HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources June 28 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
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
Special Water Resources Work Session
June 28, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:10
a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322
N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Absent:
Sam Crawford
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2005 -025)
1. RIVER AND FLOOD
Nooksack River Sediment Management Plan
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated the packet includes a
summary. The packet also includes comments on the plan from agencies. He
submitted a cost estimate handout (on file), which is divided into three elements.
He highlighted the lines on the estimate that are created due to the comments from
the agencies. It will be expensive to remove material from the river. The more
they remove from the river, the more it will cost. The estimate is for removing
50,000 yards per year, which is a low estimate. Historically, much more has been
removed in the past. The estimate is correct for selective gravel bar scalping. This
is a large estimate to put a program in place. The agencies that commented are
trying to accomplish salmon recovery and environmental restoration on the back of
this program, which is part of the reason why the estimates are high. The agencies
are reluctant to have this activity happen again because of environmental damages
from past activities.
Brenner asked about spending more, just once, to remove gravel to jump
start the work with the woody debris and other things they're doing. A lot of the
things such as ongoing monitoring may offset that cost.
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated they would still have
to do monitoring. The agency concern is with destabilizing the system if they take
out too much gravel.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated the agencies are acting like the County hasn't learned from
the past or doesn't know anything. The agencies implied that the only reason the
County is doing this is to get gravel out of the river. She's talked to Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and other agencies that she trusts.
They feel it could help to do it once, then let the woody debris and other things take
over.
Roy asked if the feasibility study just pulls together information they already
have. She asked if the plan development phase addresses the issues that the
agencies have. She asked if they would get some answers about effects and the
changing dynamics of the river. Cooper stated plan development and ongoing
monitoring would begin to answer those questions.
Phase 1A produced a draft study that summarizes everything. They are
working on final edits to the report. Phase 1B is the pilot. The reason for the
bathanalysis is to reduce the potential error in the analysis.
Monsen stated there is substantial doubt from the resource agencies of
whether or not the river is filling and that the problem would be better fixed by
setting back the levees.
Nelson stated the agencies feel there is not a problem with sediment, and
they just have to make the river bigger.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that river velocity is an issue. She asked if that is
something they must address if they dredge the river. Monsen stated that
according to the adopted flood hazard management plan, they decided not to do full
scale dredging because of cost. Doing bar scalping to finesse the river is valuable.
Second, the river is filling, in geologic time. The debate is whether there has been
a substantial change over the last few years. The time context is confusing. Third,
while they want to do proactive salmon recovery, the river system, especially in the
levee portions, has been manipulated for many years. To sustain the agricultural
community, they need to maintain that system somehow and reconnect the flood
plain to reduce damage during a flood event.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff have identified specific bars that should be
modified. Cooper stated they have not yet. They will do that in the plan
development phase.
Brenner stated the agency had admitted in the past that sediment loading is
a problem. Scour and clean it out one time. Another problem is that the river is
too shallow and the water temperature is too high. This is one piece of the whole
problem. She asked what happens if the County doesn't agree with the comments
made. She asked why the County is spending all this time and money if the agency
is going to do it it's own way.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated this is the agency's job. She is reluctant to take this personally.
It's not very effective for the Council to respond on every issue raised. She asked
about the chart of the migrating salmon patterns. It looks like there is little time in
the year when there is no salmon in the river. She asked if an analysis of that
would be part of the plan. Cooper stated the agency will give them a window in
which to work.
Nelson asked the elements going on in plan development. Cooper stated
they need two bathymetric surveys, one now and one in several years. She is not
sure if the second bathymetric study will be required. Assume that monitoring
includes surveys of individual bars and for a certain distance upstream and
downstream, to see how the river responds. Project design includes pre -
construction.
Monsen stated plan development is onetime costs, but plan implementation
will update some of the plan development items.
Nelson stated they have $1 million for one -time funding. He asked how
much of the costs listed under plan development and plan implementation would
the County have to do anyway for flood control. Cooper stated the items not
highlighted on the estimate are what the County would have to do anyway.
Nelson stated the cost is about $600,000 for normal ongoing costs. He
asked how much it will cost if this is implemented after the one -time funding.
Cooper stated the cost estimate is $400,000 for 50,000 yards.
