Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 23 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 March 23, 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 Sam Crawford Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION BY GEORGE BOGGS REGARDING STATUS OF THE DAIRY PROGRAM, PLANNING FOR CRITICAL AREAS, AND CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATIONS (AB2004 -148) George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District Manager, submitted (on file) and read from his presentation. The manure ordinance was adopted in 1998. A timeline for dairies to comply was set to be accomplished by the end of 2003. The requirements are necessary to open the shellfish beds. Manure is to be applied as fertilizer, not to dispose of it. There are no penalties for not following a dairy nutrient plan. Given the rainfall and soils, it doesn't take long for the water soluble nutrients to travel beyond where the crops can pick them up during the critical winter months. The grass starts growing beginning in February. There is more residence time. The T sum 200 formula is when the grass can pick up the nitrate and ammonia fertilizer. It's based on temperature. They hit that date this year on February 15, but the date varies each year. Caskey- Schreiber asked if someone is within the law if applying during February. Boggs stated that person is within the law if the nutrient will not be transported to surface water. The window of application is narrow to apply the nutrient. There are circumstances where application in the rain in February could lead to transport to surface water. However, it's not automatic. With appropriate buffers, it won't automatically go into the ditch. Boggs stated the Council adopted a critical area ordinance in 1997 that prevents agricultural activities in buffers without a plan. About the same time, the Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. dairy nutrient management act required farmers to get and implement plans by the end of 2003. The State Department of Health identified dairy as the single largest contributor to bacteria in the watershed. There was significant sources from the sewage treatment plant and other sources. The Whatcom County dairy industry generates about $160 million per year. The profit margin is slim. The dairy nutrient management act and manure ordinance translated into the water quality and reopening of the shellfish beds last October. They're talking about having a Dairy Environmental Excellence Board. Farmers are in the best position to know if someone is doing the right thing. The challenge is to have them participate and influence their peers. The board would include agency folks to provide technical assistance. If there is a complaint, another dairy farmer and a technical person would go to the location and talk to the farmer. Farmers would probably be more amenable to hear guidance from another farmer if there is a complaint. If the farmer is recalcitrant, the complaint would be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology or Department of Agriculture. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would be difficult for the farmers to police each other. The farming community is small. Boggs stated that's a challenge. In other instances of neighbors dealing with neighbors, issues can be resolved most of the time. If leadership with appropriate training and support were developed, they could deal with problems. Having a board of that community would provide an informal way to get someone to perform correctly. If the industry is going to stay in the community, the farmers need to do things right. Caskey- Schreiber stated she really likes the concept of the board. Most farmers are doing things right. When she sees someone doing something wrong, she wonders about the message that sends to the farmers who are farming correctly. Roy asked if the Agricultural Preservation Committee members are involved in this. Boggs stated this is something that is a new idea for the Conservation District. They are shopping it around. If they're lucky, it will be a complement to what they've accomplished. New ordinances would reflect this mechanism. They could put in place consequences for not following a nutrient management plan. He continued to read from his presentation. They are working to refine the existing critical areas ordinance in 2004. Refine appropriate riparian goals. The salmon recovery plan is being vetted at this juncture. There are areas that present great fish potential or water quality potential. The ordinance could make a distinction between where the expectations are. The small livestock operations should be reconsidered. Many small operators don't have a desire to maintain their operations in the right way. They don't have adequate buffers, and other problems. If someone has developed a sub -basin plan, it should have deference to give those folks some flexibility. