HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session March 19 20131
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
49
50
51
52
Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
March 19, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Vice -Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Courthouse Fifth Floor Conference Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue,
Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen
and Carl Weimer
Absent: Kathy Kershner
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2013 -024)
1. CANYON CREEK INTEGRATED FISH AND FLOOD PROJECT
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, read from the presentation in the packet.
Brenner asked if there will be access for the public when the creek is not flooding.
Cooper stated the land is owned by the Land Trust and is accessible to the public, except
during construction.
John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated staff doesn't see that there will be
any change to the current public access.
Brenner asked which lots the County purchased. Cooper indicated County -owned
lots on the presentation map.
Brenner asked if the privately owned lots will change. Cooper stated they won't.
The community fully supports the project.
Brenner asked for detail about habitat features. Thompson stated several fish
species use the creek up to a waterfall four miles upstream. The creek channel shifts back
and forth frequently, so there isn't a lot of spawning habitat. The engineered structures will
help create pools for spawning gravel and fish cover. Creek velocities will drop. Sediment
deposition will increase. Log jams in the middle of the project and to the east will help with
the riparian vegetation.
Weimer asked if the County money in the budget is all from the flood fund. They're
talking about opening it up to water resource inventory area (WRIA) activities. He asked to
see the flood fund budget. Cooper stated the current flood fund balance is about $11.7
million.
Brueske stated the levy collects about $3 million per year.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
49
50
51
Crawford stated the eagle population has exploded this year. He asked if they eat
the salmon, and if that's a factor in the salmon population. Thompson stated the eagles eat
the salmon when the salmon are dead or dying. The juvenile fish are too small for eagles.
Eagles are drawn in by the chum salmon. It's a good indicator that more fish are coming
back.
Crawford asked for an update on salmon spawning in the river. Thompson stated
the number of spawning fish varies annually. Generally, there is a decline in the number of
fish using this reach due to habitat unsuitability. Those that spawn don't survive because
eggs are scoured away.
Crawford asked if there has not been any notable improvement in ten years.
Thompson stated there has not been notable improvement in this lower reach. They
removed 500 feet of the levee in 2009 and made other modifications to the falls. Since the
modifications, the pink salmon were able to move through. The reach is pretty much
passable now. Salmon can get there, but the quality of the spawning grounds hasn't
improved.
Crawford asked if staff are confident that Canyon View Drive will hold up. Cooper
stated they've done the best design possible. There will still be a turn. The design is a
wider cross - section that reduces velocity and provides area for material to drop. There's no
giant levee that will not fail. That's a big factor. Levees increase risk if they fail.
Crawford asked if the Mount Baker Highway would ever be rerouted over the top of
the alluvial fan rather than below. Cooper stated the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has that grand vision, but they may not ever see funding for it.
Mann stated he is skeptical of funding this and similar projects. It is a money pit. It
has steep slopes and a powerful creek with lots of water that carries debris. The people
built houses there, and now they want the County to spend millions of dollars to protect
their houses.
Crawford stated the County approved the plan at standards that wouldn't be allowed
today. The entire plat is on the alluvial fan.
Mann stated they're saying the government is in the business of idiot - proofing the
world for everyone. It's obvious there's a huge, steep creek right here. He asked what
happens if the County does nothing. They're trying to turn the creek over 90 degrees,
which is against its nature, and send it around another sharp turn so it can go under an
existing bridge. If the creek goes out of its banks, it could threaten the Mount Baker
Highway. That's incentive for the State to grant funding. He asked if Council action is
needed today. Brueske stated he is not. The next step is a supplemental budget request
before the Council.
Mann stated he may not support it. The State should step up because the Mount
Baker Highway could be threatened.
Brenner stated County government has a responsibility because it approved the
development. There is equal responsibility, but there won't be equal impact if they do
nothing. They can't undo what's been done.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen asked the status of this in terms of the PL -8499. Cooper stated it's a
revetment, and will never meet their vegetation requirements. Large trees will stabilize the
slope on an alluvial fan.
Brenner stated the trees may also cause worse problems when they break loose.
Cooper stated all consultants recommend large forests in this type of environment. They
may dislodge, but they will slow the large mass of material coming down.
