Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources December 6 20051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee December 6, 2005 Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Dan McShane Also Present: Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION ON THE EAST ACME FARM COMMUNITY RESTORATION PROJECT (AB2005 -451) Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, presented information (on file) and stated the Lummi Nation received a grant to do an engineered log jam (ELJ) on the Nooksack River in the Acme area. This project began, but there were many community concerns. In response, the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board suspended the Lummi project. County Executive Kremen met with the Lummi Nation to remedy the situation. The project had spent quite a bit of money already. The staff met with the community for eight months to listen to concerns and consider other projects to enhance the Lummi project. Currently, there is an application to the SRF Board to fund an expanded project from the County. This work engaged the community, separate from the existing Lummi contract with the SRF Board. Now, they are in the middle of the SRF Board request for proposals (RFP) review process. This is one of five projects moved to the SRF Board for consideration. The County received responses from the technical review panel on November 28 that addressed the panel's concerns. The panel asked for responses from the application. The information in the Council packet includes the questions and the County's response. There was a presentation at the end of November in Olympia to discuss the County's comments with the review panel. The next step is a review panel internal review, which will make it's revisions public tomorrow. A project of concern may not be funded, but may be recommended to the SRF Board policy group, which has the authority to act. In the past, the SRF Board has taken advice from the technical team and supported projects of concern. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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. Part of the Salmon Recovery Plan is integration of salmon and flood work. It's a new area the SRF Board is wrestling with. It's been a struggle. This project is a good example of that struggle, where the community wants a flood project and the SRF Board wants a salmon project. This project has met in the middle ground. Roy asked if the SRF Board mission is salmon recovery. Roll stated it is. Roy asked if the SRF Board has done any projects that are integrated with flood control in the past. John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated it has. The SRF Board funded projects in Yakima that provided instream cover and also have bank erosion protection benefits. Roll stated this is the first year when all the Puget Sound water resource inventory areas (WRIA's) have salmon recovery plans in place. They must align those plans with this process. The local group and the SRF Board will work through that question. For this process locally, the local board tried to make sure all the SRF Board projects ranked as a high priority of the Salmon Recovery Plan. From this point forward, there will be a draft from the review panel tomorrow. That draft will maintain or lift the project of concern status. The County will have one week to respond. There will be a public comment period. The SRF Board funding decision will be in early January. One of the issues to consider is whether the County feels this project represents a significant benefit to the fishery. Unfortunately, certain individuals in the ranking process feel it doesn't benefit fish enough. A number of sites, one through five, were discussed with the community as they worked through what the community wants in order to support a SRF Board application. Some were added and some were deleted. This application focused on areas three and four, but the community is still interested in area one. A final design will have to be worked through the community and the Sub -Zone Advisory Board. The concepts may be tweaked still. Brenner stated the letter from the SRF Board was clearer than staff's letter. The SRF Board said that stabilizing a section of the right bank, which does not significantly impact salmon habitat, is at odds with the general goal. She asked if the County would do the stabilization. She asked why that site was chosen. She asked if the County was able to provide input into the decision of that site for the Lummi project. Thompson stated that site was initiated through the Lummi and Nooksack tribes. The County was consulted, but they selected the site to meet the project objectives. The concern about the site from the review panel is that bank. It is an eroding bank. When their review panelist looked at it, he felt it wasn't enough of an issue to put money into it to protect it. The five sub -zone district lines indicated in the aerial photo are old channel locations through a pasture. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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. Those locations are now potential evulsion paths, which creates a flood hazard for folks downstream. The review panel didn't feel the bank was a big enough issue to deal with, but the staff feels that dealing with it can reduce the sediment from going into spawning grounds and also reduce flood risk. Brenner stated the SRF Board okayed the Lummi project. Now the SRF Board is suspending it. She asked if they take all those things into consideration before giving a grant. Thompson stated the original grant approval for the Lummi project, which includes other funding, was for a substantially different project. As the community became concerned, the Lummi's realized the current project wasn't realistic, and they would need to design more reliable structures. There was a substantial redesign of the project, based on feedback from the community. Roy stated the SRF Board doesn't like the redesign. McShane asked the location of the Lummi project on the photo on page three of the handout. Thompson stated the location is adjacent to areas