. Mr. Eglick was then allowed to continue his omments on this proposed project. He informed the Board that the Coalition does not want to see this permit issued. If the Board decides to issue the permit, Mr. Eglick suggested the following condition be a ded.to protect the goals of the County and his clients: 1) Any studies should be done by an in ependent third party who is acceptable to the County a d the applicant, and financed by the applicant. The typ of stud1es necessary should also be designed by the ind pendent third party, as well as any analysis to be done. He advised that Commissioner Brown's suggestion was a good one and is helpful and does demonstrate recognition of the Coalition's concern, but simply writing such a condition into t is appliqation, will not solve the problem. The application itsel , in the "Overall Plan" section, states that if test sites prove co~cflucive to.'. salmon culture, applications for a full scale salmon farm wou~d be submitted. Even the suggested protective condition, doesn't eally satisfy what the Coalition believes to be the prudent, app opriate and legal course which is to consider some of the threshold is ues now. The following information on the test sites w s provided: .V61 12 fACt * Leslie Aickin: If the tests are being done that the County maximize the opportunity to acquire infor ation. * Gary Griswold: Four people with spe ific items have been selected to present information. Mr. Gri wold reported that he Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 10 has been a property owner in the Oak Bay area for 2 1/2 years and addressed some of the uses that will be displaced by this project such as fishing, and water skiing. He then presented some pictures of the area to the Board. He also reported that this is a no bank, heavily used, recrea- tional area, with residences on the beach and 15 boats moored in the Bay in the summer. The current flow in Oak Bay, because of the southern wind, is in a large circle which would have an impact on the flushing action of the bay. Being a licensed real estate person, Mr. Griswold added, that the property values in this area have been frozen, because anyone wanting to buy in the area to build a house would not until a determination is made on this permit. * Mr. McComb: Fish farming is worldwide in scope and recog- nized as a global industry that can be tapped as a useful source for scientific data. The residents of Oak Bay recognize the necessity to address the problem as it pertains to the Oak Bay and Hood Head application. Mr. McComb asked that the scope of the project be looked at in a manner to include the full scale 52 pen project as contained in the original application. The test pen operation, by the very fact that it is small, can not provide the data necessary to address the myriad of other problems and environmental considerations of a larger project. Mr. McComb asked that alternate siting be considered. * Lee Grobe: Resident of southern Oak Bay, reported that the whole waterfront in this area is populated. Directly shoreward of where the salmon rearing pens would be located is a family of River Otters. * June Sinclair sDeakinG for Anne and David Berfield (owners of a Seaweed Farm at Hood Head): Mr. & Mrs. Berfield are concerned that there is no data on the effect of salmon rearing pens on their project and they would like to see a baseline water quality study done prior to the installation of the pens, if not they would like to see an on-going water quality monitoring project, done by an independent firm. A Scallop growing operation is also in the area near this Sea Farm proposal, and the owners of that project were not notified of this application. Mrs. Sinclair advised that it was her understanding that Sea Farms of Norway would automatically be given a waiver from the Marine Mammals Protection Act to shoot seals. David Stalheim explained that they could apply for a Certificate of Inclusion under the Marine Mammal Protection Act which would permit the shooting of seals. A Sea Farms of. Norway representative advised that they do have such a certificate for their Port Angeles operation, but they do not kill marine mammals. They do have a seal scan devise. Mrs. Sinclair reported that there are nesting Osprey who come every year to this area, as well as Eagles and Herons. The site that is being considered is a prime recreation area and Mrs. Sinclair urged that other uses of the area be considered. The fishing in the area of the pens will be precluded. A gentleman asked what kind of data and information has been gained from the fish pens in the Indian Island area? David Stalheim reported that what was found from the data supplied from these fish. pens was that there has been no indication that fish farming will work in 3efferson County. The operations off Indian Island were raising Pacific salmon and Donaldson Trout. Sea Farms of Norway will be using Atlantic Salmon. VOL 12 r~G~ .Jt 789 Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 11 30n Lindberg, representing Sea Farms of Norway, Inc. addressed the question of seals and sea lions by reporting that they will attack fish pens. The primary deterrent that Sea Farms uses is an acoustic harass- ment device, which projects a tone in the water that irritates these animals and they then stay away from the pens. Sea Farms of Norway has no plans to kill the marine mammals. They hope to be able to move these animals out in a non-destructive way. River Otters can be kept out, Mr. Lindberg further reported, by keeping a net tightly over the top of the pen. Herons need a place to stand to attack fish and there is no place in the pen operation with a railing that they could use. A bird predator net is stretched over the top of the pen to keep them out. Peter Eglick added that in regard to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Certificates of Inclusion are given automatically and are a very broad and inclusive type of permit. There are also reports of instances where predator birds have been caught in the protective nets over the pens and have