Thompson stated it's a standard forest practice that creates a fence effect at the
head of the alluvial fan. A mature forest condition strains out the big chunks. On the inside
of the bend was an area proposed for harvest in 1989. Because of the alluvial fan, the trees
remained. There are two to three feet of gravel that buried the base of the trees during the
event.
Brenner asked if the funding is completely from the flood fund. Brueske stated it is.
They hope the legislative request for financing will offset those funds. The project will go
out to bid in early April, so staff wants assurance from Council that the money will be there.
Brenner asked if the staff emphasized the highway threat to the State. Cooper
stated she hopes to soon see a letter of support from WSDOT for the legislators.
Thompson stated WSDOT is supportive, but tends to focus on right -of -way.
Kremen asked how closely staff have worked with WSDOT and the legislature. The
County, City, and Port lobbying group is mostly working on the Bellingham waterfront and
Port of Bellingham issues. He was offended during a meeting with Senator Erickson when
all the time was spent on issues that only pertained to the City of Bellingham and Port of
Bellingham. The group hasn't even contacted him or been working on issues related to
Whatcom County. He needs information from the County staff so he can get them working
on this as quickly as possible to get it in the queue. Cooper stated the lobbyist has talked
to the legislative liaison with the Puget Sound Partnership. She will forward a copy of the
email to Councilmember Kremen.
Kremen stated he needs that information so he can emphasize this. Their attention
and focus has been solely on issues unrelated to Whatcom County.
Crawford stated Canyon Creek was not on the list of issues.
Knutzen stated he was skeptical from the beginning. There isn't one County issue
they're working on. During the meeting, he wasn't even able to get a word in about
anything pertaining to Whatcom County.
Knutzen stated he forwarded this and another project to Senator Erickson, who is
aware of what's going on.
Kremen stated the County isn't getting any assistance from the lobbyists, which are
supposed to have influence with the key committee chairs legislators in Olympia. The
lobbyists must push part of Whatcom County's agenda as well as the Port's and the City's.
Larry Brown, Sudden Valley Board, asked design questions. There are four
engineered log jams to the south on the west side of the river. He asked why they can't
shift some of the log jams to the north to provide increased protection where the creek
makes a sharp bend. He asked if they considered purchasing some of the lots at the sharp
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
bend to manage future problems. Cooper stated those four engineered log jams are in a
low area. They are preventing the creek from going over Mount Baker Highway. The
purpose is to get the river back to the north fork. They don't want to clog things up too
much. They want to let some of that material move through. If they install too many jams,
the river will clog.
Brown stated most of the private properties on the other side of the road are in the
most danger of being washed out. He asked why the County isn't removing those lots.
Cooper stated it would cost a lot more money because those lots are developed. It's a
matter of money. She would love to do both, but the question is how much money they are
going to invest in the problem.
Crawford asked if those homeowners are required to buy Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance. Cooper stated they aren't required. It is a
mapped alluvial fan, not a 100 -year flood zone. It's not required, but she highly encourages
it. One of those houses did have flood insurance, and FEMA paid them after the fact. It is
now one of the County's repetitive loss areas.
Ellen Baker stated she's lived in the area for 40 years. She has all the WSDOT
studies. She fished the area. A lot of money is spent from environmental protection
funding for flood work. The water is cold. None of the water there is warm. The reach is
very fast. It is not and will never be spawning habitat. There is too much water. This is a
flood project. She's concerned that habitat funds are spent on flood protection. Shade
trees don't cool water that is already near freezing. Even in the summer, the water is very
cold. Don't spend millions in the name of environmental habitat when it's not salmon
habitat. It's passage. Also, the bridge is anchored in rock. It has not been endangered.
She's seen the 100 -year floods. It's a very high bridge.
Thompson stated Pacific salmon spawning is well- documented in this reach.
Brenner stated the salmon should have pools. She asked if cold water is a concern.
Thompson stated it is not. Typically, water is too warm. They don't have any limitations on
salmonid spawning in the Nooksack because of the water being too cold. In particular, bull
trout need very cold water.
Greg Brown stated they are at a point of emergency and have to make a decision in
two months to have something done by April, involving a huge amount of money. That
offends him. Plan these things better. He appreciates the County talking to an advisory
committee that was brought into the WRIA project unannounced and unattended. He asked
if they consulted with the Planning Unit on this for surface water runoff.
point.
Knutzen stated the Flood Advisory Committee discussed it.