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. Roy asked if the Conservation District is involved in the critical areas ordinance review. Boggs stated it is. Whatcom County is doing well in the CREP program. Over the life of the contracts, $8 million is coming into the farmers of the county. They're making progress. The program is strictly voluntary, which produces a haphazard remedy across the county. Tie the benefits to priority watercourses and enroll people in those priority areas. This program will go away in 2007 unless the State enters into a new contract with the federal government. Work with local legislators to bring these resources to the community. The County has been supportive in providing engineering support for hydraulic permit authorities for drainage improvement districts. The County helped the Johnson Creek folks do restoration. It will be important to help defray the cost of planning materials. The farmers need technical and financial help to improve water quality. Getting local residents together to review water quality and habitat issues should be encouraged. Ninety percent of the Conservation District funding is soft. They only have one contract, which is for the building rent. They typically get grants from different agencies. Most funding is tied to programs. The dairy nutrient management program goes away in 2005. There will be a statewide livestock program. Even if the State funds the livestock program, but at a reduced rate. He doesn't know how they will continue to support the dairy operators. The project grants usually last two to four years and then go away. Over the past seven years, have built the Conservation District programs. Caskey- Schreiber asked about the Conservation District being self - supporting. Boggs stated there are really good people doing great stuff for the environment. They are working with grants. However, they're not all going to get funded, even though the work needs to be done. Some kind of dependable funding to sustain the programs are necessary. The County has certain authority to raise revenue. Start a discussion on how they can bring in resources and funds for these projects. The various grant sources are getting tighter and tighter. Whatcom County has specific responsibilities such as having a critical areas officer and Health Department programs. They've had a great partnership with the community. It's time to take the next step. Caskey- Schreiber asked how a self- sustaining Conservation District might work. Boggs stated there is authority for an assessment of $5.00 per parcel, countywide. That would generate $500,000 per year. Those resources would go to the programs. Caskey- Schreiber asked if $2.50 instead of $5.00 would be sufficient. Boggs stated there is a need to fund the Conservation District, it's partners, and the watershed plan. The County staff is looking at the various resources available to get resources for implementation. Spend more time on this discussion and in Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. vetting this to the public. The review would have to be very timely with the critical areas ordinance, shorelines master program, and other plans that are coming out. Fleetwood asked about the decline of the dairy industry. Boggs stated he is optimistic. The size will keep the industry viable. There has been rapid growth in other states. The larger dairies that aren't land based are going away. The cows here are the most productive in the nation. Nationwide, the largest confined animal feed operations will have nutrient management plans equally or more onerous than what Whatcom County has. That will turn the tide against mega- dairies. There will be an overall reduction in the sizes of dairies nationwide. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it's feasible to store manure in a large tank, or if it's too expensive. Boggs stated everything is expensive. There is work on the construction of an anaerobic digester. There is other work on alternative technologies. They need to make a transition, but the question is how. Roy stated the staff needs to work on stable funding opportunities for programs. The shellfish protection districts are also looking for stable funding. There are many opportunities for the County to tax the citizens. The County needs to look at what makes the most sense for the most programs. There seems to be an opportunity to have a conservation district, shellfish protection district, irrigation improvement districts, and other districts. Woe to the person who lives in an area with overlapping districts. Take advantage of the legislative authority. Consider the impacts across the board. Boggs stated they need to have discussion about the prioritization of the elements of the environment and how they get dependable funding to maintain staff and programs. It's timely to have those discussions now. Roy stated it's nice to see there are programs that have measurable positive results. Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Boggs to get involved in the County budget process for funding. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE SALMON RECOVERY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LUMMI NATION, NOOKSACK TRIBE, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, WHATCOM COUNTY, AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE, LYNDEN, NOOKSACK, AND SUMAS (AB2004 -115) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, submitted a strikeout version of the agreement so the councilmember can see the changes (on file). The clean version of the agreement is in the Council packet. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 moved to recommend approval of interlocal to the full Council. Fleetwood referenced the third guiding principle. There are many visions in the county. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Monsen stated this was a request of the Lummi Nation to reinforce the collective way of life. They're not talking about any particular constituency. The inclusion of "and their leaders" references the representation of the community. Caskey- Schreiber stated this agreement shifts lead entity status from the County to this group. She asked about the contract for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, for which the County is the lead entity. Monsen stated that until this agreement is executed, the County is the lead entity. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board process is underway, so the County still must administer it until it is handed to someone else. It's likely the County will still provide administrative oversight of the process, and go to this new board for final decision. Currently, the County exercises its authority as lead entity only with the concurrence of the two tribes. Putting in place the new board would continue to carry out the same process they've actually been following. The procedure and players will not change. Caskey- Schreiber stated that maybe the County should ask them to share some of the fiscal responsibility of they're sharing the decision - making responsibility. That would truly give them equal partner status. Monsen stated a significant portion of administrative costs is covered by a grant from the State to the local lead entity. He assumes the new board will ask the County to continue to play that role. The grant funds from the State will continue to funnel through the County. Fleetwood stated there is action that must be taken. He asked how they move forward if they assume there will always be consensus. Monsen stated they've always operated by consensus because there is no clear established final authority. Even though the intention is to operate under consensus, there will now be a body to resolve disputes. He can't describe how the body will resolve any dispute. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should have more than one representative on the board if they do have final responsibility for how the money is allocated. Monsen stated the only reason the County would be processing money is because the board has granted it to the County, potentially with condition. The County is only acting on behalf of the board. Roy stated the State is going to give the money to someone to manage the project. It could be the County or one of the others. It's not County money that Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. comes from the general fund. It's money that will go to this project one way or another. Monsen stated that's correct. It's not like the County is footing the bill, although it costs money to manage money. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's talking about the population being represented. Monsen stated this agreement is intentionally silent on how a local government caucus comes to a decision when there is a need to resolve a difference of opinion. He can't say whether or not a particular jurisdiction will have equal standing in a deliberation. Creating a project list for Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board funding is the least significant activity this board will undertake. Fleetwood asked if any of the parties to the agreement has expressed any misgivings about the agreement. Monsen stated the City of Blaine has adopted the agreement. He's heard from all the entities that they are mostly comfortable with the agreement, and they're asking the same questions the County Council is asking. He hasn't heard anyone request any changes. They all want to know how well it's going to work. The parties are all coming to the table with an interest in making it work. If someone is not comfortable, they move away from the table. Nothing binds them to the table. Fleetwood asked if this agreement formally rescinds the previous agreement. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated this agreement assumes that this interlocal will step in (inaudible). Monsen stated that this agreement will improve the relationship with the parties. Some of the substantive work that needs to be done is regarding cross - jurisdictional issues, and this change presents a better opportunity for that to happen. Motion carried unanimously. 2. JONES CREEK DEBRIS FLOW STUDY PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION OPTIONS AND POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPLICATIONS (AB2004 -140) Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated Jones Creek was studied in the early 1990's, as part of the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan for the lower Nooksack River. In 1996, a draft was put out for both the Jones Creek and Glacier Gallup alluvial fans. Nothing was really done with them. Members of the advisory committee felt there was good information in the studies and took them up. They worked with the Acme /Van Zandt Sub -Zone Advisory Committee on specific recommendations for Jones Creek. They were already working with Kerr Wood Leidal on a risk analysis for Canyon Creek. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 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. As the advisory committee worked on Jones Creek recommendations, it became clear that the recommendations were geared toward a flood magnitude equal to the 1983 event. The original study of Jones Creek had limited money for field investigations, so it came up with recommendations based on the 1983 event that they thought was around a 50 -year flood event. At that point, the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee felt that it is more appropriate to study a 500 -year event instead of a 50 -year event on alluvial fans that have such a potential for catastrophic damage. The County amended the contract with Kerr Wood Leidal to study Jones Creek and analyze the upper watershed, look at the risk, and come up with mitigation options. Roy asked what action Ms. Cooper would like of the committee. Cooper stated she would like the committee to accept the study and the recommendations of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. Crawford asked if they would discuss the concerns presented by Mr. Gates. Cooper stated they would. Matthias Jakob, Kerr Wood Leidal, read from his Power Point presentation (on file). A debris flow is very different from a typical flood flow, which typically has just suspended sediment. It has much less material in it. Debris flows are very different from flood because they have very high impact forces. A debris flow happens during certain return periods, which differ widely from creek to creek. Fleetwood stated that he understands the caution expressed at times by Councilmember McShane, given the power of these geologic events. Jakob stated debris flows can occur during good weather, but usually occur during wet weather. Usually there is rainfall over a number of weeks, which may trigger a debris avalanche. He continued to read his presentation regarding the Jones Creek 1983 event. Typically in the Pacific Northwest, a 100 -year return period flood is calculated in a study, which is 25 times less than the debris flow peak discharge and can lead to severe under - design of the area. During their study of the area, they took soil samples from the different layers of earth excavated from a trench to carbon -date when previous debris flows occurred. Crawford asked the age of the different layers shown in the presentation slide photo. Jakob stated the soil in the middle of the photo, above the light colored soils, is from about 2,000 years ago. Because of the locations they choose for the trenches, all the debris flows they dated were large flows. The small debris flows stopped in the upper part of the alluvial fan. They were looking for the large debris flows. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 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 if the 1983 event was a large or small debris flow. Jakob stated the 1983 debris flow was relatively small. Roy asked if it would have been counted in the trench study. Jakob stated they recorded it only in the upper trench. He continued to read his presentation and explain debris flows shown in the trench study. They traced how far the debris flows have gone. They trenched further and further toward the river until they found how far the debris flows have gone over the last 7,000 years. Using cutting edge science, they were able to determine when the debris flows happened and how large they were. A study like this has only taken place once before in the Pacific Northwest, however it is really the only way to arrive at a scientifically - based, replicable frequency magnitude curve on which sound decisions can be based. The peak discharge of a 500 -year event would be 10,000 cubic feet per second and would have a volume of 120,000 cubic yards. The 1983 event had a discharge of 8,000 cubic feet per second and a volume of 35,000 cubic yards. He continued to read his presentation regarding the geomorphic processes. Jones Creek is unique because of the Darrington Phyllite rock in the lower watershed, which gets steeper and steeper because of the recent Glacier in the south fork valley. The glacier melted rapidly, and the gradient of the creek had to adjust, which explains the steepness in the lower part of the creek. Recent aerial photographs show extensive logging and deep- seated active landslides in the phyllite rock. Phyllite rock always raises flags geologically. These areas are actively moving landslides in the steepest parts of the creek. At some time, the landslides can accelerate and easily block the creek. That has happened in the past. Caskey- Schreiber asked if retaining tree cover on these active areas would help, or if the areas are bound to move no matter what. Jakob stated they know that logging on shallow soils has detrimental effects on the frequency and magnitude of landslides. The main factor is the removal of the root system. There's no doubt that logging has detrimental effects on shallow soils. This landslide is a deep- seated landslide. To answer that question unambiguously for this area, they would have to have ground well data from before and after the logging, to see if there's any change in the surface hydrology. His gut feeling is that logging has little influence on deep- seated landslides. Logging is a problematic practice in areas with shallow landslides, which can cause debris flows at lower magnitudes. Having determined the volume and peak discharge, they can feed the results into a model. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. Jakob continued to state that the specific hazard zone levels are defined by flow velocity, boulder size, and deposition depth. A hazard map is only a snapshot in time and can change if smaller debris flows change the topography. Having understood the frequency and magnitude relationship and knowing the run out distance, the next logical step is to think about how debris flow impact in vulnerable areas can be avoided. Mike Currie, Kerr Wood Leidal, stated there are different types of risk management options. He read from the Power Point presentation. Watershed management options would reduce the hazard by preventing the events from coming down into an area. The types of structural management options includes a berm alignment. They could construct a berm to prevent a debris flow from entering the town of Acme. There could be fish habitat enhancements if the creek were diverted along an alternate route in the flood plain. One solution is to construct the berm and to relocate the lower stream channel, at a total cost of approximately $2 million, not including the cost of land acquisition. Given the hazard scale, structural works aren't cheap to implement. They would have to construct an earth mound several yards high, armored with rock on the river side to keep it from eroding. It's an extensive approach because the length is long, about a half mile. He is not suggesting that this is the one solution for Jones Creek. In terms of structural solutions, this is probably the one structural solution that would probably be the most feasible to do. The other main option they looked at was a combination of debris basins and debris barriers, which are big catchments with big steel grill structures to hold in most of the debris and let some of the water flow through. The report suggests options in the $2 million to $3 million range for those types of options. The problem with those options is that they involve in- channel work, which isn't desirable for fish habitat. One option is to fix the problem in the mountain rather than build structures at the bottom. To stabilize the landslide isn't a good way to mitigate the hazard. However, some things can be done to reduce the risk a little bit. He continued to read the presentation. Brenner asked if they recommend not doing any logging be done until a professional assessment of logging is done. Currie stated they do, just in those unstable landslide areas, not in the watershed as a whole. Logging around those areas is not a good idea without some backup study from someone who knows the situation. In the areas where the debris flow crashes out of the canyon onto the fan, try to retain tree cover to dissipate the debris flow event, which may keep it from running into the community and will promote deposition on the upper fan, where Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. there is less development. The debris flow modeling map showed different colored hazard areas. He also prepared a map that is a little more comprehensive and provides land use zoning. He created a hazard map using the modeling results. The difference between the hazard areas is the flow depth and velocity that would occur from top to bottom. Whatcom County can use this map for how to deal with development issues in the various areas. He continued to read the presentation regarding land acquisition and 100 - year debris flows. They have come up with a smaller hazard area for a 100 -year debris flow. He provided Whatcom County a report with a thorough geo- science analysis of the hazard and an assessment of some things that can be done about the hazard. Cooper stated the Flood District Advisory Committee considered the report at its meetings in January and March. It made a recommendation, shown in Jeff Monsen's memo to the Council and Executive dated March 12, 2004. The first recommendation is to regulate land use in accordance with the hazards. In the highest risk zones, the engineering standards and guidelines can get pretty onerous and expensive. The second recommendation is land acquisition within hazard zone one. She's been providing updates on the current hazard mitigation grant applications for one of those high risk properties. The third recommendation is to remove the Turkington Road bridge. Constriction causes the water to flow around it. They can reroute the road to provide access to people. That option was considered after the 1983 event, but it didn't happen. McShane asked if the idea is to prevent a blockage so it doesn't shoot down Turkington Road. Cooper stated it is. Abandon the bridge, and construct a design that will entice the water to go north instead of to the east, possibly by a controlled overflow just north of the creek. The fourth recommendation is more land acquisition in hazard zone two. The fifth recommendation is acquisition of property at the confluence of Jones Creek and ponds north of Jones Creek. Water flows naturally toward those ponds. At this point, there is potential of doing things to enhance flood storage for Jones Creek and the south fork of the Nooksack River. They haven't done that detailed analysis yet. It would also improve the connection for fish. The County will take the existing landowner's concerns into consideration. Certain projects and recommendations fit certain funding sources. Land acquisition fits certain acquisition programs. The fifth recommendation is suitable for the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board funding process. Fleetwood asked if land acquisition would be done through voluntary agreement. Cooper stated they would. They've never talked about condemning land. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked where Mr. Gates' land is located. Timothy Gates, 4844 Turkington Road, indicated on the map that his property is located west of the confluence with the south fork of the Nooksack River and the ponds near the river. Cooper stated Jones Creek is currently connected to those ponds via a culvert through the dike. The ponds act as a flood storage and drains through the culvert. Look at this property in more detail. There is potential to improve some of the opening at the location of the railroad bridge over the south fork of the Nooksack River. It would impact the flood levels in Acme. Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated the purchasing of the property and the recommendations have general implications. He will talk about the County using this map. The County has to make a decision about the extent this will have an impact on the critical areas ordinance, which is currently the best available science, but doesn't have regulatory authority for denying or conditioning building permits. The permits still have to go through the critical areas process (CAO). The CAO requires mitigation of the event. They now have a great deal of information on Jones Creek. How this applies to all alluvial fans throughout the county is not been decided. All the County staff involved in this have talked to determine if they go to a 500 -year event measure either throughout the county or just on the first four or five big alluvial fans. Any land use controls will have to go through the Planning Commission and back to the Council for adoption. The advisory committee's recommendations are well founded. The report is excellent. There are no surprises to most people who are familiar with the geology of the alluvial fan. The County still has to go through the public process before changing the regulations. Roy asked if one concern is that this could set a precedent for how the County looks at alluvial fans throughout the county. Middleton stated it's a question. The concern is that the 500 -year event level may not be appropriate for other areas. Each creek has different geological elements. Not all areas are on the phyllate. There are areas like Swift Creek that have two faults poised above a canyon that is just waiting to be plugged. Those are all areas that have specific geologic settings they need to look at. Roy stated it seems one of the things they keep hearing is to make decisions based on best available science specific to the area. She doesn't know why they can't evaluate the areas on specific geology. Crawford stated doing this study everywhere would be a huge undertaking. He liked the study. The methods used are state of the art. He asked what Mr. Middleton would suggest. The Council would like to address the report. From a property rights perspective, the owners in the area are grateful for the efforts of the County to mitigate situations. Middleton stated he is not speaking against the Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 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. purchase of some of the properties and the efforts of Ms. Cooper. His concern is not to take the 500 -year event and use that standard on all the alluvial fans in the county. At the same time, this shows how much they've learned in the past 20 years about debris flows. He doesn't have a specific recommendation on how to handle the other alluvial fans. There was an alluvial fan inventory done in the early 1990's. They can use some of those ratings in the CAO amendments. Something built within the danger zone can be designed to mitigate a 500 -year event. Other fans may not be appropriate for that. Crawford asked for a map of the western portion of the county to see where these other fans are located. Caskey- Schreiber stated there might be some things they've learned from this study, especially about watershed management, where they can make deductions about land use management that will lessen the likelihood and impact of large debris flows, such as logging on unstable slopes. They might want to err on the side of caution. Shallow soils are likely to lead to debris flows. If they know that, it is something they can put in the critical areas ordinance. She asked if the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issues the permits for commercial logging. Middleton stated it does. The County has does not have regulatory jurisdiction, but it has common authority. Any information the County has helps the DNR make a decision. Deep- seated landslides are one of the fatal flaws that can stop logging. McShane stated sometimes it doesn't stop logging. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they need to beef up the CAO in this area. Middleton stated that's one of the things Jeff Chalfant will do. They want to have as much information in the CAO as possible, even the information is fan -by -fan. If they have a general approach for the other fans, it makes sense to have a specific approach for Jones Creek. They need to balance the cost of spending Mr. Chalfant's time to the amount of development. There are several very dangerous fans that don't have any development. He wouldn't spend much money and time other than to identify that someone shouldn't build in those places. McShane stated they are going to update the CAO. He asked if Mr. Middleton is here to remind the Council about how reports like this are incorporated into a CAO update. Middleton stated he is. The recommendation peaked his interest as far as using this as a land use regulation. McShane stated it's useful for the property owners to evaluate their own risk. A component they need to incorporate into the CAO is the impact to other properties by doing activities in this area. Tree retention would play a critical role for the yellow and green hazard areas. Middleton agreed. Houses can be saved because of the existing trees. That's very important. It's one of the things they look for in mitigation. How they want to improve the alluvial fan section is something they'll have to bring forward in the CAO update process. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 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 this report should be forwarded to the consultants who will work on the CAO, then the Planning Commission. It will be part of the record for the CAO amendments regarding alluvial fan areas. Gates stated today he's not affected by Jones Creek, and wants to keep it that way. Regarding the bridge replacement, he has concerns about rerouting the road to Hudson Road, which is subject to inundation quite frequently. An alternative to replace the bridge with a bigger bridge at the same location. Caskey- Schreiber moved to accept the study. Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the recommendation from the advisory committee to regulate land use in accordance with the hazard would incorporate the watershed management suggestions they heard from the consultant. Cooper stated the intention of advisory committee was to regulate within the County's jurisdiction. Staff also intends to disseminate the report to DNR and other regulatory jurisdictions. Roy stated they are general recommendations. She asked if they would go through the regular land use regulatory process. Cooper stated they will all come back to the Council through the regular land use process. Roy asked if the Council could evaluate the issues such as road access and amount of flooding at that location. Cooper stated it could. She will look at an alternatives analysis for the bridge. Fleetwood moved to accept the five recommendations of the advisory committee in Mr. Monson's memo in the Council packet. Crawford asked if this committee is recommending that the Council adopt the color map with the zones. Roy stated they've already accepted the map as a part of the report. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated one question is whether this is the place to spend money in light of all the locations in the county that are at risk. Allocation of money and risk needs to be looked at in a broader, countywide context. Caskey- Schreiber stated she interpreted that this area is an extremely high risk. Since there has been activity there within the last 20 years, she's comfortable going forward with action in this area. There is a direct risk to the people in the area. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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. Gibson stated it's great if that thought process has occurred. These things tend to come forward on an ad hoc basis. Decisions should be made considering the overall picture. Roy stated she doesn't feel like she has the information countywide to make decisions on what is most important. She trusts that staff is doing that. Cooper stated the advisory committee worked off a report from the Planning and Development Services Department in the early 1980's that ranked hazard areas in the county. The Acme elementary school being located in the alluvial fan made this area rise to the top of the risky areas. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) McShane stated that instead of adopting these recommendations, do some sort of ranking of the five recommendations. For the second and fourth recommendations, they could pursue Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for those acquisitions and not use money through the flood district. The recommendation should spell that out. The recommendation to regulate land use in accordance with the hazards is ambiguous, even though they understand it. He is interested in seeing an evaluation of the costs of removing the Turkington Bridge and providing access via Hudson Road. Drop the last recommendation. It's starting to get away from Jones Creek. It may have attractive qualities in terms of flooding of the Nooksack and for salmon enhancement, but it clouds the issue for the community as a whole. He's not sure they should pursue that at this time unless it is pursued in the context of salmon recovery or the Nooksack River water storage as a whole, not as part of the Jones Creek issue. Fleetwood stated this was a recommendation that was considered, and is the lowest of the five priorities. He asked if they believe there is any need to keep the last recommendation. Bob Knudson, Acme /Van Zandt Sub -Zone Advisory Committee Chair, stated there is a reason to keep the last recommendation on the list. One reason is that all they need to do is to go to the culvert under the railroad tracks. When there is a flood, they know. The Nooksack River comes up through that culvert and Jones Creek has nowhere to go. There is a connection between them all. The consultants report and recommendations matched almost perfectly the recommendations of people four years ago. He foresees everything in that culvert getting jammed and overflowing. It should be part of the package they're looking at. Roy stated the recommendations are general and prioritized, which is a good thing. They will have an opportunity to evaluate the recommendations in more detail. She wants to respect the work the advisory committee does. Natural Resources Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 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. Gates stated there was a statement made at the advisory committee meeting saying they would put that on the list given the fact that the dikes would not be lowered and would not impact neighboring properties. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:57 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, 3/23/2004, Page 15