three and four. He indicated the location on the Herrera map on page four of the handout. The engineered logjams (ELYs) indicated on the map are the Lummi project. They would remove the red dashed section on the map that represents the lower Hutchison Creek levee. That is the proposal as modified due to the citizen concerns. McShane asked if the original Lummi project was to take out the revetment, put in a log jam that will allow water through into the lower end of Hutchison Creek. Thompson stated the original proposal was also to build log jams over a greater distance along the stream and to take out more of the bank armoring upstream. McShane asked if the project is to include the rock islands. Thompson stated that is part of the County's proposal. Between the Lummi project and the County project, the levee would be set back to the historic meander belt. McShane asked if there would be a back up levee there. Thompson stated that is correct. The intent of the Lummi project is to retain the river in the same position, but to create a side channel at the location of lower Hutchison Creek. They wanted to create a side channel in an area where there is cool groundwater from upstream gravel bars and also down Hutchison Creek. They want to create deep pools with log jams and side channels to provide thermal refuge for the fish. The site was chosen because it lacks holding habitat and because there is a temperature problem. McShane asked if the County's proposal is to install the rock islands, the backup levee on the curve, the extension of the pile jams along the curve in front of the pasture, and forested boundaries for trees. Thompson stated that is correct. The Lummi project includes wooden wing walls and a wood plug in the old Hutchison channel. It was specifically designed in response to the community's concern about the Hutchison Creek taking too much of the Nooksack River's flow. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane asked if Ms. Cooper is comfortable with the improvements proposed by Herrera and the Lummi's to armor that area by Hutchison Creek and build a bigger log jam. Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the first proposed structure was not big enough. They beefed up the structure, but she was still concerned the river would do an end run around it. That's why the County and Sub -Zone District project called for an eastward extension. McShane stated the County's proposal is the rock islands, back up levee on either side of Hutchison Creek, and the wing walls and slash dams in front of the pasture. The Sub -Zone District had other ideas that are not part of the grant application. They are just talking about areas three and four. Roll stated that is correct. There is also community interest in area one. Roy asked if they are talking about two SRF Board grants. One is for the Lummi's, which is on hold, and the second is from the County. She asked if the SRF Board says the County project looks more like flood control than salmon enhancement. To get all the pieces together, both projects need funding. The Tribe can't move forward with its funding until this County project is funded. Roll stated the community felt its needs must be met concurrently. The County went into this to create an integrated project with the Lummi project, not a standalone project. The SRF Board looks at individual projects, but the two projects together provide salmon enhancement and make the area better. Engaging the community goes beyond the technical view. It considers what the community is willing to support. Brenner asked how the Lummi project got approved if there was obvious potential impacts to peoples' lives and safety. She asked how the SRF Board can compartmentalize and why they suspended the project if it doesn't care about life and safety. Roll stated the funding was suspended in response to reaction from community members. The Lummi project wasn't designed completely at the beginning of the SRF Board process. Brenner asked if the SRF Board doesn't necessarily consider the community process or community concerns. Roll stated it considers community concerns, but looks at the project before the final design. The grant was funded, but not fully supported by the community, so the County has to intervene. Thompson stated the SRF Board project has a public process, but it's not very formalized. When the Lummi project was submitted as a grant application, the project was conceptual. It hadn't done any community outreach yet. When the realities of dealing with the community happened, the Lummi project reduced the scope of the project. The SRF Board has two concerns. One is whether the community concerns have been addressed. The other is that the smaller project is requesting the same amount of money. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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. Fleetwood asked on what the Lummi's have spent the $625,000. Thompson stated he doesn't know. It's probably engineering design, analysis, and purchase of wood materials. Fleetwood asked if they spent that money in expectation that additional money would be spent on the project. Thompson stated they have the money lined up, just no access to it yet. Fleetwood asked if that is the $70,000 that is mentioned. Thompson stated the $70,000 is something they already paid to someone to provide materials, for which they are not able to get reimbursed. Fleetwood stated the SRF Board makes reference that they fundamentally got the project wrong. He asked how the SRF Board decides at this late date that everything should have been done on the other side of the river. Thompson stated the SRF Board is talking about site five, which the Sub -Zone District identified for side channel enhancement. The review panel took a look at the project area. They saw the preliminary concepts and had a site visit. Now, the project is farther along. It would have been good to get the panel's input in March, not August. Roll stated that now there is a Salmon Recovery Plan and eight early actions identified over ten years, including integration of salmon recovery and flood