Roy stated they're talking about this because of flood control. It isn't about
finding another supply of gravel. There is a school of thought that this will help
with flood control. Monsen stated part of the reason this pencils out is because of
the value they can gain from the gravel material. However, that is not the
motivation for the program.
Brenner stated the driver is flood control and salmon recovery equally. If
they dig deeper and make the water cooler, and allow large woody debris to take
hold, it might help jump start salmon recovery. She asked if there are or aren't
times in the river when the salmon aren't coming or going. Monsen stated there
are two issues. One is the timing of the work to minimize or eliminate harm to the
fish there at that moment. The second is understanding that any work in the
channel destabilizes the channel for a time. That instability is the concern.
Roy asked if the County makes the final decisions. Monsen stated that from
a regulatory standpoint, this is the estimate needed to get permission. He doesn't
know if the County will continue to have permission if it spends the money. He
expects that for every dollar they spend, he will continue to ask the agencies
whether the County will get permission.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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
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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the cost estimates are for the entire project .
Cooper stated the plan implementation estimate assumes gravel removal at two
sites per year.
McShane stated he's afraid of paying a lot of money for bad news. That's
what he believes will happen.
Monsen stated that if the County is going to seek ongoing permission, this is
the course of action it must take. Staff will continue to look for ways to lower those
costs without putting certainty at risk. A program like this is of value to pursue for
flood hazard reduction and to create opportunities for salmon recovery. They're
trying to focus on reasonable actions site by site.
McShane stated they need to establish channel migration zones. He asked if
the agencies would buy off on manipulation of the river channel if those zones are
established, as opposed to building an expensive setback levee. In that context, he
asked what level they set for being able to go into the river and manipulate it when
the County says that it will allow the river to overflow to a certain point. Cooper
stated there was that feeling of questioning the County's motives in the beginning.
At every meeting, she brought up the comprehensive flood hazard management
plan components. The agencies became more comfortable. The agencies said it
would be difficult to do this in a way that is consistent with salmon recovery. The
agencies admitted they don't know how to do that.
McShane asked if there is a way to establish channel migration zones,
establish a limit everyone is happy with, and then any overflow beyond that will go
into cutting channels to keep the river from migrating farther. Cooper stated she
didn't explore it with the agencies.
McShane stated don't go ahead with a sediment management plan without
defining the channel migration zones. Then, allow sediment management be part
of the larger project of channel migration zones. Cooper stated she doesn't
disagree. If they took that approach, it still may be a good idea to collect the
bathymetric data for other things, also.
McShane stated that's why he's supported some sediment management in
the plan. However, sediment management won't have as big as an impact as some
think to reduce flood hazards. Cooper stated sediment removal won't reduce the
amount of flood damage. It will only keeping it from getting worse.
Nelson stated a migration zone is essential for anyone to approve a sediment
management plan. He hoped to get that information through the survey. Look for
the loads that can be contained in certain areas. If they are serious about
preserving agricultural land, the question is always how far they let the channel cut
into the agricultural land. He asked the type of material they currently have in the
mineral resource lands (MRL's) that exist now, and if this would offset any current
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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.
loads on mineral resource lands. Cooper stated the County uses about three million
yards of material. The 50,000 yards is a small percentage.
Nelson stated he is constantly asked why the County is not dredging. He
must have a mechanism to answer that question. This estimate is the best
comprehensive approach he's seen. It would be cost effective to answer the
question of what types of dredging that they can do, how it fixes fish habitat, and
how it stops erosion from occurring, which will occur if they don't protect the dikes
or have the migration zones in place.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what a bathymetric survey is. Cooper stated an
acoustic Doppler will record the topography of the river bottom. They will also have
to do the gravel bars above water.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that is key to establishing the migration zone.
Cooper stated it is not. It is more for the hydraulic analysis.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Comprehensive Plan says gravel removal is one
way to address flood issues. If there is a way to do it to minimize flooding and land
erosion elsewhere, it's fine. She does worry about effects elsewhere. She asked if
they will know the effects elsewhere. Cooper stated that information is in the
sediment management plan. The water can carry a certain sediment load. The
water will pick up the sediment somewhere else, and start erosion somewhere else.
They need to figure out how much sediment is coming into the system naturally so
they don't remove all of it and have a negative impact. The hydraulic analysis is for
overflow sections. It's more modeling to look at where the floodwaters go.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if costs will be paid from the flood fund, and what
the Council needs to do today. Monsen stated this item is for discussion only. If
the Council were highly reluctant, he wouldn't want to bring forward contracts.
