Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 29 20041 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 June 29, 2004 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 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION BY THE NOOKSACK TRIBE AND LUMMI NATION REGARDING THE SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK /LOWER HUTCHINSON CREEK PROJECT (AB2004 -245) (Clerk's Note: The first ten minute of the meeting were not audiorecorded.) Jim Hansen, Lummi Nation Director of Restoration, stated this is one of a series of projects that will potentially have good impacts for flooding in the Acme area and downstream. The first projects is between conceptual and design draft stages. It will be flood neutral. Michael Maudlin, Lummi Nation geologist, gave a Power Point presentation and stated this project began in 2000 from different agencies. The project is located in the Acme valley. The lower Hutchinson Creek project is at the confluence with the south fork of the Nooksack River. These projects are focused on Nooksack Rivers salmon and south fork salmon. These salmon are depressed. The ecosystem diagnosis and treatment model is used as the basis for the salmon recovery plan. They have a long way to go in the plan. There are only certain places in the salmon life cycle where they can have an impact, such as fresh water habitat. The focus for the south fork is a unique genetic stock of salmon. They started in the Acme /Saxon reach because it transitions from a confined narrow valley to where the valley opens into a wide flood plain. This is an important area for sediment, wood, and water to be stored. There were historically lots of logjams and side bars. This reach has been historically important for spawning Chinook. The number of fish spawning has decreased. Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. This area is also a transition from a forested watershed to an agriculture watershed. Many of the protections the river has don't exist in the lower reach. This reach is important for restoration. They know anecdotally the presence of salmon in this reach of the river. The historic changes include clearing of the flood plain for agriculture and adding bank protection of the new farmland. That has impacts up channel. The planning effort started in 2000, when they established their project purpose. They conducted habitat and fish use assessments and went through a general project development prioritization. Now they are in the phase of specific project design and gathering the data needed to evaluate the project. They want to recreate natural conditions, restore salmon runs, and support tribal values. They want to make sure the project has impacts only on those interested in being partners. This reach is very important. Every species of fish that uses the Nooksack River uses this reach. The fish habitat assessment looked at how the fish used the river. They counted the species and sizes of the fish to determine where the fish go during the times of their lifecycle. All juvenile species are in pools, wood cover, and slow water environments. He showed a map of the project areas that will create these areas. The assessment looked also at temperature. The south fork of the Nooksack River gets warmer as it goes downstream, toward the north fork. There are migration barriers to adult salmon moving upriver. At river mile 25 there is a partial barrier. The temperature of the river is above the threshold temperatures for the fish during spawning and migration. The south fork doesn't get cool enough for the fish. Fleetwood asked the effect on the fish if the temperatures are higher than they should be. Maudlin stated studies on different species show there is a much higher rate of disease and mortality and lower reproduction. It is a stress factor. Fish in both the north and south fork have died before spawning because of heat stress. Maudlin continued his presentation to show a map of the temperatures of the tributaries that enter the south fork. Many have a temperature that is low enough for the fish. Lower the temperature of the south fork is a long -term process, but there could be opportunities of lowering temperature from the tributaries. They would provide refuge areas for the fish. He showed photos of one such refuge area in Hutchinson Creek. There are opportunities to develop areas such as this. Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. The assessment also looked at channel migration and flood plain width over the years. Bank protection removed a lot of the historic migration area. In other areas, the channel was confined to 200 feet of width. It historically had 1,200 feet of width only 15 years ago. Much of the bank protection was put in to protect the City of Bellingham water supply pipeline. There have been impacts to channel migration from these bank protection projects. There has been a loss of channel length, stable wood, and channel migration width and flood plain width. Mid - channel forested islands provided wood to the channel for cover and scouring pools. Once they armored the banks, they lost the ability to recruit that wood to the channel. Because of the bank protection, the river has no where to migrate horizontally during floods, so it migrates vertically. This valley has a large terrace, which is the valley floor. In that, there is a lower flood plain. It is the width of the channel migration area. From the assessment, they identified goals they want to achieve. They will not be able to achieve all throughout the entire reach, such as reducing temperature and sediment. The best they can do for sediment is to provide a local storage area. However, they did come up with reach -scale goals. One is to increase channel length, including side channels and a longer sinuous channel. Other goals are to increase the pool depth, active channel width, and the function of wood. They looked at the assessment reach and divided it into different areas for projects. There are 33 project areas. They developed a series of alternatives for each of the project areas. They evaluated each alternative in terms of the reach scale goals, and then prioritized the alternatives in terms of their benefit. Projects with the