projects. They are beginning integrated projects that will be controversial projects. These are the issues they will have to deal with to implement the Salmon Recovery Plan. Now they've done the science and determined there must be more woody debris and engineered log jams in the river. That comes at a cost. They must work with the community to make it a win -win situation. The SRF Board has not wrestled with what the plans say and what are the community interests. The SRF Board looks strictly at technical fish recovery. The SRF Board must wrestle with these policy issues. Nelson stated he is not confident the science was done completely. Roll stated the Salmon Recovery Plan includes an action to do some of these engineered log jams. That doesn't mean analysis was done in detail for every reach in the area. They responded to the fact that the project was held up and engaged the community to allow the Lummi project to move forward. Fleetwood asked what the Council would need to approve. Roll stated the community question is what happens if the community project isn't funded. The community doesn't want the Lummi project to move forward without the community project. If the Council would like to take another approach, it must consider those other approaches. The County Executive is being very aggressive on this issue with the SRF Board. It is a good project that should be funded. Brenner stated she's disappointed in the letter from Merle Jefferson. The Lummi's made decisions in which the County was not included. It's not fair for the Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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 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. Lummi Nation to expect the County to pay a bunch of taxpayer money on this project or else be the bad guy. She's very upset. It's not about relations. The County does want to work with the Tribe and community. The question is when the County gets to work with them. McShane stated the Lummi Tribe must have worked with the County some, because County parkland is involved. Roll stated the County expressed support of the general concept of the plan. However, the County didn't give authority or approval to do whatever the Lummi wanted. Fleetwood asked if Dr. Roll agreed with Merle Jefferson's characterization of what is needed from the County to go forward. Roll stated the first thing listed in Merle Jefferson's letter can happen if the community project is funded. Until they have the projects designed and ready to be permitted, they can't tell the Parks Department or landowners to jump on board. The third thing listed in Merle Jefferson's letter is something they've been doing for countless years. Nelson asked if they have to do this project this year. Roll stated the Lummi project was planned for this year. If the community project is funded, they would have to sequence both projects. Nelson asked if there is a reason they can't do it next year or the year after that. Roll stated he doesn't know. The SRF Board is only one granting agency for the Lummi project. Nelson stated he has no problem with the Lummi's working with the community to do a project. He asked why the County is held accountable if the project falls apart. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Nelson continued to ask if it's Executive Kremen's idea to move forward, or if Dr. Roll is pushing it forward. Roll stated this is a project that has to be done. This project was not done perfect from start to finish. The County had to intervene. If they wanted to salvage the Lummi project, they had to intervene. The reason the County had to intervene was because the SRF Board suspended the project pending County approval. The County should be praised for attempting to make this a win - win situation. Roy stated she agreed. The County Council began to hear from the community ten months ago. The County could have chosen to not get involved. The County has stepped in and tried to work out something. Now, the County is sucked into this project. She asked if this project would normally be at the top of the project list, given the amount of money for which they are asking. Roll stated it wouldn't, from a flood standpoint. The County is there to salvage a good project. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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. Larry Jacoby, Mosquito Lake Road, stated this is a mismanaged project. The Lummi's are putting in logjams now because the Lummi's took them out ten or fifteen years ago. Now they want to take out the rock levees and make people believe something will be better. The logjams now are made up of building site trash. They are contaminated trees. Use trees that came naturally down out of the watershed. There are truckloads of little limbs and branches. Hutchison Creek goes dry in the summer. It won't cool the river. This has been mismanaged. They can't afford another one. This project won't bring back the fish. The levees have worked out there. The fish have been there for years. The Lummi's want this one spot because the County owns that property. The salmon recovery people finally saw the light. The game department said they would wash the trees before putting them in the river. Roy stated the community members have put a lot of effort into coming up with a solution. The Council will continue to be involved in this issue. McShane asked if the administration is looking for a particular policy direction from the Council. Roll stated this is an update. Any number of people will talk to the Council, depending on the outcome of the decision. He will push very hard for funding. If they don't receive it, they will have to reevaluate. At this point, he can't believe the community would allow the Lummi project to go forward without the County piece, given the number of months they've spent trying to fix the community's concerns. McShane stated the review panel was negative about filling in swales and extending the revetment in front of the pasture. He didn't see any negative comments about the backup levee or the rock islands. He asked how important that pasture revetment