Brenner stated first figure out where the channel migration zone is. Once
that is done, it would be helpful to do scalping if they are going to do the large
woody debris anyway. Cooper stated she doesn't disagree.
Monsen stated staff will look at a balance between financing and permission
to perform. They will find the easiest course through it.
Cooper stated phase 1B is a reduced scope of work from the original scope.
It will have more error than what the agencies are comfortable with, but it will give
the County an idea of what to expect.
Brenner asked when they will understand the channel migration zone.
Cooper stated she hoped they'll know within a year.
Art Anderson, County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee
Member and Sediment Management Committee Chair, stated the County has to
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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
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.
prove that it is innocent as far as harming habitat and fisheries. He is often asked
what the County is doing with its flood money. Forty percent of the cost of that
project goes to mitigation. The committee has to be good stewards of County
taxpayer dollars.
He sat in on different agency meetings. The agencies were not consistent
with each other. Rather than move sediment, they just wanted to move the dikes
back. However, there is too much infrastructure that would have to be moved.
The river system has areas designed for overtopping. Once the river overtops,
make sure it gets back into the river system. If there is no infrastructure, just
fields, it's a good design.
He asked the Council to support them in this venture. If they are serious
about taking sediment out of the river, they have to do these things. He asked the
Council to support the resources they're asking for. Let the citizens, agricultural
people, aggregate producers, and the local and state elected officials know about
the sediment program. Find out if the aggregate producers are interested in gravel
scalping. Endorse this program, look at the final draft of the sediment
management plan when it comes forward. It's not a fisheries plan.
The citizens want sediment removed from the river. He asked the agencies
why there is flooding that are seven- to 12 -year events that overtop the system.
No one has been able to answer that question.
Nelson asked if the committee reviewed the proposed cost estimate.
Anderson stated they talked about it. The bathymetric survey has to be done
before they can move forward. Once done, they can move on the bars. This is part
of the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan.
Nelson asked if this is a two -year plan. Anderson stated it is, or more. It's
important to have contact with the State elected officials. In Olympia, the
committee members heard different things from the agencies than they heard from
the local agency representatives.
Brenner stated the agencies are the Nooksack Tribe, Army Corps of
Engineers, which are federal, and the Planning Department, which is local.
also.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that they should talk with the federal legislators,
Anderson stated he first needs the Council's blessing.
McShane asked if the subzone districts are willing to support the program.
Anderson stated each subzone committee has a representative on the larger
committee, and he hasn't heard anything negative.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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.
McShane asked if the flood subzones are willing to spend money. Anderson
stated haven't had that vote.
Monsen stated that from past practices, the countywide district has worked
on this type of development activity. Subzones may cost -share specific sites for
specific purposes. General planning activity is a countywide function.
Anderson stated the subzones have limited budgets. He asked the Council
for support of the overall plan and to review the final draft and get support from the
different agencies.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to give up on the planning yet. She
moved to continue doing the feasibility part and do plan development in
conjunction with the channel migration zone identification.
Nelson stated staff needs approval of the whole thing. Cooper stated staff
can do bathymetry now, and can start the other stuff later. In a few months,
complete phase 113 so they know when to do bathymetry again.
McShane asked if phase 1A is done. Cooper stated it is.
McShane asked if phase 113 is to follow up on the report. Cooper stated the
scope is reduced. It will include agency meetings, report revisions, and technical
analysis on certain portions of the river.
McShane asked if that will provide some guidance to the usefulness of the
bathymetric study. Cooper stated it will, for both bathymetric surveys. If one
survey is done now, the result will say whether they need a second survey.
McShane asked if this process will survey a very dynamic system that will
change much in a few years. It might come out that it might not be near what it
had been. However, he knows it makes it easier to do modeling.
Nelson asked if the consultant is part of phase 1A or 113. Cooper stated the
consultant is working in both phases.