Cooper stated the Flood Advisory Board has existed since 1991.
Brown stated an advisory committee doesn't have any standing in the WRIA.
Brenner stated they have standing with flood projects.
Brown asked if the flood Planning Unit is involved.
Brenner stated the Planning Unit is not yet back together. Just say it. That's the
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
49
50
51
Brown stated this is moving ahead without the approval of the Planning Unit.
2. WHATCOM COUNTY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ORDINANCE
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the County aquatic invasive species
program will have to be different from the City of Bellingham program. He will bring
forward an ordinance to the County Council in a couple of weeks. There are elements they
need to discuss before he can put the proposed ordinance together. He submitted
information (on file).
Knutzen stated they are seeing some of the results and responses from folks. If
they're going to do an invasive species program, it makes no sense to restrict it to Lake
Whatcom. If it's in Lake Padden, it's in Lake Whatcom.
Brueske stated he suggests that the ordinance be an interim ordinance to allow for
changes and flexibility in future years. The logistics and budgetary issues limit their ability
to address other water bodies besides Lake Whatcom. The County's program is more
complicated than the City's. The City can lock their gates and control their launches. They
can handle the vast majority of high risk boats coming and going. The County doesn't have
that luxury. There are many more water bodies and many uncontrolled boat ramps. Each
lake has varying degrees of difficulty for regulation and inspection. The program is risk -
based. They must go after the highest risk boats first. Think about enforcement issues if
the County program differs greatly from the City's.
His questions are what water bodies will require mandatory inspections, when the
County will require inspections, which vessels will be required to have inspections and
stickers, and what amount the County is going to charge. The highest risk boats are boat
on trailers from outside the county. Medium risk boats are County residents with boats on
trailers going to lakes inside the county. They must rely on outreach and education to make
the program successful. Once people are trained and understand the ramifications,
especially the residents, trust they'll do the right thing. Consider county residents as
medium risk because the County can get them with outreach. Lower risk boats for all lakes
are the resident boats that never leave the lake. That includes Faizon Lake, Wiser Lake,
Silver Lake, and rented boats at Lake Samish. There are many resident boats that don't go
anywhere. Consider how to address those. Low risk boats are also hand - carried, car -top
boats. Consider how to handle those. Consider a self certification program for residents
now or in future revisions. They can't lock down all the lakes. They will have to rely on
education and outreach.
Knutzen asked if the County can have a countywide day where a boat owner can get
the boat inspected, decontaminated if needed, and buy a permit at the same time. Brueske
stated the City and County have had two events where people could do that. Now, if
someone calls for an inspection, the County can send someone to wherever their boat is on
the lake. If they are at the South Bay launch, the County can send someone there to do the
inspection and issue an inspection that day. There may be delays depending on where the
boat is at. He looks for opportunities to streamline that process.
The City Council established a $20 fee for a one -day pass and a $50 fee for an
annual pass, which allows unlimited inspections and free boat lock to the trailer.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen asked what happens if someone has more than one boat. Brueske stated
they'll have to address that question. Now, the City requires an owner to buy a pass for
each boat.
He asked which lakes should require mandatory inspection, and when they would be
required. He asked if he should include Lake Samish in the draft ordinance. The launch at
Lake Samish is controlled by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). The County has a Sheriff boat there available for enforcement. It will be difficult
to do inspections.
Brenner stated the question is whether they want to reduce or stop the problem, or
make money, or both. Her intent is to reduce or stop the problem. The program should
include at least Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. There should be an online ability,
especially if people are only going to have their boats on Lake Whatcom, not anywhere else.
Otherwise, it will be punitive and may discourage many people.
Crawford stated the point of enforcement should be the sticker. The sticker
represents a protocol that there has been inspection and owner education. Disconnect the
concern about inspections. If someone doesn't have a sticker on the boat, they don't get to
go in the water. Inspections should be something that someone does away from the lake.
The sticker would have an associated document. There's no practical way to assume this
program includes the luxury that the boat owners can ignore the whole program until the
day they want to use their boats, and then have some expectation they can get their
inspection and do all those things. That's not what they do for cars. They go through an
annual renewal process for vehicles. This is more about educating people about getting a
sticker to use boats countywide. For public convenience, they may be able to have
inspection events in cooperation with the City on busy weekends. Don't make the
inspection program the focus of a lakeside effort. The inspection program becomes part of
the licensing effort that can occur away from the lake, in preparation for the boating season.