died as a result. Mr. Eglick added that the Coalition is not objecting to exploration, they are objecting to exploration in the context of these two sites. There are sites where there aren't these potential conflicts with wildlife and recreation. Chairman Pitts reaffirmed that one of the most important things that can be done is to collect as much information as possible so that when a decision must be made on a future application, the information will be available. Commissioner Dennison asked Mr. Lindberg, the Sea Farms of Norway representative, how they determine what site to use for test pens. A map of the coastline is used to find a somewhat protected area, and then maps, and current circulation charts are reviewed, with all the sites being compared and the one that looks the best is chosen, Mr. Lindberg responded. It is unfortunate, Mr. Li~dberg added, that there are a number of home owners in that area, but it does not detract from the desirability of that spot as an aquaculture site, and that is what is trying to be determined by the test pens. The ability to tend the site, and the logistics involved are also a determining factor in site selection. Commissioner Dennison then asked if Sea Farms of Norway if they would be willing to dO'a baseline water quality study before the test pens are installed? Mr. Lindberg stated that a baseline study will not tell much because there won't be much degradation of the site at the end of seven months with 2,000 fish being reared. Sea Farms would be willing to take a water sample and have it analyzed before the test pen is installed. Is your investment worth some additional investment, within reason, to help the County and Sea Farms answer these questions, Commissioner Dennison asked? Mr. Lindberg responded that he felt Sea Farms could do this. Commissioner Brown noted that any information the applicant would gather would be suspect at best. If data is generated that the public will believe, it has to be gathered by a neutral party. Mr. Lindberg stated that he would like to know what kinds of studies would be requested of a third party, if a larger permit is requested. Commissioner Brown stated that when the Declaration of Non-significance was issued, he had hoped that the County would get some help from the Washington State Department Fisheries in obtaining some baseline data and to monitor this program as it continued. There has been no indication, yet, if the Department of Fisheries will be able to provide any assistance to the County. Studies of the currents in the area of the test pens, will be performed by an outside contractor who will be hired by Sea Farms on this project, Mr. Lindberg added. . VOL 12 rACt J) 790 _. t Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 12 Is there any way to guarantee (through a bond, etc.) that these facilities would be taken out of the water at the completion of the test period, Commissioner Brown asked in response to a concern stated to him by a Mr. Gufstafson? Mr. Lindberg replied that Sea Farms could put up a bond if required by the County. This was asked of one other operation in the County. After further discussion of the content of the conditions the following were agreed to by all Board members: * Line 2: The testing that is being conducted, ~-ae~er- Bt:i-fte-~--e.fte-s4-tes--&f'e--eu-i-'eeb-l-e--f-e!"-~ee.r4ftg-1ge::liftt)f):--on--a ~~~~-sea~e-~s4s7 Insert: The testing is being conduc- ted for test purposes. Any new projects would require a complete, separate new application. * Under Testimony: Mr. Duffy would make reference to the oral testimony he made to the Board regarding the petition and phone calls that have been received since the 25th. * Condition #2: New sentence added at the end of this condition -- "Bond or other security which is acceptable to the 3efferson County Prosecuting Attorney shall be required of the applicant, in order to insure the completion of this condition." * Condition #4: Add that near surface measurements would be required for dissolved oxygen, and water temperature. And surface and bottom measurements would be required for maximum and minimum tidal currents. Elimination of the word "bottom" from the statement on five sampling stations. * Condition #7: Elimination of this condition completely. David Stalheim reiterated that the only data from the test pen fac- ilities that could be extrapolated and used for a larger operation was maximum and minimum tidal current information. The rest of the data that Sea Farms is being asked to collect is to augment the data available on this site, Bob Duffy added and would not necessarily be used as justification for a full scale farm as far as the County is concerned. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Shoreline Substant- ial Development Permit Application with the conditions as corrected, submitted by Sea Farms of Norway, Inc. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Board recessed their meeting for the evening and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all members present, after an 8:30 a.m. staff meeting. HEALTH DEPARTMENT CONTRACT re: Professional Services: Mvrtle Corey: The Professional Services Contract with Myrtle Corey to provide foot care services to the Health Department was approved by motion of Commis- sioner Dennison, seconded the Commissioner Brown. · VOl 12 rACE IJ-~ 791 .. -- ~ " Minutes, Week of March 3, 1986 Page: 13 TREASURER Petition for Property Tax Refund: Ron C. Sikes: Three petitions for property tax refunds submitted for Ron C. Sikes were approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dennison in the amounts of $28.91, $22.72 and $32.90. ", MEETING ADJOURNED 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 'l"D~, , . ~. .~-'l' "h' .-..... . _ _ oJ ~ /..;'\. ~t'-.~..:;~ \ .; "" \. . 'I' .J!J '\'.c~~ '..."".~.'''. ~ - e \ ~f - " .. 7 \ - . tllJ . . ~ . \ "JC"'. ... ....,. ...".tl '. \" . / _ .- ~ AIiIiL.o ,'. ---";_~ SEAL' '''. ~'-" .". ~ .- ... - "".. ... ", .So" t-')~/ ~L/~ 30hn L. Pitts, Chairman ~~) B.G. Brown, Member .. - ..r : VOl 12 fACt. ~=- 792