Nelson asked if the plan is public. Cooper stated the draft was sent to the
agencies for revision. Once staff gets the committee's comments, the study will be
finalized for public.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the balance of the flood fund. Monsen stated the
balance is about $8 million. He predicts they will expend that fund balance, in part,
because of stormwater activities. Staff knew that they would have an opportunity
to spend lots of money. The current flood district won't take care of everything in
implementation, but it is capable of doing this project, and the planning needed for
this project. There are other projects that are lining up.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Cable Street stormwater project is coming out
of that fund. Monsen stated the County didn't get State money for that project, so
it will cost the County about $1 million to complete it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to figure out the channel migration
zones in conjunction with this plan. It may be needed. Now, the information is so
unknown. She can see the costs on this estimate escalating easily.
McShane stated the motion is not clear on where to draw the line.
Brenner restated her motion continue with the first bathymetric survey, in
conjunction with identification of a channel migration zone as much as possible, and
complete phase 113.
McShane stated he can approve phases 1A and 113. Without reviewing the
documents, he can't support the first bathymetric study.
Nelson stated he will support the motion. However, he wants to know what
they are working on. If the first phases aren't meeting the criteria, don't go on with
the next phase. They need to work toward plan development.
Fleetwood asked if the bathymetric survey is useful for other purposes.
Cooper stated it will be useful to the existing hydraulic model for topographic
information on the Nooksack River. Topography shows water surface, but not what
is underneath the water surface. Some surveys have been done in different parts
of the river. In the upper river, the river moves around a lot. They can improve
the hydraulic analysis with the survey cross - section.
Fleetwood asked about Councilmember McShane's concern that the river is
dynamic. Cooper stated the river is dynamic, including during a flood event. The
survey will help the County defend it to FEMA to get it on a map and also to
improve the high water marks in reach four.
Fleetwood stated he would support the motion.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can time the survey with the final piece of the
channel migration zone. Cooper stated staff would have to develop a contract and
bring it to the Council.
Monsen stated those two tasks aren't tied together procedurally.
McShane stated his concern is the length of time it will take to establish the
channel migration zone. It won't be easy. Focus on that, instead. Other things are
being thrown at flood staff, which makes this difficult process even more difficult.
The staff will be challenged to present clear, concise science.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, 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.
Monsen stated the driver of creating a channel migration zone is the pace
and content of the critical areas ordinance and shoreline management program.
Roy asked if this survey will help provide science to justify the channel
migration zones. Cooper stated it will not. The study will say whether the levees
will continue to protect people because the river level is rising.
Roy asked if the survey would solve the question of whether or not sediment
is really the issue. Cooper stated plan development would help answer those
questions.
Fred Polinder, Jr., resident, stated that in the late 1930's, methods were put
in to stop erosion. The 1942 flood overtopped the dike. Now, the dike is very high
and the river is still overtopping. People who say the river isn't coming up don't
know what they're talking about.
Regarding gravel removal, all cement used to come from river gravel, and
the people who hauled gravel were very conscious of keeping the gravel bars in
good shape. In the 1960's, the cost of permits priced the people out of business.
In the early 1990's, they took out gravel bars to do road work. The flood of 1995
filled everything in. The flood of 1992 cut a new channel across a gravel bar. The
river will go where it wants. The gravel gets washed downriver.
Nelson stated the bathymetric survey is an evaluation that is long overdue.
Water volumes may not be the same as they were 20 years ago. Land use
practices have contributed to changes in water volumes. They must answer the
question about where the sediment is coming from before they do something they
may regret later. Cost concerns are legitimate, but take care of the river.
Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
3. STORMWATER
National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit and
Timelines
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated he would discuss this at a future
Natural Resources Committee meeting.
Nelson asked if there has been any discussion about including the entire Lake
Whatcom basin.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated it is limited by the State and
federal government. Staff will talk to the Council about including all areas.
2. SALMON RECOVERY
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Salmon Recovery Plan Update
Brenner stated final edits are due at Shared Strategy today.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated Shared Strategy wanted the technical
stuff. That has already gone to them. This document is one the County can
change overtime. It is a summary of the technical manual. This document is the
final draft of the summary.
On July 7, all the chapters are being sent to the agencies for the Puget Sound
Recovery Plan. There will be a social event, and the Council is invited.
Brenner stated she is concerned about returning rates of wild salmon that
have flat lined. They are in competition with hatchery salmon for the same food.
Also, the hatchery fish are predatory.