highest benefit would be the first projects. The restoration project elements are the tools for doing restoration. They include constructing stable logjams and wood accumulations. If they can identify areas with bank protection for land that doesn't need to be protected anymore, they can remove that protection to give the channel more room to migrate. Long- term restoration benefits include riparian planting. An engineered logjam is not new. They've been used for different reasons, including bank protection and providing fish habitat. The scale of engineered logjams is smaller than natural logjams, but they are more stable. Logjams can help them meet many objectives. In the last year, they have worked with local landowners, including the County Parks Department and the Whatcom Land Trust. They've met with local groups and had public forums to involve the community. Now, they're working on getting a project together they can permit. They are doing detailed flood modeling to address concerns about how projects affect Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. folks downstream. They want to do construction in 2005. After that, they will do monitoring and evaluation of the project before moving to other high priority areas. Fleetwood asked about the issue of inner - tubing on the south fork of the Nooksack River, and its affects on salmon degradation. Maudlin stated there are not a lot of high quality areas for the fish to get away from the inner - tubers. It would be better if there are areas where the fish can get away from the people who are inner - tubing. McShane asked if the valley is aggrading or eroding. Maudlin stated the valley is composed of river deposits, and has been filled with river gravel over a long timeframe. He's looked preliminary at channel incision. Since the 1880's to 1930's, there's been a steady degradation of the channel. It tends to incise, move laterally, and incise again. The reason for incising is a combination of local land clearing, conversion to agriculture, up stream practices, and climate changes. It's difficult to evaluate an incision where there is artificial bank protection because they've lost the side channels to evaluate old channel positions. McShane stated people say removing the gravel from the river would solve all the flood problems. He doesn't know how to answer because he doesn't know if the river is aggrading or incising. Maudlin stated they are doing more modeling in the future. They will develop a flood model to make statements about sediment transport and whether they expect aggradation or incision. They hope to reverse the trend of incision. Roy asked for a copy of the presentation. Hansen stated they are first interested in going forward with the lower Hutchison project. It's a voluntary project. The County has a supporting role. A partner is the County Parks Department. Now, a lot of material is being stockpiled. They have 60 percent of the wood needed. They have approval from the Parks Board and Whatcom Land Trust of a concept. They will both approve the final design. The Parks Department will defer to the Flood Division to be the guarantor of the design being safe for Parks property and the surrounding landowners. They are going through a process now to look at a design. They will use more localized data to create a project that has been used elsewhere. However, they need to do a hydraulic analysis for ten to 15 miles of the river. Modeling the effects of the project needs a higher level of analysis. He is working with the River and Flood Division about doing a hydrology study that will work with the model. Implementation has been set back for a year or two to do the study. As a result, the two tribes and the County will agree on a safe and effective design. He asked for the County Council's support. There's another potential project upstream in cooperation with the City of Bellingham. They've agreed to lower their water pipeline to accommodate channel migration. They have not yet gained the trust of the local, protected landowners. He hopes this project will demonstrate that these projects are safe and effective. Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. Roy asked how the funding is being shared. Hansen stated there is an agreement they are entering into with the Nooksack Tribe, which is obtaining grant funding for one -third of the cost of the project. The Lummi Nation is obtaining grant funding for two - thirds of the project, exclusive of the river hydrology project, which would be an added cost they want to do. They are exploring ways to fund the study. The grants are from the Centennial Clean Water Fund, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and other sources. They don't know yet how much they'll have for the hydrology project. Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated they've talked about the issues on the south fork internally. There are many issues out there. The County Flood Division should take the lead on this hydrologic model project. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Cooper continued to state that flood modeling is difficult to do. It's important to get the right experts. McShane stated he talked to the County Parks Department. The County Parks Department hasn't decided yet, and will give some deference to the Flood Division. The Parks Department indicated that a road to be built is something they want anyway, which is a side benefit. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there one reason for this project is that it's an ideal recovery zone that serves many fish populations. She also asked if they anticipate other areas in the county where they will look at next. Hansen stated they have (inaudible). The Nooksack Tribe is doing an assessment through design project from the Acme bridge to the confluence. The Lummi Nation has a proposal to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to do a project design assessment from the Saxon Bridge to the anadromous barrier. The Nooksack Tribe is looking at critical habitat areas in the north fork. They are looking at a potential recovery project in the main stem. As part of the salmon recovery process, there is a lot of working on studying where they can do the most good. They are also doing estuary assessments. In a couple of years, they want to have a phased recovery plan that will identify specific projects. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County's shoreline inventory may help find areas that need more attention. Larry Jacoby, 2300 Mosquito Lake Road, stated there is a bad side to the project. About ten years ago, the Lummi Nation and Army Corps of Engineers went through and took all the woody debris out of the area. In another project, the hatchery was going to be at Skookum Creek. The hatchery water got turned off and they were all killed. The Lummi Nation's track record is poor. They are talking about changing the temperature of the river, which dries up in the summertime. Taking out the County's rock would be fatal to the valley. It's strange how the Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. Land Trust ends up with a piece of land from the County, that is 500 feet along the river. The property was donated by Syre to the Parks Department for people to get to the river and enjoy the river. Now, these people come along with the Land Trust and turn everything around. Fleetwood asked why the wood was removed. Jacoby stated they would have to ask the Lummi Nation. They don't know what they're doing. Salmon do not stay in that part of the river. They go in the canyons where the deep holes are. The only reason for this project is because they have the property. Jena Jacoby - Strachila, 1385 Mosquito Lake Road, stated she is terrified by this project. No one has gone to see the creek at her house, other than the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. She put in trees to help with recovery. When the river flooded in October, it jumped the banks and went into the field and spring -fed Hutchinson Creek. She lives behind the bridge. If the logjams break, she's behind a dam. She's protected also by the levees. This is a huge threat to her family and heritage. She's not getting information or cooperation she's asking for. This is public money. This presentation is not what the community saw. Most of the residents who are impacted are dead -set against it. McShane asked the information Ms. Jacoby - Strachila hasn't received. Jacoby - Strachila hasn't received the information on the construction bids for the road. McShane stated that if it's not a County contract, it's nothing the County can get for her. Jacoby - Strachila stated the only information received was on the funding paperwork. She wants to know of everyone who is involved. There is restriction on access. There needs to be public access for this to be a viable access. She wants to make sure this is a safe project. Caskey- Schreiber asked about the property Syre donated to the Land Trust. Jacoby - Strachila stated that land is the East Acme Farm. Roy stated the County will do what it can to look out for the citizens' interests. It seems more community - building needs to be done. Provide more information, analysis, and proof with the community. McShane asked the scale of the October 2003 flood event. Cooper stated it was approximately a 33 -year event. McShane asked if this was the first time that area has gone under water. Cooper stated she didn't know. Jacoby - Strachila stated it was. Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, 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. Cooper stated the hydraulic analysis they're talking about assumes the boundaries are fixed. It doesn't account for erosion. A big impact is if the logjams start to cause the river to move to impact private property and public infrastructure. They've been working with the tribe to understand the level of analysis that needs to be done. It's more of a geomorphic issue. That analysis hasn't been done yet. They don't guarantee safety in the flood business. Robert Strachila, 1541 Mosquito Lake Road, stated he lives on the north side of the road, north of where this project is to take place. He also lives on the last active channel on the Hutchinson Creek. His concern is the liability, and who will be responsible for what happens to this river. The proponents want to remove 450 feet of a total of 800 existing feet of bank armoring to allow the river to meander in that area. If that river meanders far enough to the east, it will meander to the old Hutchinson Creek channel, which goes by his place. He asked who would be liable for his protection if that happens. The temperature of Hutchinson Creek is lower than the Nooksack River. However, the creek won't cool the river. He is also concerned with the model. Modeling is an art. Those are his concerns. Fleetwood stated the liability question should be put to Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson. McShane stated that if they are worried about liability, the structure that prevents erosion is built by the County. Whether the County is liable for maintaining that structure has come up before. John LaMonte, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee Member, stated the committee received a lot of input on this project. The committee will keep the Council informed on what the Acme residents say about this project, which hasn't been very favorable. In the grant application for the Nessett Farm, the grant and the conservation easement required public access. There is no access to that place. The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) doesn't want the public on its lands. It was a deal that shouldn't have gone through. Regarding the Overby place, the property was obtained through a trade. Syre didn't donate it. The manager of the Conservation Futures funds, which is Pete Kremen, paid $770,000 for the timber on it. That's not allowed according to the Conservation Futures fund ordinance. The Council needs to look deeper into this. The Land Trust used $150,000 collateral on the County's Overby property to get this started. The timber price paid for the Nessett Place was inflated. OTHER BUSINESS Natural Resources Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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. There is no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:40 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, 6/29/2004, Page 8