Brueske stated he agrees that trying to inspect every boat in place won't be feasible.
There has to be some other way to get at that.
Mann stated they would like to have this program affect all the lakes in the long-
term. Today, there are still questions about actual implementation and enforcement. He
hears staff saying they may not have the capacity to roll out the program in all lakes
simultaneously. As much as he would like blanket protection, educating the public has
value. Limit the program to Lake Whatcom this year, with the understanding that they will
learn this year about what it's like and what the problems are and then expand the program
next year or two.
Brenner asked if Councilmember Mann thinks they can't do Lake Samish this year.
Mann stated he doesn't know. Maybe they can do enforcement on Lake Samish.
Send a Sheriff boat to Lake Samish to check for stickers. He's talking about lakeside
inspections and tying boats to trailers with a bunch of staff. That may not be feasible now.
Knutzen stated it needs to be a countywide program. With a sticker, the boat owner
acknowledges that invasive species are important enough for them to invest the fee for the
sticker. Just doing Lake Whatcom seems like a backdoor effort to get boats off the lake.
They will drive all that traffic to another lake. If they are going to do a true aquatic invasive
species program, do a countywide program for all freshwater bodies in Whatcom County.
Enforcement will be random, depending on where the Sheriff boat is.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann stated they could have different levels. Have the Sheriff's boat intercept
people on a lake, but only have the actual lineup and inspections at Lake Whatcom.
Crawford stated there is enforcement and there are inspections. They won't have
either one at Wiser Lake, unfortunately. However, go ahead and require the sticker.
Weimer stated he agrees that this needs to be countywide. Make it as easy as
possible on Lake Whatcom, but he has no problem with educating people on any lake in the
county. Do random enforcement. Maybe don't enforce anywhere other than Lake Whatcom
this year, but someone on Lake Samish without a sticker can be stopped and reminded
they'll need the sticker next year or the year after. He prefers that it should be a
requirement everywhere from the beginning, except Ross Lake or Diablo Lake. Seattle City
Light might want to chip in to the program for those lakes because they don't want their
dams clogged with mussels.
Brueske stated he hears broad support to make the program countywide,
recognizing that it will be difficult logistically to do any enforcement other than on Lake
Whatcom for the year. The Sheriff's boats are primarily on Lake Whatcom and Lake
Samish.
Knutzen stated the WDFW has boats on lakes throughout the year.
Crawford asked if this will include the Nooksack River.
Knutzen stated it is a fresh water body.
Kremen stated they've been given a bunch of examples of where different areas are
charging different fees. There's a huge range of fees in other jurisdictions. It seems like
the City of Bellingham proposals are among the highest in the whole country. They need to
pay for some sort of a program. He agrees that it shouldn't just be limited to Lake
Whatcom. They also need to consider how much the fee will be. The proposal from the City
of Bellingham seems excessive. Take a more even approach based on what the market will
bear and what is fair. A lot of it might be better collected by the State rather than at each
individual community. Idaho and Oregon collect funds at the State level. In terms of
logistics and efficiency, take a look at something like that. It can't be created quickly, but
they need to be more discerning when it comes to where they require the fees and how
much the fees will be, depending on the vessel size. Be more discriminating. In some
areas such as Santa Barbara County, non - motorized canoes or kayaks have a $5 fee. The
City of Bellingham proposal doesn't differentiate between a 26 -foot Bayliner or a 12 -foot
kayak. The proposal doesn't seem to be created with much thought. Brueske stated the
City ordinance exempts kayaks and canoes from the fee. There's no guarantee they will
remain free.
Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated the research that went into the fee
structure included several contacts throughout the nation. Almost all those other programs
subsidize this program in some way or another. They already have rangers at the water
bodies subject to their program. They charge a minimum amount on top of some other
onerous fees for other things. Big Bear Lake in California charges $10 for the program, but
also charges launch fees, park use fees, and dock fees for residents. Those fees add up to
about $350 per year. Several other programs have some personnel on site already for
other programs, so they can implement the aquatic invasive species (AIS) program cheaply,
as long as the initial program subsidizes it. The City program fees may look high, but they
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
really aren't because they are the standalone fee. Few other programs actually charge
enough to pay the entire cost of their AIS program. He didn't find any program with a fee
structure that paid the complete cost of the AIS program. A jurisdiction in New York heavily
depends on tourism, and doesn't want to impact tourism in the community. The City tried
to set a fee that wouldn't overly burden the recreational users. Any fee will be a change. A
fee of this kind for some people will prohibit participation. The City will revisit it next year
to adjust the fees for boat length and the time it actually takes to inspect the boat and
provide the service. That way, they may be able to get to a more equitable fee structure for
people who have small boats and use the lake only a couple of times per year. This year,
this is the best they can do. It's a balanced recommendation.