Roll stated that is a key element of the co- managers. Elements include
harvest and hatchery management. That issue has been worked through. The co-
managers and State developed those sections of the plan. He can bring forward
those details. The co- managers considered the hatchery issue. That point has to
be part of the final recovery plan.
Brenner asked if the Council will have future opportunities to make it a
priority.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated part of the issue is recognizing
that the County has a primary role with habitat issues. It can review and comment
on harvest and hatchery issues. He expects that the County will understand the
harvest and hatchery issues well enough that the habitat program activity is
moving forward at the same pace. The more fish that are in the river, the more
opportunity there is for predatory actions, unless there is more habitat to disperse
the species.
Roll handed out a missing page (on file). A draft resolution is circulating
among the small cities. Note whether they want to amend the resolution, so the
resolution can be signed by all the Salmon Recovery Board members in the future.
Brenner stated the fourth whereas statement is the same as number three.
Delete it. The Council should not, in a public document, admit that the County can
be liable, even if it can be. Liability is generally discussed in executive session.
Roy stated she agreed with councilmember Brenner.
McShane stated one purpose of adopting the plan is to get rid of that liability.
He asked whether the County won't be held liable if it adopts this plan. Roll stated
the level of assurance the County will receive has yet to be defined. The level is
still questionable.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated the purpose of the fourth whereas statement is to reduce
that liability. That's why it's there.
Monsen stated that in the legal context, this makes reference to any party
doing something inappropriate. This gets to the fact that a third party can file suit.
The greatest exposure to liability is from not doing what they say they will do.
That is why they've been careful to not be specific about what actions will happen
when. Instead, they've defined the collective goal and said the County will continue
to move in that direction.
Caskey - Schreiber stated that even if they take the statement out, it won't
change the laws. It may be better to be aware that these actions can happen.
Brenner stated item three says the same thing without pointing fingers.
Also, this is a joint resolution. The same thing can happen with other jurisdictions.
She doesn't like admitting any potential liability in a public document. That is not
proper for the County to do. The wording can be different. Roll stated he can work
on the wording.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the majority of the Council wants the fourth
whereas statement taken out or refined.
The Council concurred.
Brenner referenced the whereas statement on the second page that begins,
"Whereas Bellingham and Whatcom County have worked diligently to improve...."
Make the statement in the present tense, because it is ongoing, and include the
small cities. In the sixth whereas statement on the second page, include farmers,
even though they are a part of the private sector. Roll stated he can include
agriculture.
McShane stated he's not sure he agrees with those changes. Don't bring
back a new draft based on one councilmember's opinion. He asked about adding
the cities. He has no idea what the cities are doing. If they include agriculture,
they will also have to add others, such as fishers and loggers.
Brenner stated they don't need to add agriculture.
Roll stated the next version of the resolution will include comments staff
received from everyone.
Brenner stated some small cities weren't happy and felt that Bellingham and
Whatcom County were ignoring their efforts.
Fleetwood stated the Council is not saying the cities have or haven't worked
diligently. The Council is saying it doesn't know. He doesn't know what work the
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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.
small cities have done. Roll stated many of the small cities are on different
timeframes. They are looking at Bellingham and County language to use as a copy.
Scarlet Tang, Senior Planner, stated the mayors for the small cities already
looked at and approved of this version.
Brenner stated the mayors of Sumas and Lynden haven't submitted
anything. Tang stated the mayors made comments last week and are bringing the
resolution to their councils.
Canyon Creek
Roll stated there is a fish blockage in the area next to The Logs. The
question is what needs to be done in the immediate term to deal with low flows and
in the long term to deal with the fish passage issue.
Nelson asked if there is woody debris buildup. Roll stated there is not.
Cooper stated it changes every year. After the October 2003 flood, big
boulders deposited on the barrier. A big glide upstream was exposed. After the
October 2004 flood, the glide is buried again and the original barrier is back.
Roll stated the short -term piece includes money from Gordon Scott to deal
with the issue this year. The work will have to be done on the lower portion before
the end of July. John Thompson is working with Mr. Scott to get permitting. It will
be funded through the Land Trust.
The long term strategy for the levee, blockage issue, and function of the area
is the core to a Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board application in the next
round.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should remove the temporary dike or protect
it. She asked what happened with it. Roll stated that is a question. It's a big
levee.