is to this particular project. Consider splitting up the project if necessary to get the elements that the review panel approves. The SRF Board is to grant funds for salmon recovery, and he doesn't see much salmon recovery in this project. Roll stated they are hoping to deal with the community concerns. McShane stated erosion of the pasture happens regardless of the project. Thompson stated the fish benefit of the pasture revetment is to get side channel habitat and pools around the jams. It will allow the bank to re- vegetate. Trees were planted, but they are being washed into the river. The last photo in the packet shows that the bank slopes away toward the swales. If the bank erodes more, it progressively lowers the bank. That field would take on water during progressively smaller floods. The intent was to take the extra material and make the elevation constant all along the bank so the water spreads out rather than hitting the channels. The swales are back in the pasture, not in the wooded areas. Roy asked if this is for salmon recovery or flood protection or both. Thompson stated it is for a combination of the two. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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. McShane stated that part seemed to bother the SRF Board the most. He's having a hard time seeing how this project is directly connected with the Lummi project, other than appeasing a separate concern. There are clearly habitat and erosion problems in front of the pasture. Erosion rates are significantly higher. There are both habitat problems and a flood risk. He wonders if the flood project is a separate project from the Hutchison Creek project. Thompson stated the projects are connected when flows are encouraged back in there with the logjams from the tribal project. There may be pressure above ELJ 7. The idea is to keep it from cutting into the bank and migrating more into the field. There are two different applications or concepts that are linked. Chris Hatch, Acme Van Zandt Sub -Zone Chair, stated that if they remove the lower Hutchison dike, it will expose the bank to greater forces than would happen if the dike there. The residents felt they would have to treat the bank if they removed all or some of the lower Hutchison dike. McShane asked how they've determined that would happen and if there is a study. Hatch stated they have historical photos. The dike was put in during 1965 for a reason. They can see how the river interacts with and without the dike. There is a huge scour behind the dike that precipitated the need for the dike. That dike is in a system of dikes put in as a response to the City's water diversion pipeline. McShane asked if someone technically evaluated the probability of increased erosion if they took out the rock revetment and installed the rock islands. Cooper stated they haven't done a study. Hatch stated the question is whether Herrera referenced any concerns about not treating the open end of the park, should the levee be removed. Cooper stated they gave sites three and four to Herrera. They asked Herrera to do it all since they were there. They felt that site four had good benefits for salmon. It made sense to do it all together. Hatch stated the integration issue is that the projects fit better together. Cooper stated they could probably separate the projects, but they fit better together. This whole thing has been an evolutionary process. McShane stated the County's project has three elements: the rock islands, the backup levee, and the whole thing around number four. He asked the cost breakdown. Cooper stated the cost is approximately $640,000 for number four. Nelson asked how to avoid this from happening in the future. Roll stated staff recognizes that business needs to be done differently. Future projects need to include the community from the beginning. People from the County and tribes have learned that clearly. Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, 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 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. Nelson asked if they can get the community involvement in writing. Roll stated he will push for it. He brought that issue to the SRF Board, which should add it as a guiding principal. Nelson stated they need a formal process for agreement. Roll stated he agrees. He will pass that on to the SRF Board. Staff has ideas, but is not ready to share them yet. Nelson stated he is concerned about cottonwoods in the area. They are quite large and very vulnerable to this project. He asked how much debris will come down in the next flood if this portion of the dike is removed and replaced with the rock islands. Cooper stated this is just a conceptual design at this point. The engineering calculations come next. Herrera's task is to engineer around the areas. The goal is to form side channels in the order of magnitude of Hutchison Creek so the flow is split. Thompson stated withstanding the trees from being impacted is part of the design of the engineered logjams (ELYs). When the ELYs are installed, they will grow and accumulate more wood. Part of the challenge is to make sure they are stout enough to hold up. Nelson asked if the trees will form large woody bands when they come out. He asked if that would push out farther to the north. McShane stated that is the reason for the County to build the backup levee. Hatch stated the community folks are concerned about those trees also, and also the supply of sediment being transported downstream. There is concern that the bridge downstream should be constructed to handle the wood. He anticipates the design will account for the concerns. Brenner asked if the cost is about $1 million. They must have an interlocal agreement on this issue. She asked for a copy of the lower Hutchison Creek landowner agreement. Hatch stated the folks living in the South Fork area thank Councilmember Roy for her service to the County. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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. The meeting adjourned at 10:48 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 10