Brenner stated she agrees to disagree with Mr. Fogelsong regarding fees. Don't start
off being punitive.
Weimer stated he watched the City Council hearing on the program. Most of the
people who spoke at the hearing didn't seem to have a problem with the fees. They
wouldn't mind paying $100 or more, as long as they get to put their boats on the lake as
easily as possible. He doesn't know what written correspondence the City has received. As
a starting point, he doesn't have a problem with the proposed fees. The staff heard
direction from people that the fees should pay for the program as much as possible, and not
subsidize the program with other money that no one has identified.
Brenner stated don't make this a program for only the wealthier people. It's likely
someone asked the people to attend to testify. If the program begins to feel punitive,
people will go around the rules. People should have options.
Weimer asked what other source of money the County will use to pay for it, or if the
County will have a program that doesn't really keep AIS out of the lake.
Brenner stated it's not one extreme or the other. The County pays for recreational
things as part of the park fund and other funds all the time. She's not sure. Just don't
charge a bunch, and then decide later they don't need to charge that much. If someone
has a boat on the lake that is not going anywhere but that lake, the owner should be able to
pay the fee once and renew it online.
Kremen stated he accepts Councilmember Weimer's observation at the City Council.
People live in the watershed, and especially on the water, have docks and have a lot of
money invested in their property. To them, an extra $200 is not much. He can see why
they don't mind paying $100 or $200 per year. There are also people who live on the lake
who can barely pay their property taxes, and have a 10 -foot kayak that only goes on the
lake. There needs to be accommodations for those kinds of boaters, in addition to people
with expensive boats that are more susceptible to collecting invasive species. In all
fairness, the City and County are trying to put together a program in a constrained
timeframe. Anything they do should be well- thought out and equitable as possible.
Mann asked Councilmember Brenner to explain what she thinks is punitive.
Brenner stated punitive is punishing or discouraging a certain behavior. Don't
discourage people from taking their boats on the lake. Figure out the cost, and have
several different options.
Brueske stated that to be consistent with the City and limit logistical challenges, he
recommends following the City of Bellingham's exemption of hand - carried kayaks and
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, 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
canoes. They can revisit it later. Consider something that gives concession to low -risk
boats, such as car -top boats or boats with small horse - powered engines that aren't on a
trailer. They have a low probability of traveling or carrying contaminated water back if they
do travel. Boats that don't travel cause the Sheriff an enforcement headache. The boat
either has a sticker or doesn't. That gets back to the self- certification program. They're not
ready to roll that out right now. It can be in place for next year.
Kris Halterman stated she viewed the City meetings on AIS. Only five people
showed up at the evening hearing meeting, during which Jon Hutchings said the cost
estimate was his best estimate, which is only one step above his best guess. She read City
Council Member comments from the committee meeting. They want full cost recovery, and
they really want boats off the lake.
Kremen stated it may be something Bellingham overlooked, but there should be
some sort of consideration given to resident versus non - resident users, whether it's in-
state /out -of -state or in- county /out -of- county.
Crawford stated he tends to agree with the City Council Members. Don't make other
taxpayers pay for this program. Boat users need to fund the program. He's not excited
about letting the personal watercraft and kayakers off the hook. Make sure they're
inspected, so they need to also bear some cost of the program.
Knutzen stated he's disappointed that they are willing to subsidize other recreation
uses, but not willing to subsidize boaters. The County subsidizes the horse folks in the
amount of $2 million in taxpayer funds at the South Fork. Now they're doing the same
thing for hikers and bikers. It's not true that the County doesn't subsidize other recreation
groups. They aren't taking property out of the tax base to subsidize the boaters.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on April 9, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
4� 360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Surface Water Work Session, 3/19/2013, Page 9