Brenner asked if the vast majority of funding will come from the State and
federal government. She asked if the project is more eligible for SRF Board funding
if the County signs on to the project. Roll stated the proposal is to send more
money to places like the Nooksack River and Skagit River. He anticipates funding
will double, from $2 million to $5 million more annually for the next ten years. That
money will come from both the State and federal governments, funneled through
the SRF Board.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
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.
Roll stated they're going to work on a long -term solution that deals with the
levee and fish blockage issues. It is an early action item on Council page 54, the
fish passage area.
Monsen stated staff is bringing this forward because it is in the ongoing
cooperative project. The County isn't the lead entity, but people will ask the
County about financing.
Nelson stated he is not in favor of removing the levee completely, but he is
also not in favor of repairing or increasing the levee. He asked if that is the plan.
Cooper stated it is.
Nelson asked where the State is on this issue. Cooper stated the Washington
State Department of Transportation ( WSDOT) is interested in relocating the dike
along the highway. They have committed $100,000.
Nelson stated the County must maintain that east corridor for the
communities in that area. WSDOT will have a big concern about this issue.
Monsen stated the County finally has the State's attention on this issue. The
State is an active participant. The State can contribute a share for a salmon project
that also deals with highway safety.
McShane asked if there will be a project on the lower end this summer, just
for fish passage. Cooper stated there will be.
Brenner stated the City of Bellingham, Nooksack Tribe, Lummi Nation, and
the State Department of Fish and Wildlife are taking a lead, however the County
can be responsible for a big portion of the funding. She asked what kind of say the
County will have. Roll stated they are looking for outside funding. There will have
to be a local match. He's not asking for the County to fund this assessment.
They're applying for a grant to fund that big piece of the assessment.
Brenner stated the County should ask the lead entities to provide the match.
Roll stated they are part of the development project process.
Monsen stated everyone should not look at the County to finance everyone
else's priorities. He is consistent with that message.
South Fork Project
Cooper handed out a map (on file) of the area. She described each project.
Project one is an existing revetment with damage. The proposal is to
reinforce that revetment with wood, then lower the downstream portion.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Project two is a woody revetment. A slough channel may be connected. This
project is off the table for now.
Project three is to extend the plug that the tribal project proposed to east, so
less potential for the river to get around the revetment and into the evulsion
channel headed toward Acme.
Project four is a woody revetment in the park, where the banks are currently
eroding. The project is to stabilize the bank and incorporate habitat components.
There are educational components for people to get better access to the river and
lean about salmon. This project will keep the river from accessing risky channels.
Project five is creation of side channels through excavation or by creating
woody logjams that would create side channels.
The Lummi project is shown on the map as well.
Roll stated this is a project the County became involved in to enhance the
existing project to make it palatable to the community and deal with more issues in
the reach. This spot isn't a high flood activity, but it is an opportunity to acquire
additional Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board funding. As they get into the
closing month of application development, a very strong project can marriage the
Lummi project and community needs with something that could potentially work.
There is a lot they want to do, but they can't fund it all. Staff has identified the
priorities from its perspective. Projects three and four are in the high evulsion risk
area and, from a flood standpoint, in the core area. There is also the lower
Hutchison dike levee setback. He focused staff time and energy in creating an
application for projects to enhance projects three and four.
Cooper stated the biggest flood problem is not on the map. It is near Betty
Lou Close's property. The contractor is working on that area at the same time.
Roll referenced project one. The revetment was intended to protect the
pipeline that crosses downstream. The City of Bellingham no longer wants to
maintain the revetment. Staff is still working through what can be done there and
how it can get done.
Fleetwood asked how far back are the historic migration zones. Cooper
stated they are from the late- 1800's.
Fleetwood asked if the channel migration work now is somewhere within the
blue lines on the map. Cooper stated it is, unless there is major infrastructure or
other things that no longer allow the boundary to be there.
Chris Hatch, Acme /VanZandt Flood Subzone Advisory Committee Member,
stated he is very pleased the Subzone Advisory Committee has been engaged in
discussing the project. Site one is a contentious part of making this work. They
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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.
need the support of the community to make the whole package work. They needed
to develop a more comprehensive approach to doing a project in the South Fork
area. He engaged with the landowners and community to ascertain what they liked
and didn't like and found acceptable versus unacceptable. The advisory committee
came up with a list of things to do in that area. Site one is a critical location. If
they don't successfully make that bend, the river will become unpredictable as it
goes from the east to west valley. Instead, take smaller steps to provide certainty.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the project design now satisfies the community's
concerns, or if there are still risks. Hatch stated there are always risks, but the
design they've come up with better addresses the community concerns since the
community became aware of the tribal project. If there was more money and time,
they might come up with something different. This is what they've come up with.
The community generally feels pretty good about it.
Nelson asked about elevation. There is a steep hill. The river is essentially
coming out of the hills and into the valley in this area. The meander area is wide.
Other creeks are in the area.
Hatch stated the channel migration lines, the blue lines on the map, depict a
pre - pipeline meander at site one. As a side note, there was a time when people
sort of managed the banks of the river in that locale. Increasingly, regulation
precluded people from being more proactive in managing the negative impacts. As
that has occurred, there is an additional need to seek government support and
funding for projects from private property owners in the area. One challenge is
that if they wind up having to treat site one independent of a SRF Board grant
project, funding for site one may compete against other much - needed projects in
the management program. From that perspective, he is not sure where it will rank.
Find funding to make sure something is created.
Monsen stated the staff's focus was to develop a larger scale project that
satisfied the tribal salmon recovery interest with the community's interest. Project
one is a distraction and contrary to a successful salmon recovery project, and puts
the application at risk. He thinks project one will kill the SRF Board application for
viable grant funding through the SRF Board.
Hatch stated the consultant stated there is potential for a SRF Board project
at site one.
Monsen stated he agrees. However, the project eligible at site one for SRF
Board funding is not the design for project one that is on the table.
Cooper stated the consultant said project one would be eligible, but not
highly ranked locally.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 15
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.
Hatch stated the consultant said that project one could be a more attractive
SRF Board grant from the local lead entity review board, not the SRF Board in
Olympia.
Roll stated the criteria are similar. The application must satisfy both. They
try not to create an application that will delete all the other applicants because the
funding amount is so high. They can't do everything at once. Choose projects they
can do now, that is supported locally, and for which they can get SRF Board
funding.
Nelson asked if the SRF Board funding necessary to do this, or if there can be
alternative funding from the subzone or the County. Hatch stated alternative
funding sources are available, but the project competes with other projects, doesn't
rank high enough, and funding is limited. The community may not get what it
wants at site one, and therefore may not buy off on the entire project.
Nelson asked what it is about the project that could make site one eligible for
SRF Board funding, but with which the community doesn't agree.
Monsen stated the effort is to sustain something that resembles historic
practice and protecting the area versus allowing the river to flow through the area.
The more access the river has to this area, the better salmon project it will be. The
more they maintain the river in its current location, without the ability to move, it
becomes a flood project and not a salmon project.
McShane stated the owner of the property at site two should be all for this
SRF Board design. It would protect that property. There may be a positive
element for the landowner. With any flood project in that subzone, he would like to
see priorities from the advisory committee.
Roy asked if staff is saying that project one could apply for SRF Board
funding on its own, but that project number one should not be included in the
overall project. Monsen stated each of the five elements can be part of the
application. However, the application becomes so big that it won't get funding.
The focus of element one is to protect the land behind it rather than allowing access
to the land, which will degrade the quality of the other elements. Also, it can be a
stand -alone project.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how much project one would cost, on its own.
Cooper stated it will be millions.
Hatch stated that they contemplated a variety of options at site one. They
discussed the option of setting the dike back to the high ground, which would be
the historic channel migration zone boundary. They determined that option is
unacceptable. They considered the option of moving the existing structure back 25
or 50 feet, but it would cost several million dollars. The risk of not making some
sort of treatment there would be greater. Locally, there are risks farther to the
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 16
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
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.
east that are not depicted on the map because the risk assessment did not extend
farther east. In any case, the community has a vision that is part of the overall
approach. Somehow make that area a successful part of the package or other
source of funding. The local community has determined that some sort of
treatment at site one is necessary for any project to occur. He's not sure how they
are going to do that.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the advisory committee places a high value on
project one. Hatch stated they do.
Roll stated there are two options. Get a grant to get some of the work done,
or the entire project will go.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are funding options if they treat project one
as a flood control measure, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Cooper stated FEMA won't get involved in protecting land.
Roll stated the consultants will provide more input.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:13 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on July 12 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 6/28/2005, Page 17